Healthcare....again

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1923754' date='Jul 18 2009, 06:12 PM']It was her doctors who ultimately determined it was time to go in and remove her organs, and that is who should be making the decisions, not a civil servant who is sitting in an office 500 miles away from the situation, who hasn't examined and doesn't know the patient, who doesn't know medicine or what is really going on. I can't imagine what it would be like to have someone who is basically a post office employee tying her doctor's hands and saying "sorry it's not approved." And that would be it! Nothing the doctor could do to get around it no matter their medical opinion! I suppose there would probably be an appeals process, so we could probably submit that form and wait around for another six months while she lay in a hospital bed with her guts bleeding out of her.[/quote]
And it is my GP who approves what medical treatment I get, as well. Just because medicine is socialised doesn't mean every medical decision is called in by a hierarchy. And unfortunately insurance companies sometimes refuse to cover certain procedures, regardless of what the doctor says. As I keep saying, there are horror stories with all types of health care.

[add]

The President of the United States is proceeding rapidly with Health Care reform. It appears that it will soon become the law of the land.
Under the guise of healthcare, this health care reform plan will force Americans to pay for or participate in abortion and the destruction of the lives of millions of children in the womb.

Edited July 18, 2009 by apparently

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rachael' post='1923716' date='Jul 18 2009, 08:41 AM']

Honestly, I am not sure what would work. The current system doesn't work. Would Obama's proposed system work? I don't know. But, it may be better. [/quote]
Some of it will help, some won't. I like the idea of government run insurance [b]for the sake[/b] of providing competition to private companies.

This seems to be helpful:
[url="http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-making-sense-of-health-care-reform?src=RSS_PUBLIC"]http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-mak...?src=RSS_PUBLIC[/url]

Edited July 18, 2009 by fidei defensor

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='apparently' post='1923818' date='Jul 18 2009, 03:13 PM']The President of the United States is proceeding rapidly with Health Care reform. It appears that it will soon become the law of the land.
Under the guise of healthcare, this health care reform plan will force Americans to pay for or participate in abortion and the destruction of the lives of millions of children in the womb.[/quote]

While the democrats are running with this with Obama leading them....I really don't think they are going to get anywhere.

Will the private insurance companies idly sit by and watch this happen? While the rock is being pushed to the top of the hill, there are many things that need to be worked out.

Even if Obama and company get their plan passed.......there is no way that it will be a dream pill and there will be many angry people......angry people who will vote next election against the democrats.....

With this health plan, the democrats are digging their grave. This plan has been rushed way too fast for it to be quality.

Then there is the issue of paying for it. Let's say they pass it.......how they gonna pay it? By raising taxes on the middle class.

This war is far from over or lost. I have hope


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/matt+maher/track/lay+it+down"]Matt Maher - Lay It Down[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1923831' date='Jul 18 2009, 03:44 PM']Some of it will help, some won't. I like the idea of government run insurance [b]for the sake[/b] of providing competition to private companies.

This seems to be helpful:
[url="http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-making-sense-of-health-care-reform?src=RSS_PUBLIC"]http://www.webmd.com/news/20090717/faq-mak...?src=RSS_PUBLIC[/url][/quote]

Will the private insurance companies be able to survive though? The government will have more resources and will have an incentive the drive the private sector out.

I don't see a coexistence happening with this.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/creed/track/higher"]Creed - Higher[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1923833' date='Jul 18 2009, 01:49 PM']Will the private insurance companies be able to survive though? The government will have more resources and will have an incentive the drive the private sector out.

I don't see a coexistence happening with this.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/creed/track/higher"]Creed - Higher[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]
It really just depends on what's done. I sincerely hope Obama is being truthful about his desire to lower costs. If it works as planned, I think someone likened it to the Postal Service v.s. private carriers.

[rachael]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1923776' date='Jul 18 2009, 01:51 PM'][url="http://www.211.org/"]Dial 211 for help[/url]

It takes a LOT of courage, but you DO have a choice ...[/quote]
Yes, I know I have a choice.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1923811' date='Jul 18 2009, 03:59 PM']And it is my GP who approves what medical treatment I get, as well. Just because medicine is socialised doesn't mean every medical decision is called in by a hierarchy. And unfortunately insurance companies sometimes refuse to cover certain procedures, regardless of what the doctor says. As I keep saying, there are horror stories with all types of health care.[/quote]

I get what you are saying. I just can't stand the idea of a government employee being in charge of any aspect of our healthcare. Our primary care physician whom we love and trust is 100% against socialized medicine, and this is a man who would treat my family for FREE for years because he knew we didn't have any insurance! We would go in there for an exam and he would literally not take a dime.

Whenever we talk about this he tells us that an NHS-style system is not good for doctors, patients, and the doctor-patient relationship but that he is resigned to it eventually becoming reality. For this reason he strongly discouraged my brothers from entering the medical profession. He himself is a fairly young man and probably has another 20 years left to practice but I don't think he is going to enjoy them. The American Medical Association is against this "reform" and they don't represent insurance companies, they're the doctors who do direct patient care! I don't know how it is in Europe but in America the LAST thing we need is another layer of bureaucracy between doctors and patients.

As an uninsured poor person my sister got world-class care and it was completely free. There were no claims to submit and she didn't have to get an OK from Uncle Sam before her doctors did what they knew they had to do. That's the way it should be. Personally I think health care is a right, not a privilege or a "consumer product" which is how we treat it now, but I don't think government control is the answer. There should be a better way but I don't know what it is. Has the state ever done anything efficiently or well? Not that I can think of. These are the same people who handled things during Hurricane Katrina. Think about that.

My doctor points out that socialized medicine is usually proposed by elites who won't have to deal with the inevitable limitations in the system. If anyone watched the town hall meeting President Obama had recently on this topic, a doctor actually brought that fact up. Then he asked the President, point blank, if one of his daughters was sick, would he pledge to give her the exact same standard of care that his fellow Americans who were less wealthy would be FORCED to deal with, since they wouldn't have access to the higher levels of care available to them now? And of course President Obama said no he wouldn't! Since their father is rich and powerful Sasha and Malia will be able to get care outside the system if they need it.

My sister on the other hand? Like I said she would probably have had to spend another couple months in agony in a hospital bed, loosing pound after pound, with blood flowing out of her due to her intestines disintegrating. If our dad was rich she would be able to get the care she needed pronto like President Obama's daughters. But since she is the child of a Joe Schmo she would just have to lie there waiting for the state employee to get around to her file. Maybe it would work way better than that, but I'm not a fan of finding out.

Lucky for us her first round of surgery came before the system was "reformed." She has two more rounds next year and honestly I don't know what will happen if they fiddle with the system. Her stuff is expensive enough (six figures) that it would definitely have to be approved by a government drone... In fact it costs so much maybe it would have to be bumped up to a second or third level in the "hierarchy" (or anarchy might be a better word for it) before a decision could be made, which would allow her to wait around even more.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off over-passionate it's just our experience with the health care system has been so positive so far and believe me we were shocked! After all the negative things we have heard. And our primary care physician's opinion means a lot, too. He has our best interests at heart and if he says something is going to be bad for us it probably is.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1923833' date='Jul 18 2009, 08:49 PM']Will the private insurance companies be able to survive though? The government will have more resources and will have an incentive the drive the private sector out.

I don't see a coexistence happening with this.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/creed/track/higher"]Creed - Higher[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]
They can co-exist. They do here, at least.


Maggie, I completely get where you're coming from. I really don't think Lilllabettt would have had to wait months for a procedure, but it's difficult to say, since care can vary in different parts of a country. I know my husband didn't have to wait for his appendectomy, though of course that's a different situation.

And I agree with you that health care is a "right", or should be. I'm not sure there is a 100% great solution, but I do think everyone should have access to good health care without worrying about how they will pay for it. I'm very glad your sister was able to get the care for free - that is a wonderful thing-, but not all docs in the US are willing to do that.

[reelguy227]

I'm against the public option being shoved through Congress for three very big and important reasons:

1. It's unconstitutional
2. It will add to the already ballooned deficit and national debt, which would be very, very bad (if the United States government were to go bankrupt, the world economy would collapse).
3. It will destroy the private healthcare system

Edited July 19, 2009 by reelguy227

[add]

Universal Socialized engineered healthcare medicine is a Pandora's Box of evil

I.E. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which compiles reproductive health statistics, black women abort their children at five times the white rate and twice the Hispanic rate. The rate is 11 abortions per 1,000 white women, 28 for every 1,000 Hispanic women and 50 for every 1,000 black women.

scary

Edited July 19, 2009 by apparently

[add]

"egregious flaw"

"Obamacare is the greatest threat ever to the lives and wellness of unborn children and their mothers since Roe v. Wade was rendered in 1973," said Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Smith noted that a study by the Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute showed that the widened availability of abortion through government funding increases the number of unborn children killed by 20%-35%.

"Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe. This is the big one!" said Smith.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this has a lot of the points i made in my sloppy'ly wrote last post

[url="http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm"]http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm[/url]

[quote]The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

Outline of Talk Given To The Association of State Green Parties, Moodus, Connecticut on June 4, 1999

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.



1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

4. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

* Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

* Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

* Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

* Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

* Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

* Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

5. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

* Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

* Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

* Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

* Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

6. Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

* Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

* Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

7. Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

* Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

* Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

* Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

* Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

* Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

* Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

* Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/quote]

there's also a lot of fluff in it (makes himself and even the decent democrats look bad), but also a lot of gems-- i would recommend watching 'sicko' by michael moore. you can find it often on google videos, or youtube videos if nothing else.

[philothea]

[quote name='Angel*Star' post='1923219' date='Jul 17 2009, 11:57 PM']I understand your frustration, but even you admit would it really help? Who gets to decide who gets treatment and who does not? What one thing does the government run that is truly working?[/quote]
Uhh... the military, the National Weather Service, the interstate highway system, the Treasury, the FAA, the National Park Service...

There are plenty of things the government does decently well -- far better than any private agency could do. Sure, there are a number of tasks the government does very badly at, too.

I suspect that health care -- in our day -- is a government-level task.

[faithfulrock3r]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1923754' date='Jul 18 2009, 02:12 PM']I think most people in these situations just get jobs at companies that offer health insurance. I know at my company they can't ask you about pre-existing conditions for medical.

One thing I have noticed is that overhauling the health care system is a primarily middle class concern, which must be why it keeps coming up, if it was a problem that was affecting poor people it would never be discussed! People who have incomes at or below the poverty line get great healthcare in the US, because ultimately they are not required to pay. People with huge incomes don't care because they can afford it anyway. It's the people in the middle, who don't make huge amounts of money but make too much to qualify for help, who get squeezed.

As a recent grad I assume you don't have a history of really high income! I don't know if you've tried this yet or not but maybe call the company that makes your medication and ask if they have a patient assistance program. So many of these companies have programs waiting to be used and people don't even know they exist. Sometimes you can actually get the medication for free! That is what my sister ended up doing and it saved her thousands of dollars.

Personally I am not a fan of government-run healthcare. In my family's situation my sister would probably not have gotten the surgery she needed as soon as she did - it was an expensive surgery and it was not an emergency situation.

It was her doctors who ultimately determined it was time to go in and remove her organs, and that is who should be making the decisions, not a civil servant who is sitting in an office 500 miles away from the situation, who hasn't examined and doesn't know the patient, who doesn't know medicine or what is really going on. I can't imagine what it would be like to have someone who is basically a post office employee tying her doctor's hands and saying "sorry it's not approved." And that would be it! Nothing the doctor could do to get around it no matter their medical opinion! I suppose there would probably be an appeals process, so we could probably submit that form and wait around for another six months while she lay in a hospital bed with her guts bleeding out of her.[/quote]
hey I was wondering what you meant when you said that people below the poverty line in america do no have to pay for health care. How exactly does that work? Thanks