Health Care

Status
Not open for further replies.

spike

New Member
So, then she's already covereed and you know the nightmare of government run medical care.

The coverage she has with Medicare is actually great. Just need to figure out the prescription stuff.

I know without government healthcare she wouldn't be covered. That would be a nightmare.

I also know that many countries have very successful government run care. Our armed forces even have government run care.
 
Ever been to a VA? I have. So has my dad.

No thanks, never again.

The VA is under funded and poorly managed. Military hospitals on the other hand are not bad at all. Sure when they fuck up its big and a lot gets made of it, but on the whole they have excellent care.

Even with the VA's problems its a hell of a lot better than the no care at all some disabled vets would have without it.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Re: public opinion.
It seems that most people recognize that the medical care system (insurance, doctors, hospitals, test facilities, etc.) is broken.
  • Many people are uninsured or under-insured.
  • The uninsured can not afford preventative care ($110/office visit with no tests)
  • The cost of medical care and treatment has increased exponentially over the years.

The questions are:
  • How do we fix the system? and
  • Who should take charge to fix the system?

I've heard some say that we should leave it in the hands of the insurance companies, but this is what we've done for years and we still have the same problems. I do not think that would be a wise decision.

The only body capable of a nationwide overhaul of the system is the government. I spent time considering this for a long time and this is the only answer I can come up with. There is no one organization (or group of organizations) capable of implementing a change that would fix our broken system.

I have insurance now, but there was a time when I didn't have a job. I have a health condition that must be monitored and I take a prescription every day. A trip to the family physician was $110 and did not include any tests (which have to be ordered every 3 to 6 months). The prescription was cheap enough that I could afford it but getting the prescription required a doctor's visit. When you first see a doctor for this condition they want to see you once a month for 3 to 4 months with blood work.

Then there is my sister-in-law. She was working part-time and going to school. My brother was working part-time and going to school. Neither had health insurance. My sister-in-law found a lump in her breast. A visit to a private GYN was out of the question so they went to a Planned Parenthood (which is limited in their services). They were advised to see a specialist right away and were referred to a county clinic which offers free and sliding scale medical services. They were turned away, and told they made too much money. They tried everywhere but couldn't be seen. Finally they borrowed money from my dad and saw a private doctor. The lump turned out to be an infected milk duct. But what if it had been breast cancer?
 
You know valkyrie, the crux of the problem with so many of the folks who oppose such reform is that for one, they have no concept of those things, and when they hear about it, they make excuses about how if you'd gave been responsible you would not have been in whatever situation the anecdote is about. Most people have little use for empathy or trying to put themselves in another's shoes. Until some tragedy befalls them or a loved one, they couldn't give a crap about anyone but themselves.

Couple that with 1.4 million daily (probably more now) being pumped into a campaign of disinformation to the public, and senators and representatives being given perks by the insurance lobby, and it's no surprise that this thing is as screwed up as it is. Hell I am all for reform but when I try to understand what the proposed bill looks like from moment to moment it makes my head spin.

From what I've been seeing though, they are going to gut any meaningful reform and pass some bandaid measure that looks good on paper and to big insurance, and screws the American people one more time. The sad thing is that likely half of us will take the screwing and say "thank you sir may I have another". That is at least til they or a loved one gets screwed by legal organized crime (the currently mostly unregulated insurance industry).

I personally don't think medicine for profit is any good at all. I hear all the lies about how nobody will want to be a doctor when it's less lucrative financially, but the truth is they will still be well compensated as any highly trained professional should be. I don't know about anybody else here but I personally would rather not have a doctor who is mostly interested in how much money he can make of my ailments and suffering. If anything this would keep a lot of folks who really shouldn't be doctors in the first place away from the profession.

You really can't put a price on health care, because the Hippocratic oath itself is in direct conflict with the insurance industry's motives. Make no mistake, it isn't the doctor who controls services, it's the insurance. I know several doctors personally and not a single one of them opposes reform, up to and including a government option. There is one doctor here, in fact the best in town who does a cash only business, not because he is all about the money, but simply because he is into preventative medicine and he continually got screwed over by insurance companies. The fact is they don't want to pay to keep you well, and they don't care about the doctors any more than they care about their policy holders.

*Waits for the fear mongering, less than half truth rebuttal by one of the duped!*

:banghead:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Re: public opinion.
It seems that most people recognize that the medical care system (insurance, doctors, hospitals, test facilities, etc.) is broken.
  • Many people are uninsured or under-insured.
  • The uninsured can not afford preventative care ($110/office visit with no tests)
  • The cost of medical care and treatment has increased exponentially over the years.

The questions are:
  • How do we fix the system? and
  • Who should take charge to fix the system?

"Most people" are going by news reports. Very few can identify a specific problem, unless Geraldo told 'em.

Many people don't want insurace.
Most people don't need insurance. Pay cash at your doctor & that $110 office visit suddenly is $68. What tests are required vs what tests the doctor feels are necessary to fulfill legal ramifications due to overzealous lawyers.

The reason for the explosion of costs is two-fold. Tort claims. Everybody feels sorry for the guy with the broken back. Nobody feels sorry for the insurance company. So, the guys back was broken due to his own negligence (the warning sticker specifically said DO NOT OPERATE SNOWBLOWER ON ROOF), when the big bad insurance company refused to pay for his circumsion while he was a in the hospital, his (newly found advertising on Jerry Springer at 1:34 pm) lawyer sued. It was cheaper to pay $10,000 in restitution (for a $900 surgery) that risk a jury verdict of $100,000 plus $379,000 in punishment because the poor guys back is still in that big ughly brace & it looks like it might hurt.

Reason two is the HMO. Claims were made in the late 70's & early 80's that what is happening would happen. Of course, people crying foul were called skeptics & haters & puppets of big medicine. After all, isn't it cheaper to go to the doctor for a runny nose (at only $5 a pop) when, in one of a bazillion cases, it's gonzorhea. Your face might melt off if these 15 tests aren't done, in the name of PREVENTIVE MEDICINE. The generation got used to go to the quack in a box for a myriad of reasons that, in the past, were called irritating & lived with. Now they're life threatening potentials, damnit.

Top off these hypocrondriacs with a gazillion baby bommers whao are rapidly turning elderly, the ones who do need more care, more often. What happened to the $5.00 co-pay with $3.00 tests? It's now $25.00 & $38., respectively, before deductible (that thing that was so horrid back in the day of PPOs)

You've been duped folks. Today, the government is looking to take that duping & turn it into a full fledged rape. Under the current bill before Congress, big brother will have full access to your medical AND financial records (page 467 I think). Uncle Sam, the benevolent dictator, will ration care to the most capable of producing. I keep seeing hints of Marxism.

How do we fix the system? Affordable catastrophic insurance (affordable due to the high deductibles & limited coverage) alongside HSAs (health savings accounts). Pay cash for you doc, testing, etc & pay for your own insurance. Keep what's left. If nothing left, then your bill will be far less than it would have been. The HSA can be paid, tax deductible, from your own pocket or from your employer (a tax break for them) or from any other private source. Perhaps your state can kick in for the poor, should you & your fellow residents decide to cajole your state legislators to participate. Hell, perhaps you can pay your neighbors HSA since you are so caring.

Who should fix the problem? First off, I don't think there is a problem. An inconvenince caused by socialistic thinking. However, to play the game, I'll answer anyway. Who should fix the problem? YOU. Take some initiative & some personal responsibility. If you broke your leg, pay the friggin' hospital for services rendered. Don't ignore paying your bills. Don't go bankrupt. Don't pay $5. month ("cause it's all I can afford") Turn off your cable. Turn off your cell phone. Sell you Escalade with the big ugly assed wheels & buy a fucking used Kia. This will not only take care of the proble it will raise your self esteem, which, according to Anderson Cooper, is at an all time low & needs to be fixed.

The only thing progressivism (see marx, lenin, communism, sicialism) fixed is....



NOTHING.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
From no less than the Huffington Post. Even Obama's personal physician holds little hope of his health care plan working.

SOURCE

Sam Stein
[email protected]
First Posted: 07-29-09 09:58 AM | Updated: 07-29-09 02:39 PM

Obama's Doctor: President's Vision For Health Care Bound To Fail

The man Barack Obama consulted on medical matters for over two decades said on Tuesday that the president's vision for health care reform is bound for failure.

Dr. David Scheiner, a 70-year Chicago-based physician who treated Obama for more than 20 years, said he was disheartened by the health care legislation his former patient is championing, calling it piecemeal and ineffectual.

"I look at his program and I can't see how it's going to work," Scheiner told the Huffington Post. "He has no cost control. There would be no effective cost control in his program. The [Congressional Budget Office] said it's going be incredibly expensive ... and the thing that I really am worried about is, if it is the failure that I think it would be, then health reform will be set back a long, long time."

Scheiner, who prefers a more progressive approach to reform, was hesitant about trying to divine the president's motives, although he said he believed that "in his heart of hearts" Obama "may well like a single-payer program."

"His pragmatism is what is overwhelming him." Scheiner added: "I think he's afraid that he can't get anything through if he doesn't go through this incredibly compromised program."

Admitting that he was not a political practitioner, Scheiner said he felt compelled to speak out because of his unique relationship with the president and this critical moment in the health care debate. A champion of a single-payer health care system, Scheiner noted repeatedly that he came to the debate from the perspective of having dealt with the hassles and pitfalls of the current system. His speaking out is part of a larger effort, launched by Physicians for a National Health Program, to push Congress to consider single-payer as an alternative to current reform proposals.

As Scheiner sees it, all alternatives simply fall short. Keeping private insurers in the market, he warns, would simply maintain burdensome administrative costs. He argued further that the pharmaceutical industry is not being asked to make "any kind of significant sacrifices" in the current round of reform negotiations. As for a public health care option, Scheiner insists that the proposal remains vague and inadequate.

"First of all, they haven't really gone into great detail about the public option," he said. "How much is it going to cost, are they going to really undercut private health insurance by a considerable amount? Will there be any restriction that you can get for public option?"

Despite his policy critiques, Scheiner's affection for his long-time patient is quite obvious. He recalled the president as being "gracious" and "never pulling rank" when he came to his office. "Part of my shtick, is I sing songs and I love humor," Scheiner said. "I remember last time I saw him I told him a joke, he said, 'Doc, you told me that joke before.' I was so impressed he can remember my bad jokes -- this guy has to be really bright."

During the course of the campaign, Scheiner became one of the many mini-celebrities in Obama's orbit. When the then-Senator released a one-page summary documenting his health, criticism for its brevity was laid on the doc's doorstep.

"The guy was healthy, you know," Scheiner recalled. "What can you say? His only problem was that he smoked ... But there wasn't that much to say. If I had added anything it would have been pure drivel. There wasn't anything serious in his record. He'd never had anything. The guy is built like a rock, he could probably bench-press me...

"I think my most impressive time was when Jon Stewart actually mocked my report," he added. "I thought that was wonderful."

All of which makes his current criticism of Obama's health care policies all the more difficult. While Scheiner raved about the president's intellectual curiosity, he was at loss for words as to why Obama had consulted with private industry executives more than primary care physicians. And while he spoke glowingly about the president's oratorical talents, he expressed disappointment that Obama had not done more to explain the benefits of single-payer coverage to the American public.

The White House has said that the president moved away from a single-payer approach both because of philosophical objections (consumers should be allowed to keep their coverage) as well as political realities (limited support for the proposal in Congress). The administration's position increasingly resembles the maxim, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"It's a good question," Scheiner said, when asked if having watered-down reform become law was better than getting a single-payer system stalled in Congress. "Is something better than nothing? That is a hard one for me. That is a difficult one, because, in the end, I think [Obama's] program is going to fail."
 

spike

New Member
Who should fix the problem? First off, I don't think there is a problem.

Damn Gonz, you've been proved wrong several times there and still you persist. Blissfully ignoring all facts to the contrary.

My personal situation, millions of uninsured, people forced to use emergency rooms for minor matters, medical bankruptcy, sub par health services, incredible inefficiency compared to other systems, etc.

No, there's no problem. :laugh:

House Committee Approves Health-Care Package
 

spike

New Member
None the government has the right to interfere with.

They do have a right to protect their citizens from the leading causes of death. Do you think the government should remove all health care from the armed services and have them rely on private insurance?

Damn headcold. Let's go to the ER.

Exactly with proper access to doctors this wouldn't happen.

Here's a great interview with Bill Kristol on health care issues.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-27-2009/bill-kristol-extended-interview
 

spike

New Member
What’s Not to Like?

Reform? Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.



Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.

I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs—sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be—face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair.

Speaking of fair, it seems fair to me that cost-cutting bureaucrats at the insurance companies—not doctors—decide what's reimbursable. After all, the insurance companies know best.

Yes, the insurance company status quo rocks. I learned recently about something called the "loading fees" of insurance companies. That's how much of every health-care dollar gets spent by insurance companies on things other than the medical care—paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. According to a University of Minnesota study, up to 47 percent of all the money going into the health-insurance system is consumed in "loading fees." Even good insurance companies spend close to 30 percent on nonmedical stuff. Sweet.

The good news is that the $8,000 a year per family that Americans pay for their employer-based health insurance is heading up! According to the Council of Economic Advisers, it will hit $25,000 per family by 2025. The sourpusses who want health-care reform say that's "unsustainable." Au contraire.

And how could the supporters of these reform bills believe in anything as stupid as a "public option"? Do they really believe that the health-insurance cartel deserves a little competition to keep them honest? Back in the day, they had a word for competition. A bad word. They called it capitalism. FedEx versus the U.S. Postal Service, CNN versus PBS—just because it's government-backed doesn't mean you can't compete against it. If they believed in capitalism, the insurance companies would join the fray and compete.

I'm glad they don't. I prefer the status quo, where the for-profit insurance companies suck at the teat of the federal government. Corporate welfare's what we've got, and it's a damn good system. Through a wonderful program called Medicare Advantage, the insurance companies receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees to administer a program that the government is already running. Don't touch that baby. You'd be messing with the handiwork of some fine lobbyists.

You know what part of the status quo I like best? It's a longstanding system for paying doctors called "fee for service." That's where doctors get paid for each procedure they perform, as if my auto dealer got paid separately for the steering wheel, brakes, and horn instead of for the car. Fee-for-service is why the medical care at that doc-in-a-box at my mall is so superior to the Mayo Clinic or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where the doctors are on salary. Who would want to mess with that?

OK, if you really press me, I'm for one change. It's the one that Republicans trot out to prove they're "reformers," too. We could save our whole system if we just capped malpractice awards. Two of our biggest states—California and Texas—did it a few years ago and nothing has changed there, but who cares? It sounds good.

So tell your congressmen and senators when they're home for the summer recess that it's too soon to address this issue. We've only been debating it for 97 years, since Theodore Roosevelt put national health insurance in the Bull Moose Party platform of 1912. We've only had 745 congressional hearings on the subject (I made that number up, but it's got to be close). That's not enough! Let's study this problem more before we do anything about it.

Did I say "problem"? Who said there was a problem? Not me. I like the status quo.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817?digg=1
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I wonder where your Newsweek article author agenda lies...
Jonathan Alter (born October 6, 1957) is an American columnist and senior editor for Newsweek magazine, where he has worked since 1983. Alter is a Chicago, Illinois native and resident of Montclair, New Jersey. He is a contributing correspondent to NBC News, where since 1996 he has appeared on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. When the shows were on the air, he could often be heard on Imus in the Morning and The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio. He is the author of The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, published by Simon & Schuster in 2006. He graduated from Harvard University in 1979.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
I'm thankful, and satisfied with it.

It'd be nice to have no deductible, and it pay 100%, but the numbers just don't add up.
I doubt they ever will, and don't think it should.

I am open atm to charity, and provide it where I can, but making it even more gov. operated isn't good at all.
Then it's not charity, it's robin hood.

While Robin hood was a cool story, it doesn't make for good government.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
"Most people" are going by news reports. Very few can identify a specific problem, unless Geraldo told 'em.

Many people don't want insurace.
Most people don't need insurance. Pay cash at your doctor & that $110 office visit suddenly is $68. What tests are required vs what tests the doctor feels are necessary to fulfill legal ramifications due to overzealous lawyers.

The reason for the explosion of costs is two-fold. Tort claims. Everybody feels sorry for the guy with the broken back. Nobody feels sorry for the insurance company. So, the guys back was broken due to his own negligence (the warning sticker specifically said DO NOT OPERATE SNOWBLOWER ON ROOF), when the big bad insurance company refused to pay for his circumsion while he was a in the hospital, his (newly found advertising on Jerry Springer at 1:34 pm) lawyer sued. It was cheaper to pay $10,000 in restitution (for a $900 surgery) that risk a jury verdict of $100,000 plus $379,000 in punishment because the poor guys back is still in that big ughly brace & it looks like it might hurt.

Reason two is the HMO. Claims were made in the late 70's & early 80's that what is happening would happen. Of course, people crying foul were called skeptics & haters & puppets of big medicine. After all, isn't it cheaper to go to the doctor for a runny nose (at only $5 a pop) when, in one of a bazillion cases, it's gonzorhea. Your face might melt off if these 15 tests aren't done, in the name of PREVENTIVE MEDICINE. The generation got used to go to the quack in a box for a myriad of reasons that, in the past, were called irritating & lived with. Now they're life threatening potentials, damnit.

Top off these hypocrondriacs with a gazillion baby bommers whao are rapidly turning elderly, the ones who do need more care, more often. What happened to the $5.00 co-pay with $3.00 tests? It's now $25.00 & $38., respectively, before deductible (that thing that was so horrid back in the day of PPOs)

You've been duped folks. Today, the government is looking to take that duping & turn it into a full fledged rape. Under the current bill before Congress, big brother will have full access to your medical AND financial records (page 467 I think). Uncle Sam, the benevolent dictator, will ration care to the most capable of producing. I keep seeing hints of Marxism.

How do we fix the system? Affordable catastrophic insurance (affordable due to the high deductibles & limited coverage) alongside HSAs (health savings accounts). Pay cash for you doc, testing, etc & pay for your own insurance. Keep what's left. If nothing left, then your bill will be far less than it would have been. The HSA can be paid, tax deductible, from your own pocket or from your employer (a tax break for them) or from any other private source. Perhaps your state can kick in for the poor, should you & your fellow residents decide to cajole your state legislators to participate. Hell, perhaps you can pay your neighbors HSA since you are so caring.

Who should fix the problem? First off, I don't think there is a problem. An inconvenince caused by socialistic thinking. However, to play the game, I'll answer anyway. Who should fix the problem? YOU. Take some initiative & some personal responsibility. If you broke your leg, pay the friggin' hospital for services rendered. Don't ignore paying your bills. Don't go bankrupt. Don't pay $5. month ("cause it's all I can afford") Turn off your cable. Turn off your cell phone. Sell you Escalade with the big ugly assed wheels & buy a fucking used Kia. This will not only take care of the proble it will raise your self esteem, which, according to Anderson Cooper, is at an all time low & needs to be fixed.

The only thing progressivism (see marx, lenin, communism, sicialism) fixed is....



NOTHING.
Most of what you said was made up, so I won't respond to it. I'm not saying that there aren't frivolous lawsuits, because we know there are. Just like we know there are people put in our prison system who were not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I do not believe socialism fixes anything, it makes lazy citizens. However, we DO have a problem with our healthcare. Offering cash to the doctor does not lower the cost (I've tried). There is a law on the books now that prevents a doctor from lowering the fee for service for individuals, but an insurance company can bargain the cost down. (Sorry, no time to look up the law, this was quoted to me from a doctor himself.)
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
0bama is doing a "townhall" today.

That is, of course, if you consider nothing but dem plants and 0bots cheering like he is some kind of a hero a "townhall."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top