Here is a good summary of the major issues with Healthcare Reform:
Quotehttp://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare10-2009may10,0,5755824.story?page=1
From the Los Angeles Times
Public debate over 'public option' for healthcare
Interest groups begin spending millions to sway opinions over Obama's plan to offer a choice between private and government coverage. The debate could threaten larger plans for a healthcare overhaul.
By Noam N. Levey
May 10, 2009
Reporting from Washington â€" President Obama has pledged to find a middle ground in his drive to reshape the nation's troubled healthcare system.
But even before Congress debates a healthcare bill, the president is getting sucked into a fiercely polarized fight over a centerpiece of his agenda: a new government insurance program that patients could choose instead of private coverage.
The battle over the "public option" has mobilized interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum with millions of dollars in their campaign war chests. Television ads promoting and attacking the insurance provision are already hitting airwaves.
The Obama administration and its allies are now scrambling to contain a full-throated ideological debate that some fear could threaten the most ambitious healthcare campaign in nearly a generation.
"Everybody needs to keep their powder dry," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said in an interview. "We have a huge opportunity to accomplish very significant health reform. . . . Let's not have any sparks that could light a fire."
The sparks, however, are already flying.
Conservatives have zeroed in on the insurance proposal as a potential Achilles' heel in Obama's healthcare plan, casting it as a move toward Canadian-style government healthcare and contending that federal bureaucrats will dictate personal medical decisions.
Meanwhile on the left, longtime advocates of a single-payer system are also fomenting a showdown with the right to force Obama and Democratic leaders to stand firm behind a new government program.
"This has become a lightning rod," said Maine Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican who Democrats hope will work with them on healthcare. "There is a lot of suspicion. . . . I'm afraid this could easily be used as an excuse for not moving any further."
Policymakers and politicians have battled for decades over the government's role in a system that relies on both public programs such as Medicare, which serves the elderly, and private insurance, which covers most workers and their families.
Fifteen years ago, the Clinton administration's healthcare campaign was derailed in part by an insurance industry campaign featuring a fictitious couple named Harry and Louise who worried aloud about government making their medical choices.
Now, with the debate flaring anew, Obama and his congressional allies are struggling ***to head off the conservative assault and tamp down a liberal revolt, even as they work to keep major healthcare groups, including insurers, at the negotiating table and off the political warpath.***
At a recent White House meeting, the president assured a group of House Democrats that he was still committed to a government insurance option.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to defuse the issue on the other side of the aisle, telling GOP lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee that the administration had no intention of driving private insurers out of business.
Sebelius noted that many state governments offer their employees a choice between public and private health insurance.
Baucus, who plans to introduce sweeping healthcare legislation next month, said he had recommended starting with less controversial elements of healthcare reform. "We don't have to deal with the public [insurance] option on the first day," he said.
Baucus, Obama and others see a new government program as crucial to covering the approximately 46 million people in the United States who have no insurance. They also argue that a public alternative would pressure private insurers to control costs and improve quality.
The federal government already provides health insurance to about 83 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs, including those offered by the military.
Private insurers, meanwhile, face growing criticism for refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions and dropping coverage for sick customers. "This is a benchmark that will set a high standard that private plans have to meet," said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at UC Berkeley who advocates a public option.
But insurers say more federal regulation could ensure affordable, high-quality insurance for all. In recent months, the industry has offered to guarantee coverage and stop charging more to people with preexisting medical conditions.
A government-run insurance program, industry leaders and many conservatives maintain, would have an unfair advantage and ultimately drive insurers out of business.
That would inevitably mean a single-payer system, said Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The probability that a monopoly would serve customers well is close to nil," he said.
GOP lawmakers are intensifying warnings that a public insurance plan will lead to nationalization of healthcare and new limits on patient choice.
That's a message that will resonate, said veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio. "People don't want government agencies, boards or regulators standing between them and their doctors. . . . They understand that government control inevitably leads to rationing."
Pushing that message is the Conservatives for Patients' Rights Action Fund, a new group founded by former hospital executive Richard L. Scott and assisted by CRC Public Relations, the conservative public affairs firm that worked on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential election.
The fund is in the midst of what the group said would be a monthlong, $1-million television advertising campaign featuring doctors from Canada and Britain -- both of which have single-payer systems -- discussing waiting lists and limited patient choices. A new ad featuring dissatisfied patients from those countries began airing this weekend.
At the same time, MoveOn.org, the liberal grass-roots powerhouse, has been mobilizing its 5 million members to pressure Congress not to compromise on the creation of a new public plan option.
Last week, the group aired its second healthcare ad of the year, featuring a pair of undertakers bemoaning a public plan that could make people live longer. MoveOn's first ad went after the insurance industry for opposing Obama's public option.
"We're not taking anything for granted," said Nita Chaudhary, MoveOn's national campaigns director. "This is likely to be our biggest fight for the year."
MoveOn has been joined by other liberal advocacy groups such as Health Care for America Now, which aired its own ad last month promoting a public plan. Last week, it aired a second ad highlighting Scott's former work for healthcare giant Columbia/HCA, which a decade ago paid $1.7 billion to settle fraud charges against the company.
noam.levey@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare10-2009may10,0,5755824.story?page=1
The Public Option is to insure those with pre-existing conditions which the private insurance industry doesn't want to insure anyway, and those who simply cannot afford private insurance.
The private insurers shouldn't be so concerned with the public option, those who want to keep their private insurance will continue to have that choice.
It is the private insurance industry who is wanting to limit our choice, by opposing any public option, instead they want tax payer subsidies for their industry.
The Canadian dissatisfied patients ad is quite hilarious, as it's a known fact that we have 250,000 Americans every year, who engage in Medical tourism ,.........to have their heart surgery in Thailand for example.
There is even an entirely new industry that will facilitate this kind of medical tourism for you.
The sad fact is that every American deserves healthcare. The reality is that the US govt cannot afford it, and still pay their bills. With the new rounds of spending, I just learned tonight that 46 cents of every dollar the US govt spends, will go to pay for debt.
Folks, we cannot afford to keep spending. Soon China and the rest of the world will stop buying the fed treasuries, and only the US Govt will be buying them, producing money on top of money, to the point where we have inflation like we saw in the late 70s.
Medicare and Social Security are bigger animals than Healthcare.
QuoteTrojan Horse Alert
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: Americans need to ask themselves if they really want to drive private insurers out of the medical marketplace, because that's what President Obama's plan would do.
The public should be thankful these days for any small favor it gets. Here's one: The White House health care reform juggernaut appears to be losing steam.
A few weeks ago, the administration lost Tom Daschle, the man it was depending on to steer its agenda through Congress. Now it's finding that not everyone out there shares its sense of urgency. With the economy in deep trouble and the banking system still largely paralyzed, fixing health care â€" which has lots of problems but no crisis â€" can wait.
The debate has barely begun. Let it be a very long one.
Maybe, for a year or two, the politicians should do nothing more than talk. That would be far better than to rush ahead with the plan that the president was promoting during his campaign and, we have to assume, would prefer to see enacted now.
As we said at the time, Obama's plan is a blueprint for socialization in stages. It starts with a basically good idea â€" setting up a truly national market (which we don't have now) for private insurance â€" and stacks the odds against the insurers by putting a tax-subsidized plan in the mix.
The private plans would have to be at least as generous as the public plan; this was stated explicitly by the Obama campaign. However, they would be denied its subsidy, so it would be impossible for them to match its benefits and still make money.
It would be like herding sheep into the fold and letting the wolf in. Or you can think of the public plan as a Trojan horse. Once allowed inside the gates of the health insurance market and given an unfair advantage, it will eventually out-compete its private rivals and gain monopoly power.
At least two interest groups, big labor and the insurers, get this.
Unions that want to see government-run health care see the public insurance plan as a crucial step toward that ultimate goal. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has been circulating petitions insisting that Americans need "the choice of a public plan, so we're not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into the mess."
Insurers see their survival in the medical market at stake. As a result, Obama is already having trouble keeping all the health care players at the table.
Last week, the AFSCME and another union, the Service Employees International Union, pulled out of the Healthcare Reform Dialogue, a coalition of unions, employers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, patients, drug companies and consumers. The group had been meeting since last September. According to members who spoke to the New York Times, they could not agree on two issues. One was the proposed mandate on employers to pay for insurance. The other was Obama's public insurance plan.
Politically, health insurers are an easy target. They get no attention when they do one part of their job â€" protecting consumers from being ruined by medical bills â€" and plenty of attention when they do the bad-cop work of controlling costs.
As much as possible, they say no to exotic, untested and wasteful medical procedures. They earn the wrath of doctors by doing so, but they keep premiums from being even worse than they are now.
They also use their bargaining power to get discounts for their policyholders on drugs and medical procedures. If the government were to take over their job, it would have to do exactly the same things, only with no competition to give consumers a choice.
All the chatter about health care reform really boils down to the question of who will hold the commanding economic heights and pay most of the bills. Will that ground be shared by government and a viable private-sector insurance business, as it is now, or will government take it all?
The choice is between giving consumers a real market of competing insurers and steering them steadily toward single-payer.
That's a weighty decision, and it must not be rushed.
jaxnative, there are many countries that have universal healthcare systems where a public plan exists alongside private health insurance.
Heck private healthcare insurance even exists in Canada.
http://www.canadian-family-medical-plans.com/
Please check the excellent PBS series Healthcare Around the World, to find out about various universal healthcare plans that include both private and public plans.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Another word of caution: check to see who funds the ads that oppose a public plan,.........usually they are front groups that are mouth pieces for the health insurance industry.
Here's what you really need to know:
5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION
1. Choice, choice, choice. If the public health insurance option passes, Americans will be able to choose between their current insurance and a high-quality, government-run plan similar to Medicare. If you like your current care, you can keep it. If you don'tâ€"or don't have anyâ€"you can get the public insurance plan.2
2. It will be high-quality coverage with a choice of doctors. Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality, because they're not just focused on short-term profits. And if you choose the public plan, you'll still get to choose your doctor and hospital.3
3. We'll all save a bunch of money. The public health insurance option won't have to spend money on things like CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends, or excessive advertising, so it'll cost a lot less. Plus, the private plans will have to lower their rates and provide better value to compete, so people who keep their current insurance will save, too.4
4. It will always be there for you and your family. A for-profit insurer can close, move out of the area, or just kick you off their insurance rolls. The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.5
5. And it's a key part of universal health care. No longer will sick people or folks in rural communities, or low-income Americans be forced to go without coverage. The public health insurance plan will be available and accessible to everyone. And for those struggling to make ends meet, the premiums will be subsidized by the government.6
And finally you may want to watch how Americans are getting third world charity healthcare from an Australian Philanthropist:
Third World Medical Expeditions in America
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/163/lifeline
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 12, 2009, 12:14:54 AM
The sad fact is that every American deserves healthcare. The reality is that the US govt cannot afford it, and still pay their bills. With the new rounds of spending, I just learned tonight that 46 cents of every dollar the US govt spends, will go to pay for debt.
Folks, we cannot afford to keep spending. Soon China and the rest of the world will stop buying the fed treasuries, and only the US Govt will be buying them, producing money on top of money, to the point where we have inflation like we saw in the late 70s.
Medicare and Social Security are bigger animals than Healthcare.
And they want to structure ObamaCare like Medicare. Meanwhile, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt much more quickly than recently anticipated. How can someone be supportive of something that is destined to fail?
I don't get it.
OH wait; yes I do - it's called 'getting lost amidst the rhetoric."
Or... tell them what they want to hear...
Indeed. In this case, it's the same difference.
It's all about the votes, at the end of the day.
Quote from: FayeforCure on May 12, 2009, 09:14:13 PM
Quote2. It will be high-quality coverage
:D
QuoteGovernment-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality
:D :D
Quote3. We'll all save a bunch of money.
:D :D :D
QuoteThe public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh Jesus! I can't stop laughing! Somebody please bring me my oxygen, or better yet, bring me whatever Faye is smoking!
No problem! Courtesy of my tax dollar!
QuoteProgressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/video-are-the-elderly-cost-effective/
QuoteMeanwhile, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt much more quickly than recently anticipated.
Medicare is already spending more than it brings in, this started last year.
Ill-Conceived Taxes
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: Many question how the high cost of government-run medical care available to all can be paid for. No problem. Just raise federal revenues by making consumer goods cost more.
And don't forget tax-exempt employer-provided health care benefits. That's a rich source of untapped government revenues if lawmakers take away the tax-exemption status.
Washington, at least the left side of the swamp, is determined to provide universal health care whether or not we need it, want it or can even afford it.
Make no mistake, the cost will be steep. The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, has estimated that universal medical care will require roughly $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion over 10 years.
Len Nichols, an economist who heads the health policy project at the New America Foundation, has issued similar findings. He figures that the cost of guaranteed coverage will run $125 billion to $150 billion a year.
Projected costs of government programs, particularly entitlements, are always low. Medicare loses $60 billion each year, roughly half of one analyst's annual cost of health care for all, due to fraud.
But even if those estimates are accurate, there's still the problem of funding a program for which a single dollar has yet to be appropriated.
Rather than cut back on other programs, the Washington solution is to raise new taxes. To fund health care, the Senate Finance Committee is thinking about placing levies on soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, health savings accounts and junk food, and taxing, for the first time, employer-provided health care benefits.
The public needs to understand that it will be paying more for goods and services in return for national health care. Grocery bills will be higher; that bottle of wine that should go with dinner might have to be left on the store shelf instead; a cold Coke on a hot summer day would be a rare luxury rather than a frequent pleasure;guilty indulgences could simply become unaffordable to many.
Americans also need to be aware of the failings of government-run health care in other nations. Disease survival rates in developed countries with nationalized systems tend to be lower than in the U.S., while waiting times are much longer and poor treatment more common.
Higher costs, diminished results. Americans won't like a system that's more expensive and delivers less. But that's what we'll get as long as the public doesn't have a full understanding of how ruinous government-run health care is.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=327108098260411
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/03/9330606-sun.html
QuoteIn Toronto, emergency room waits for minor conditions range from five to six hours and for serious conditions from 11 to 22 hours.
You wait an average of 16 hours in Quebec:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss
QuoteQuebec average 16 h 30 min
Even our slow hospitals here in Florida are quicker than that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/
QuoteHospitals in Arizona (4 hours, 57 minutes), Maryland (4 hours, 7 minutes), Utah (4 hours, 5 minutes), New York (3 hours, 58 minutes), and Florida (3 hours, 57 minutes) are among the worst, with wait times near or exceeding four hours.
Just to show a private system is no different than a public system, and most of the time is worse off.
Ottawa pays spends over 40% of its annual budget on healthcare alone.
Many doctors trained in Canada practice in the USA. They cannot afford to pay their loans back on salaries they would receive in Canada. Is the US Universal Healthcare going to pay all doctors fees enough for doctors to be able to pay back loans? Or will the taxpayer pick up that tab as well?
Hell, Vets make more than most Doctor's in Canada who subscribe to the healthcare system.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks
QuoteDead People Get Stimulus
Checks
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.
WATCH DICK BRENNAN'S REPORT (VIDEO, LEFT)
Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United States for a seven-month visit in 1969.
The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.
The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange thing is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.
This is the same government that you want to run our health care system? Amazing.
That's a 0.0192% error rate.
Also, did those dead people cash them?
Quotelike Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.
Surely you didn't miss the point.
0.0192%
You missed the point.
Quotehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html
The Cost of Free Government Health Care
By David Gibberman
Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:
Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."
Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.
There Are Long Waits for Care. One way governments reduce health care costs is to require patients to wait for treatment. Patients have to wait to see a general practitioner, then wait to see a specialist, then wait for any diagnostic tests, and then wait for treatment.
The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment. Last year, Canadians had to wait an average of 17.3 weeks from referral to a specialist to treatment (Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn). The median wait was 4.9 weeks for a CT scan, 9.7 weeks for an MRI, and 4.4 weeks for an ultrasound.
Delay in treatment is not merely an inconvenience. Think of the pain and suffering it costs patients. Or lost work time, decreased productivity, and sick pay. Worse, think of the number of deaths caused by delays in treatment.
Patients Are Denied the Latest Medical Technology and Medicines. To save money, countries with government-run health care deny or limit access to new technology and medicines. Those with a rare disease are often out of luck because medicines for their disease usually cost more than their quality-adjusted life years are deemed worth.
In a Commonwealth Fund/Harvard/Harris 2000 survey of physicians in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom, physicians in all countries except the United States reported major shortages of resources important in providing quality care; only U.S. physicians did not see shortages as a significant problem. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Health Data (2008), there are 26.5 MRIs and 33.9 CT scanners per million people in the United States compared to 6.2 MRIs and 12 CT scanners in Canada and 5.6 MRIs and 7.6 CT scanners in the United Kingdom.
Breakthroughs in Life-Saving Treatments Are Discouraged. Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on the United States to pay the research and development costs for new medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone will suffer.
The Best and Brightest Are Discouraged from Becoming Doctors. Countries with government-run health care save money by paying doctors less. According to a Commonwealth Fund analysis, U.S. doctors earn more than twice as much as doctors in Canada and Germany, more than three times as much as doctors in France, and four times as much as doctors in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The best and brightest will be encouraged to go into professions where they can earn more money and have more autonomy.
Is Government-Run Health Care Better? Proponents of government-run health care argue that Americans will receive better care despite the foregoing. Their main argument has been that despite paying more for health care the United States trails other countries in infant mortality and average life expectancy.
However, neither is a good measure of the quality of a country's health care system. Each depends more on genetic makeup, personal lifestyle (including diet and physical activity), education, and environment than available health care. For example, in their book The Business of Health, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider found that if it weren't for our high rate of deaths from homicides and car accidents Americans would have the highest life expectancy.
Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).
A better measure of a country's health care is how well it actually treats patients. The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.
Proponents of government-run health care argue that more preventive care will be provided. However, a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report comparing the U.S., Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that the U.S. was #1 in preventive care. Eighty-five percent of U.S. women age 25-64 reported that they had a Pap test in the past two years (compared to 58% in the United Kingdom); 84% of U.S. women age 50-64 reported that they had a mammogram in the past two years (compared to 63% in the United Kingdom).
The United Kingdom's National Health Service has been around for more than 60 years but still hasn't worked out its kinks. In March, Britain's Healthcare Commission (since renamed the Care Quality Commission) reported that as many as 1,200 patients may have died needlessly at Stafford Hospital and Cannock Chase Hospital over a three-year period. The Commission described filthy conditions, unhygienic practices, doctors and nurses too few in number and poorly trained, nurses not knowing how to use the insufficient number of working cardiac monitors, and patients left without food, drink, or medication for as many as four days.
Does Government-Run Health Care Provide Everyone Access to Equal Care? Proponents tout government-run health care as giving everyone access to the same health care, regardless of race, nationality, or wealth. But that's not true. The British press refers to the National Health Service as a "postcode lotter" because a person's care varies depending on the neighborhood ("postcode") in which he or she lives. EUROCARE-4 found large difference in cancer survival rates between the rich and poor in Europe. The Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn concludes that famous and politically connected Canadians are moved to the front of queues, suburban and rural residents have less access to care than their urban counterparts, and lower income Canadians have less access to care than their higher income neighbors.
Ironically, as we're moving toward having our government completely control health care, countries with government-run health care are moving in the opposite direction. Almost every European country has introduced market reforms to reduce health costs and increase the availability and quality of care. The United Kingdom has proposed a pilot program giving patients money to purchase health care. Why is this being done? According to Alan Johnson, Secretary for Health, personal health budgets "will give more power to patients and drive up the quality of care" (The Guardian, 1/17/09). It's a lesson we all should learn before considering how to improve our health care system
Quote.0192%. error rate?
vs
12 dollar tylenol under the present system?
Yeah because big government never over spends riiiight?
Tell that to the tax payers who funded the millitary buying a box of 10 penny nails for $1200.
Stephen - it's interesting you brought up that point. My ex is a nurse.
The reason a hospital charges atrocious prices for a tylenol, or gauze, or peroxide (u name it) is because they are bound by certain policies to discard a package after opening. In other words, once you open and use an amount of the product, it is not allowed to be "consumed" again. Tossed.
If anyone on here can shed some light on that - please clarify.
That's what she told me anyway. I wonder where those regulations came from.
And I doubt very seriously you pay that much at CVS.
Why not? The hospital, under that assumption, opens itself wide open to lawsuit if a patient discovers he or she has been given tylenol (or another drug) from an 'previously-opened' package. The litigation would write itself at that point. It's CYA.
Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.
Stephen, it happens. It's not a fabrication. I don't know why - but I can guess. It is a CYA, though, as Doctor K said. My ex always referred to that phrase.
That's why I asked for someone on this great site who has a close working knowledge of the hospital industry to please chime in and clarify. Shed some light on this.
Maybe it's not just the evil insurance companies! Maybe it's the "evil" drug companies too! Come on Stephen, you can throw a bigger hissy fit than that! It's the weekend, don't leave me hangin. :(
Faye,
I don't know why you bother. Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves. That is until they have a love one get a serious medical ailment and then they see the sky rocketing prices, they get to hold the denial letters for that loved one's from other insurance companies and watch the loved one's life savings go up in smoke.
The gentle man who helped bring about Universal Health care to England said it came out of the rebuilding of their nation after being destroyed in WW2. They felt an overwhelming need to be and adult and help each other out. American's for the most part don't care about their fellow man. They care about houses they can't afford, more cars to drive and bigger tv's.
Stephen, why do you think the government (who constantly over spends for goods) will some how reform their ways when it comes to health care?
QuoteMost, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves.
That is quite an indictment. Simply for disagreeing about universal healthcare. WOW! :o :)
Quote from: CrysG on May 15, 2009, 03:01:09 PM
Faye,
I don't know why you bother. Most, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves. That is until they have a love one get a serious medical ailment and then they see the sky rocketing prices, they get to hold the denial letters for that loved one's from other insurance companies and watch the loved one's life savings go up in smoke.
The gentle man who helped bring about Universal Health care to England said it came out of the rebuilding of their nation after being destroyed in WW2. They felt an overwhelming need to be and adult and help each other out. American's for the most part don't care about their fellow man. They care about houses they can't afford, more cars to drive and bigger tv's.
CrysG,
Sounds like some resentment that you need to deal with. But I'll comment on your point that people "don't care". People do care, but disagree how to fix the system. This whole thing can be remedied with the government changing some of the ridiculous regulations that are currently in place. Most of the problems with the current system would be solved.
But those that endorse government control and intrusion want universal healthcare. The rest of us want individual responsibility and want government out of it.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 15, 2009, 03:05:25 PM
QuoteMost, and I stress not all of these people, but most don't give a rip about the health care or the well being of any person other than themselves.
That is quite an indictment. Simply for disagreeing about universal healthcare. WOW! :o :)
And I'll stand by my statement since the bases for 95% of the reason's people don't like it boils down to money. If I some how waved a magic wand and said I would personally fund the universal health care for the rest of the history of the world and all of you would never have to pay a dime for it would any of you say no?
So your putting money over the basic right of people to be healthy and have access to medical services.
QuoteSo your putting money over the basic right of people to be healthy and have access to medical services.
I suggested in a thread long ago that if this is truly a right then we should be willing to amend the constitution to do so. A real national debate... with every section of the country having a real say in the matter.
It wont happen. Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.
Medical services that are supplied by the Government, that I as the taxpayer pay for. Yes - I am putting money as *a* reason. The fact that it's government-controlled is the primary reason. Because look at how phenomenally every other government-run program is doing, in brief:
Medicare? Broke sooner than expected.
Medicaid? Same thing.
Social Security? Ditto.
Fannie and Freddie? A+ Double-Whammy award, since the gov't deregulated itself here in the 90s, causing the bubble and current crisis.
AMtrak? Jolly.
Bailout/stimulus? Stellar.
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan? Brilliant. I blame specific people within the government though, not so much as a whole.
U.S. Post Office? Keeps raising the price of stamps and *still* can't remain economically viable.
All mis-managed. Grossly. All losing money almost as fast as the Fed can print it. And you think they're "gonna do better" with UniCare? Delusional.
Quote
It wont happen. Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.
Precisely. And those who are opposed to it in any way, shape, or form, are the uncaring bad guys. Hey BT - how about another fist-bump? :D
Thanks Doc... :o The short debate here is but a small illustration of how it will go nationally.
I want uni care... = I am a caring/giving person who cares deeply about my fellow man. A few extra cents out of my pocket is but a small price to pay for sick babies to get health care.
I do not want uni care...= I am a selfish/ money grubber who does not give a rip about my fellow man. Why the eff should I pay any money at all to those lazy bastards who refuse to work.
Who do ya think is gonna win... ;D :o
Quote from: Doctor_K on May 15, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Medical services that are supplied by the Government, that I as the taxpayer pay for. Yes - I am putting money as *a* reason. The fact that it's government-controlled is the primary reason. Because look at how phenomenally every other government-run program is doing, in brief:
Medicare? Broke sooner than expected.
Medicaid? Same thing.
Social Security? Ditto.
Fannie and Freddie? A+
AMtrak? Jolly.
Bailout/stimulus? Stellar.
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan? Brilliant. I blame specific people within the government though, not so much as a whole.
U.S. Post Office? Keeps raising the price of stamps and *still* can't remain economically viable.
All mis-managed. Grossly. All losing money almost as fast as the Fed can print it. And you think they're "gonna do better" with UniCare? Delusional.
Quote
It wont happen. Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.
Precisely. And those who are opposed to it in any way, shape, or form, are the uncaring bad guys. Hey BT - how about another fist-bump? :D
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447686
Yay link trading!
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/ (http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/)
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173)
...from the other uncaring idiots. ;)
Donald W. Light, PhD, MS
Professor
Primary Affil: UMDNJ-School of Osteopathic Medicine
SPH Department: Health Systems and Policy - Stratford/Camden
Units: N/A
Campus: Stratford/Camden
Building: 2250CH
Room: ...
Phone: 856.566.6296
Fax: 856.482.9000
Email: dlight@princeton.edu
Degrees/Certifications:
PhD, 1970, Brandeis University
MS, 1967, University of Chicaco Global Public Health Experience:
No Research Interests:
Uninsured; Underinsured; Immigrant Health; Comparative Healthcare Systems; Distributive Justice Issues in Health Policy Community Service/Community Research Projects:
Evaluator for an EXPORT grant to move several research teams at Columbia University towards community-based, collaborative research and towards greater interactions with community organizations in Harlem and Northern Manhattan, NY Partner: Columbia University-Mailman School of Public Health.Professional Service:
Met with United Kingdom officials on global vaccine policy
You left out the unequaled management of GM and Chrysler! ::) Let's see - we'll cut half the advertising and close down dealerships - that'll sell more cars!
and yes, we are greedy, bigots, racist, homophobes. You name it, we're bored with it, get over it.
Love this article:
QuoteEvery three years American hospitals turn themselves inside out preparing for the visit of inspectors from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, or JCAHO (pronounced jay-koh). A passing grade from JCAHO is indispensable. The JCAHO website explains:
Congress passes the Social Security Amendments of 1965 with a provision that hospitals accredited by JCAH are "deemed" to be in compliance with most of the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals and, thus, able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
In other words, hospitals either pass inspection (and get accredited) ... or Medicare reimbursement is withheld. I've worked in hospitals where, a year before the inspectors' scheduled visits, department heads would huddle together and pore over manuals crammed full of the minutiae of JCAHO's requirements. As inspection day approached, the staff had numerous mandatory in-service meetings where we heard scary stories about inspectors stopping nurses in the hall and interrogating them on almost anything pertaining to the hospital.
One day I was trying valiantly to memorize the hospital's mission statement (how that improves patient care I'll never know) while a co-worker from another department laughed at me. I asked him how he was preparing for the imminent JCAHO Inquisition.
"We're not preparing at all," he told me.
"But you'll fail!" I exclaimed.
"That's the idea," he explained. "We've learned the best way to handle these people is to just take the hit right away. That way, they move on and leave us alone to do our jobs. After a few weeks they'll send instructions as to how to fix whatever minor problem they found. We fix it, they pass us, everyone's happy. "
I was baffled. "But the hospital wants us to be in compliance with all these requirements so they can pass inspection this first go-around."
"Oh, you silly, silly nurse," he sighed. "Don't you know how the world works? I don't care how well you know the fire evacuation routes or whether your trash cans meet this year's requirement, you aren't going to pass. That's not how it works. The inspectors will keep looking until they find a reason to fail you. So our plan is take the hit and fail right away."
The tortured, bureaucratic JCAHO logic was so outrageous that I asked him to elaborate.
"It's simple," he replied. "These inspectors love their gigs. If JCAHO inspectors start actually passing hospitals on the first visit, they're out of work. So they write up huge binders full of ridiculous standards that no one, least of all overworked health care workers, could be expected to remember. Then they hang around until they catch you using the wrong kind of adhesive tape. You fail. They justify their inspections and keep their jobs.
"So we've decided to take the hit right off, he continued. "We'll get dinged for something simple and obvious. I think this year we'll let them catch us not wearing our nametags. Then they'll go away and bother you guys instead."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/republicans_should_just_take_t.html
14 years? Consecutively? Bush was only in office for 8. Clinton 8 before that.
Republican Congress from '94 til '06? That's 12.
But there were plenty of Democrats to fight back with, to prevent all sorts of said soft suction incompetence.
And republicans have nothing to do with Europe's failing NHSs. I fail to see the point.
Quote from: Doctor_K on May 15, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Yay link trading!
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/ (http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/) Already addressed in my link.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html) Made me laugh...wow a conservative think tank vs. a Medical doctor who lived in England.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173)Made me laugh more....see above.
...from the other uncaring idiots. ;)
Quote from: Doctor_K on May 15, 2009, 03:37:54 PM
14 years? Consecutively? Bush was only in office for 8. Clinton 8 before that.
Republican Congress from '94 til '06? That's 12.
But there were plenty of Democrats to fight back with, to prevent all sorts of said soft suction incompetence.
And republicans have nothing to do with Europe's failing NHSs. I fail to see the point.
Don't ya see Doc, if Stephen can go back 14 years, then he can affix blame on Republicans in power.
It's so nice knowing I have better health care than Slovenia.
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Interesting - but vague in their studies. One thing I did notice though:
QuoteResponsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs
This is why a lot of people don't want government control. With that, you will get rationing determined by a bureaucrat.
Steven,
And don't forget that they also make the decision if you get coverage to begin with.
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2009, 04:27:33 PM
Because the people who work in the investement banking industry making decisions about whether you are going to get the surgery or not, based on a cost risk analysis isnt a beaurocrat?
So an investment banker is making healthcare decisions Stephen? Your hate for capitalism is what's amazing. Please don't ever refer to yourself as a "true" Republican or a Conservative again - it's disgusting.
QuoteThe coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10201
Quote from: Sigma on May 15, 2009, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2009, 04:27:33 PM
Because the people who work in the investement banking industry making decisions about whether you are going to get the surgery or not, based on a cost risk analysis isnt a beaurocrat?
So an investment banker is making healthcare decisions Stephen? Your hate for capitalism is what's amazing. Please don't ever refer to yourself as a "true" Republican or a Conservative again - it's disgusting.
QuoteThe coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10201
Oh I love the Cato Institute. They have a wonderful book in there bookstore saying how there is really nothing to worry about with global warming and "global warming is likely to be modest".::)
What our healthcare system is here is one that provides excellent service for some (those who can self pay) good service for many (those who have insurance) and mediocre (at best) for those who have no money. I haven't personal bought into healthcare being a "right" so I see nothing wrong with this system. Those at the top subsidize a great deal of the medical R&D that goes on in this country and subsequently gets passed on to the other countries who can sit back and provide "free" healthcare.
What free healthcare would do is force all of the healthcare in the country to being somewhere between mediocre and good with those who want excellent left to look elsewhere. Are already doing this with "elective" surgeries such as hip replacements. If you have the money and would like to have yours done in a place without truly "sick" folks and with out the chance of contracting MRSA you're SOL because the Democrats in congress feel that Doctors shouldn't be able to work for a profit. And that you should be forced to subsidize others healthcare even if it means possibly making yours worse. This is what healthcare for everyone will look like.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/07/hospitals-congress-medicare-biz-healthcare-cz_dw_0307healthcare.html (http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/07/hospitals-congress-medicare-biz-healthcare-cz_dw_0307healthcare.html)
I'm glad you brought that up CrysG - speaking of global warming:
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2009, 04:39:48 PM
You are for paying a middleman for the privelege of not letting you die. Carbon Offsets.
If you support this present system, you are for bloodsuckers, second handers and moochers. Not Capitalists. Al Gore.
but let's put global warming fiasco in another thread, shall we? I think there already is one. Or were you "pulling a Dare" by switching topics?
Rising Health-Care Costs: Who’s the Villain?
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rising-health-care-costs-whos-the-villain/
Stephen, I gotta go - but I am with you on part your complaint about insurance companies, and I can see your point.
My point is that goverment laws and regulations has created this environment that these companies operate in. It just takes smarter thinking and common sense, not MORE governernment intrusion. But that very well may be a pipe dream.
Have a good weekend.
Sorry stephen but what is destroying this country is the ever expanding perversion of what a "Right" is.
The right to food, a house, a phone, a car (it's coming). None are truly "rights". You have the right to pursue those things.
The government shouldn't be in the way, other than that they should be getting out of they way. You can cry about the big bad businesses hurting the little man all you want, but none are as corrupt (or as powerful) as the government that you're wanting to hand over more and more the power to.
jtwestside
I'm sorry did you imply that as a human being you don't have the right to food or housing? My God what century are we in?
QuoteI'm sorry did you imply that as a human being you don't have the right to food or housing? My God what century are we in?
Without inserting my words for westside's words, I think what was meant is that food and housing, car, phone, etc., are not guarantees in a capitalistic society. You reap what you sow should be the capitalistic motto, but with Obama, we have a bailout of every industrial faculty that he and his Wall Street buddies deems as being a backbone to the US. Capitalism says otherwise, and failure of businesses is par for the course.
Let the businesses fail, it is healthy and part of capitalism. Bailing them out is the socialistic approach that we have seen never works out in the long run. We Americans can fail and fail and fail and we always find a footing to stand on. Our system works, if we just let it work on its own.