[hide=]

It's illegal in the US to discriminate against people due to genetic problems - you can't be denied insurance or have your premiums increased.

 

This is misleading/wrong. An insurance company can't discriminate against someone if they have say a gene which gives them a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer, but they can discriminate against people who have actual diseases/problems caused by genetics.

 

 

 

I think calling that discrimination is implying the wrong thing. The point of an insurance company is to make money. If they are forced to insure people with conditions that will always cause a loss, then they won't make money. Of course, insurance companies shouldn't be able to scan your genes and deny you based upon slight risk genes; but if someone is already affected by a disease the company can't profit and as such won't insure them. It would be like making the insurance company give you fire insurance after your house is torched.

 

That's a fundamental problem with our health care system in America. Born with a disease that will cost you and your family a large amount of money over a life time, well sucks for you.

 

 

 

The other problem is that insurance companies should not be out there to make huge profits. Insurance exists for the purpose to spread risk among a large group of people. If you can afford health insurance you could just as well afford checkups and minor health issues which arise from time to time, but you likely can't afford a catastrophic health issue, which is what insurance exists to protect you from. Insurance companies should not have to take an overall loss, but there is no reason health insurance should be run as a for profit business.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Insurance companies being for profit is a good system; it makes them compete to offer the best services at the best price.(remember even a government system has a cost in taxes/lost income for taxpayers, however you want to look at that). I think both sides agree on a large amount of the issues here; something needs to be done to protect those who are born with diseases, reform is needed to focus on preventitive treatment etc.

 

 

 

What I think the main issue is a debate over whether a private company or the government should be in charge of the health care industry. Personally, I want to see a private system that is regulated by government people who know what they are dealing with. It is better for a company to be trying to gain profit while it is regulated to have to do certain things, then for the government(in terms of US) which manages to screw up just about everything to try and control the entire business. To me, it comes down to a matter of faith in the American government(or government where you are debating health care); I have more faith in a company trying to earn a profit through insurance then I do in the government managing the same system.

 

 

 

Finally, reform is better then complete overall. We should be looking into fixing every problem in private healthcare before we throw in the towel; after all what message does it send if we just give up when things are difficult?

 

 

 

edit--except for the cigarrette tax I agree with barihawk(uncertain how I feel about cigarette taxes)

The only people who whine about the Canadian health system are those that are too impatient to wait in a waiting room for over half an hour. That's what really picks my nerve, close to being violent. Those types of people claim they have lost their rights, wasting their time waiting for a doctor that will treat them for free. This add really pissed me off, not because I'm Canadian but because they're feeding the public wrong information in order to gain their own personal benefit.

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

 

 

Same.

 

 

 

What also grinds my nerves is the people that go there for almost nothing, just a small flu or something.

I don't see why both public and private medical care can't work side by side.

 

The main problem is that doctors will only go to Private companies for employment. The government pays for their education (around 100,000$ CAD for a general doc) and they go off either to private Canadian companies or to the US. It creates a huge money deficit and a shortage of general doctors, because specialists in Canada are still relatively well payed.

 

 

 

I agree, that would be a problem which is why any government funded scheme wouldf have to ensure that doctors were paid a competative wage to discourage them jumping ship. Additionally, you could add a minimum service system similar to what the military does when they pay your way through college/university.

You're making a gross general assumption that the only complaints about the Canadian Health Care System come from impatient people at the emergency room. You seem to forget that the waiting period of some MRIs can be over a year. For someone who is in pain and needs the MRI to find out what is wrong with them one day is too long to wait. Although, I have to agree that the care we get is excellent (regardless of the wait) for the taxes we pay (it's not free healthcare).

Eh whatever, Americans can keep their [cabbage]ty health care system for all I care; as long as the Canadian one stays the same.

You're making a gross general assumption that the only complaints about the Canadian Health Care System come from impatient people at the emergency room. You seem to forget that the waiting period of some MRIs can be over a year. For someone who is in pain and needs the MRI to find out what is wrong with them one day is too long to wait. Although, I have to agree that the care we get is excellent (regardless of the wait) for the taxes we pay (it's not free healthcare).

 

 

 

From experience, I had a man threaten to sue one of our doctors because his wife's MRI results were a day late. Now, we had transmitted those results four times already, so the third party clinic (private practitioner) was the faulty party, but things like that can mean a lot to a person.

 

Free health care isn't free, you pay for it in taxes.

 

 

 

It depends which system you're talking about. In Britain? Yes, that's true. It's not true in a vast array of other systems. It's not true in Germany, it's not true in France, it's not true in the Netherlands.

 

 

 

The other fact is that the United States is traditionally on the forefront of medical advances. Open heart surgery, organ transplants, cancer treatments, endoscopic surgery, and the first use of stem cells were all things first done in US hospitals. This has happened since there is so much money in the system that people are driven to discover new techniques so they can sell them to surgeons in the US and make millions. Remove the wealth, remove a lot of the motivation.

 

 

 

Problem: most evidence shows these surgeries and procedures are WHY our costs are spiraling out of control, and moreover, have provided for little to no benefit. Doctors are giving people in this country surgeries that they frankly don't need; tests that they don't need; medicine that they don't need.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the innovation of the American system has nothing to do with the privatization of it because the innovator has been the National Institutes of Health, a government organization and branch of the State Department.

 

 

 

Ok, it's a little blanketed to say privatization has "nothing" to do with it, but it's disingenuous in my opinion to say that innovation will go down versus saying it could go down.

 

 

 

Here's some reading on it:

 

 

 

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 260b25edd4

 

 

 

It's also easier for other countries to go socialized since the US remains a capitalistic system.

 

 

 

Are you saying that Britain, France, Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Spain, and pretty much every other industrialized western nation are all NOT capitalist? The only country that even comes close to being socialist on that list is Sweden, and they're still far off the mark. Sweden has less intervention in their markets than we do. If companies are on the verge of failing, they let them; the difference is that Sweden sets up barriers so that companies collapsing will not result in economic meltdown.

 

 

 

Like the commercial showed, citizens of other counties have little to loose by getting socialized medicine since if they want they could just go to the US for new and expensive treatments.

 

 

 

Or, you know, the commercial is lying:

 

 

 

"Dr. Naresh Patel, neurosurgeon, diagnosed Holmes as having a Rathke's cleft cyst (RCC). The rare, fluid-filled sac grows near the pituitary gland at the base of the brain and eventually can cause hormone and vision problems. Dr. Patel joined forces with Drs. David W. Do[bleep], neurologist, and Michael D. Whitaker, endocrinologist, to work on Holmes' case."

 

 

 

A cyst is not the same thing as a tumor, and it's not life threatening as she claimed in the commercial. Not only is a cyst not a tumor, it's not in the same ball park, it's not in the same league, it's not in the same sport.

 

 

 

 

 

Not so sound arrogant or patriotic but the U.S. has what is widly known as the best hospitals in the world.

 

 

 

If you can afford them.

 

 

 

[in the hieght of the cold war the Russian Prime Minister needed eye surgery and he went to Johns Hopkins (in Balitimore) since no hospital in his country could do the surgery.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Industry ... 839&page=1

 

 

 

Anecdotes are cool.

 

 

 

So like I said, its easy and conviniant for places like Canada or France to go socialized health care. Everyone gets access to free basic care, and medical advances are still being developed by counties like Japan and the US.

 

 

 

Japan has "socialized" health care.

 

 

 

If someone gets really sick and the system can't care for them, they just go to the U.S. and get world class treatment.

 

 

 

This doesn't happen/only happens on rare occasion, and if they can't wait for a hip replacement that's not life threatening, they can buy private insurance to make up for it.

 

 

 

The U.S. going full socialized medicare will be... interesting.

 

 

 

The only countries that are really "full scale" are Britain and Canada, but I'd say Britain is by far the most socialist as its doctors and nurses are employed by the government. The rest of the countries use the Bismarck model, which has a mix of public and private; mostly where the private is supplemental. There's a push to go to this model in Canada, and some provinces want to do it, but the talking points from their populists are "We don't want to go American for health care."

 

 

 

But all that being said, I'm still for the idea. I just pray it doesn't bankrupt the tax payers and hinder our medical advances that much.

 

 

 

What is bankrupting our system is the status quo. 8-16% increases in health care costs in 1 year is not sustainable when 17% of our GDP is already spent on health care.

 

 

 

And most of all, we need to remove the regulations around our drugs that protect the pharmacuetical corporations from competition. They have the luxury of patenting their drugs and not having any other corporation competing with it because of government protection. Hell, this Senate bill gives them 12 years of protection for biotech drugs. That's ridiculous. It should be 5 years just like every other drug; Obama wants the provision to be 7, the drug companies want 15.

I have a legit issue with the 'free for all' care. It's equally crappy care for all. I have nice insurance because my dad's worked hard and gotten a nice job. I have type 1 diabetes. With it, you can have shots, use insulin pens, or use an insulin pump. I have an insulin pump, and it's amazing and has made my life a ton better. They cost about $4000 apiece (most insurances only cover one every four years, most pumps have a 4 year warranty). If I lived in the UK or Canada, I would have much worse care, and would still be on shots because of the huge waiting lists they have for government-provided medical devices. I was actually on the government-run child health care insurance thing for a month because of a gap in our insurance coverage when my dad switched jobs. It ended up being a fiasco, because while we still paid some for it (it was like $100 a month or something) they ended up giving us a year's coverage when I only needed it for 1 month. The state ended up paying for our normal copay on a ton of my pump supplies. If they ran it better it would work better.

 

 

 

Basically what I'm saying is that the US has a better health care system because the government doesn't run it. When the government gets mixed up in stuff, it dies. We still have insurance for older people, kids, and people with disabilities/etc. It generally covers the stuff that needs to be covered. We don't need a new government run health care system. It'll fail and ruin many people's lives (-in my case, my dad's employer could choose to stop providing insurance, I would get stuck on state/fed health care, probably wouldn't be able to see my endo, not be able to afford a new insulin pump, and might not be able to afford the insulin (though I assume they would pay for that...))

 

 

 

My sister has had diabetes for a few years now, I live in Canada, and they have taken wonderful care of her. She's on pens she takes usually after meals, but only because she chooses to, as they really aren't a hassle.

I didn't have too much of a problem with Barihawk's (last) post because for the most part, hospitals aren't the problem as a lot of them are non-profit. But a few things (problems) caught my eye. I will address his others later on; I'm too tired to go through the others at the moment.

 

 

 

Before I start, I suggest everyone read this article:

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... rentPage=5

 

 

 

Tell me there's not enough money to get health insurance, I dare you.

 

 

 

There probably is, if, you know, they were more educated about finances, and if the insurance company would take them on. The biggest point you're missing is not the 47 million who aren't insured; although they are a problem because they're costing me money by not being insured (going to the ER when they should be getting preventive treatment/general practitioner). It's that hundreds of millions are UNDERinsured, and the insurance company that dropped from their plan because the insurance company doesn't want to keep their end of the deal. There's also the issue of people who aren't insured who cannot get it because of pre-existing conditions, and the practice of rescissions.

 

 

 

Let's put a 300% tax on cigs and use that to fund healthcare reform.

 

 

 

Or, not...as that would cause a lot of crime because of the underground tobacco industry that would form, would cause the people who need health care the most to not be able to afford it, and would only exacerbate the problem.

 

 

 

And please (I just read the most recent post before this) do not demonize doctors because a handful of private practicioners charge high prices. The vast majority of medical professionals in this country (who work in hospitals and affiliated clinics) are some of the kindest and sweetest people I have ever met. They do what they are doing because they earnestly care in helping others and following their Oath.

 

 

 

Not really. The focus on health in this country isn't correct with its incentives. Basically, in a nut-shell: health care is a bad business model.

 

 

 

Also, any child under 18 is eligible for Medicaid and any adult over 60 Medicare. These greatly alleviate healthcare costs for the demographics that require the most need for medicine.

 

 

 

Sort of. They don't alleviate the cost of health care, they just provide it. They may have been able to alleviate the cost if the 2007 bill was passed so that Medicare had the ability to negotiate prices, but the GOP and the corporatist Democrats voted against it. Medicare is going to bankrupt America if the status quo is not changed and reformed.

 

 

 

I mean seriously guys, if you are going to demonize these institutions, you need to do your own research instead of listening to idiots with an agenda (ala Michael Moore).

 

 

 

Lol, talk about hypocrisy. Guys with an agenda. I'm a guy with an agenda, you're a guy with an agenda...everyone has an agenda. What matters is what their agenda is. The insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and the system they've instituted with doctors also have an agenda; an agenda for their share holders. I'm not saying all doctors, but selling out is very easy, and it's very tempting. They're not necessarily after profits, but the research and evidence is clear that their connections with drug companies have a high impact on what they prescribe, and how much they prescribe it:

 

 

 

http://www.chestjournal.org/content/102/1/270.abstract

 

 

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/283/3/373#ACK

 

 

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/e5441404107008n8/

 

 

 

Look, I'm not saying Michael Moore isn't a blowhard; he is. I'm not saying he doesn't distort things in his documentaries, he does; he doesn't show both sides of the coin. However, by and large, what Michael Moore stated was correct: the insurance companies, big pharma companies and the AMA (at times, as they have been stopping health care reform since the 1930's) want to keep America sick, and fill their share holders pockets with money.

 

 

 

Hell, an ex-CIGNA CEO just came out on Bill Moyers:

 

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html

 

 

 

I think that with reform to the existing system, laws regarding medicine (like malpractice laws), and reform in the insurance industry, we can provide healthcare to all without screwing over half the population and raising healthcare costs for those who would prefer private medicine.

 

 

 

That'd be nice, but the Republicans aren't interested in reform, they never have been, and they never will be. They're strictly out to kill reform at any cost because of politics.

 

 

 

So are you for or against a public option which would operate in a similar fashion as the Post Office competing with UPS and Fedex?

If I may say so, the Democrats are equally opposed to reform in malpractice lawsuits. You also accuse the AMA of being greedy in the old system, when they are throwing their support behind the new proposed bill.

 

 

 

I'm sorry magekllr, but I feel this is your personal views getting in the way of discussion. There are flaws with both conservative and liberal approaches to healthcare, and the two sides need to come to a consensus on how to deal with it instead of constantly trying to ramrod their party's agenda any time they have control of Congress.

 

 

 

The Conservative plan is to educate people into being healthier and taking more control of their own lives. Unfortunately, people don't often like to learn (I took a phone call today for a woman asking to book an appointment to have her Rx refilled. I told her it would be three weeks when she frantically informed me that she only had one pill left). The Liberal argument is that the government should provide for the people, when this will lead to more lax behavior from patients ("oh, the government will take care of it") and they will less proactively care for their own health.

 

 

 

A balance needs to be struck, and neither side seems to want to compromise. I, along with a sizeable part of the nation, think that we are rushing into a 1 trillion+ dollar mistake. Socialized medicine can work, but not like this. This just seems like a half-assed pork-filled bill that the Democrats want to ramrod through while they still have the majority before the lowering approval ratings for Congress lead to a more balanced representation in the next round of elections.

If I may say so, the Democrats are equally opposed to reform in malpractice lawsuits. You also accuse the AMA of being greedy in the old system, when they are throwing their support behind the new proposed bill.

 

 

 

I'm sorry magekllr, but I feel this is your personal views getting in the way of discussion. There are flaws with both conservative and liberal approaches to healthcare, and the two sides need to come to a consensus on how to deal with it instead of constantly trying to ramrod their party's agenda any time they have control of Congress.

 

 

 

The Conservative plan is to educate people into being healthier and taking more control of their own lives. Unfortunately, people don't often like to learn (I took a phone call today for a woman asking to book an appointment to have her Rx refilled. I told her it would be three weeks when she frantically informed me that she only had one pill left). The Liberal argument is that the government should provide for the people, when this will lead to more lax behavior from patients ("oh, the government will take care of it") and they will less proactively care for their own health.

 

 

 

A balance needs to be struck, and neither side seems to want to compromise. I, along with a sizeable part of the nation, think that we are rushing into a 1 trillion+ dollar mistake. Socialized medicine can work, but not like this. This just seems like a half-assed pork-filled bill that the Democrats want to ramrod through while they still have the majority before the lowering approval ratings for Congress lead to a more balanced representation in the next round of elections.

 

 

 

This is a political strategy, just say "compromise" without offering a true meaning of what that means. It is a dishonest way trying of create a win-win situation.

 

 

 

It is very easy to just blankly say "compromise", but what exactly does that mean? The way I see it there are two paths: the right wing one and the left wing one. Both are plans that functional, and will have different results and different effects. I happpen to believe that government almost never effectively controls anything, and I don't want them any where near my health care.

 

 

 

If you compromise, then that usually means that you dont have a plan at all. You just have a giant pork bill with the label "health care" that is designed to fool people into thinking that Congress is doing (or not doing, as I and millons of others would prefer) anything.

 

 

 

Congress is blaming the insurance companies for problems that they created by passing laws without considering the results of those laws. They encouraged malpractice lawsuits, they supported badly considered nationial mandates, they inadventently caused health insurance to raise. Corporations are an easy target for critisism, but I bet an inexperienced health insurance agent knows more about health care than all of congress combined.

 

 

 

If you "compromise" then you don't have an effective plan, you just have a pork filled mess. It's just a huge waste of paper

If I may say so, the Democrats are equally opposed to reform in malpractice lawsuits.

 

 

 

Ok. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fact is that no matter what concessions would be made with regard to malpractice lawsuits, Republicans would vote against the bill. It can be seen time and time again with every piece of legislation that no matter what concessions are made, they will vote against it; barring a few drifters who are later called "traitors." The goal posts for "bipartisanship" are constantly moving, too, as can be seen with Chuck Grassley's recent comments about wanting 80 votes in the Senate bill. Lol, as if. We couldn't get 80 votes if the Democrats voted for the bill and they gave the Republicans everything they wanted, simply because it has a Democratic label on it.

 

 

 

Now, specifically about malpractice suits...if you're suggesting "tort reform," that's not going to help anything much.

 

 

 

What we need to do is follow Scandinavia's model for malpractice (and their model for...life). Here's how it works.

 

 

 

Anyone is allowed to fill out a malpractice form; ANYONE. As a matter of fact, they have far more requests for medical malpractice than the United States does (three times the amount). The form goes to a board of medical doctors, and a few elected officials. As a rough estimate, 40% of the forms result in awards to the patient; FAR higher than the United States. However, they have pre-set values for what the medical malpractice involves. For example, and I'm making this number up, but they would offer 100,000 Euro for a lost hand. Maximum damages are set at approximately $1.2 million dollars.

 

 

 

However, if you're unhappy with your settlement, you can appeal it in court. However, usually trials result in less amounts given than the board gives you, so it's not necessarily in your best interest if you're sue happy. The maximum award is $730,000.

 

 

 

There's one final board that reviews the malpractice suit, and decides whether or not to discipline the doctor. This usually does not happen (1 in 5), and very rarely (1 in 100) the doctor's license is removed.

 

 

 

Why or how is this effective? Well, the board throws out approximately 50% of the cases, ruling them frivolous. The average payout is around $10,000; compared to an average payout of $300,000 in the United States. Their overhead is also lower because they, for the most part, do not have the need for lawyers, judges and courts.

 

 

 

Sources:

 

 

 

http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/bullet ... an0104.pdf

 

 

 

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/conte ... t/27/5/833

 

 

 

Here's another source for why "tort reform" should be on the backburner:

 

 

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

 

 

 

You also accuse the AMA of being greedy in the old system, when they are throwing their support behind the new proposed bill.

 

 

 

I do accuse them of being greedy, and I still do. I don't want their endorsement. As a matter of fact, when they endorsed the bill (after previously opposing it), the first thing that went through my mind was, "What kick back are they getting in this bill and why haven't I found it yet?"

 

 

 

So, I decided to look why they endorsed it, and I didn't have to look far:

 

 

 

So what's in it for the docs? The medical community came into this debate with two big concerns. One is the financial and emotional burden of malpractice lawsuits. The other is the annually scheduled reduction in Medicare payments, known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula, that the AMA and other physicians lobbies end up fighting every summer when it's about to take effect.

 

 

 

SGR, at least, has very much been on the table, as readers of this blog may recall:

 

 

 

Over the past few weeks, according to sources, House committee staff have been involved in serious negotiations with representatives of various physician groups, attempting to win their overt support not just for reform but for a public plan option specifically. As an enticement, they've been promising to fix permanently the SGR problem--that is, the annually scheduled adjustment to the "sustainable growth rate" in Medicare, which threaten increasingly large cuts in physician payments before Congress inevitably postpones changes for a year. Reformers, including President Obama, have already talked about doing this; apparently, the offer the House Dems are making is to follow through on this and to make it a good, solid fix.

 

 

 

And, sure enough, the AMA talks about the SGR fix in its letter, endorsing reform that:

 

 

 

Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;

 

 

 

(Emphasis mine.) Changing the SGR is expensive, probaby $200 to $300 billion over the course of ten years, depending on the details. And that's on top of the cost of expanding insurance coverage. But, to be clear, the SGR adjustments were becoming a farce. If they are part of a package that includes payment reforms designed to improve quality and reduce health care costs over the long run, it'd be money well spent.

 

 

 

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_trea ... -bill.aspx

 

 

 

The AMA has ALWAYS been against health care reform; always. From FDR, to Truman, to Johnson, to Nixon, to Clinton and now to Obama. It seems he brokered a deal with them with this. However, it's also important to note that the AMA doesn't have nearly the influence that they used to have.

 

 

 

I'm sorry magekllr, but I feel this is your personal views getting in the way of discussion.

 

 

 

My personal views reflect facts. I don't endorse things for ideological reasons. If the private industry was sufficient at keeping down costs, could get everyone in America insured, then I would support them.

 

 

 

My personal view is that we should be going with a single payer plan and and allowing most of the population to purchase private supplemental insurance like France does. Despite being single payer, however, they're still more like the Bismarck model because so many people purchase private supplemental that it's more like everyone being in a public plan than relying solely on it for care like Canada and Britain do.

 

 

 

This is why I don't give a damn if there's a single payer plan, a public plan, a co-op, or w/e. All I want is a bill that gets everyone insured, keeps costs down, and keeps private insurers to keep it this way. Every other country has shown how it can be down, and how it should be done. The best model, in my opinion, for the best health care for the return on the cost is France. They're not the cheapest, but they provide the best health care for the cost. If I wanted the cheapest, I'd want Britain's model.

 

 

 

The route Obama has decided to go is with Germany's/the Netherlands', where they have a public plan, private insurers, and an insurance mandate. It's an odd mix of the two, because the Netherlands also has an employer based model, but we pick up Germany's model with allowing everyone access to the public option. The Netherlands limits their public option to the poor and old, and requires the young, healthy and wealthy to buy private insurance.

 

 

 

There are flaws with both conservative and liberal approaches to healthcare, and the two sides need to come to a consensus on how to deal with it instead of constantly trying to ramrod their party's agenda any time they have control of Congress.

 

 

 

Yeah, I agree. So, how many concessions do Democrats have to make before Republicans will vote for it? 90% of Republicans won't vote for a bill with a public option despite the fact that it will bring down costs, their number one "enemy." I put enemy in quotes because they never thought of how to pay for their tax cuts for the rich, their Iraq war, or their Medicaid/care "reform." They won't vote for something that has a health insurance exchange so that if you change jobs/lose your job you don't lose your insurance. They won't vote for a national entity that has negotiating power and sets prices where negotiations start (like France does). They wouldn't vote for anything even if there was every concession in the world to them simply because it's Obama's bill, and they cannot let whatever he does be a success. It's as plain as day, man. Bill Kristol wrote a secret memo in the 90's that Republicans should not negotiate, but they should kill the bill. He wrote the same thing for the Weekly Standard about Obama, this time making it public. Jim DeMint has said that this will be "Obama's Waterloo" if we block health care reform. "It will break him." You can read their memo full of talking points right here, and here's a few doosies:

 

 

 

* President Obama and Democrats are conducting a grand experiment with our economy, our country, and now our health care.

 

 

 

* President Obama's massive spending experiments have created more debt than at any other time in our nation's history.

 

 

 

* The President experimented with a $780 billion dollar budget-busting stimulus plan and unemployment is still rising. The President experimented with banks and auto companies, and now we're on the hook for tens of billions of dollars with no exit plan.

 

 

 

* Now the President is proposing more debt and more risk through a trillion dollar experiment with our health care.

 

 

 

* Democrats are proposing a government controlled health insurance system, which will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see.

 

 

 

* This health care experiment will have consequences for generations, but President Obama and Democrats want to ram this legislation through Congress in two months.

 

 

 

* President Obama's health care experiment is too much, too fast, too soon. Our country cannot afford to fix health care through a rushed experiment.

 

 

 

* Americans want health care reform that addresses, not increases, cost or debt.

 

 

 

* Government takeover is the wrong way to go -- health care decisions should remain between the doctor and the patient.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/2 ... 41940.html

 

 

 

Don't blast the source...the memo is inside. Don't even read the article, just go straight to the bottom.

 

 

 

It's obvious what they're trying to do. This bullcrap about "slowing it down so we can understand what we're voting for" is absolute malarkey. They want to slow it down so they can have a month break, allow the conservative for patients' rights ads to air in the Democratic districts, and get the blue dog democrats to vote with them against the bill because of their nervous constituents being scared of absolute lies.

 

 

 

Speaking of Conservatives For Patients' Rights, the guy who started that organization was involved in the biggest health care scandal in this country, for billions of dollars:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L. ... raud_cases

 

 

 

The Conservative plan is to educate people into being healthier and taking more control of their own lives.

 

 

 

This is the liberal plan as well. For example, the NHS has a great program that takes people out shopping, showing them what they should buy, how to plan a budget, and what foods to avoid. I've seen their conservative party call this program a waste because "the information is readily available online or at their fingertips."

 

 

 

Why can't this be included in such an option that Obama is proposing?

 

 

 

Speaking of all this, I want a trans fat tax, and I want a total reform of school lunch menus. I want a ban on soda and candy vending machines in public schools. These are all a major contributor to child hood diabetes and obesity, and this trend must be reversed.

 

 

 

However, food reform and such can come later. The most important thing right now is to get everyone insured and bend the cost curve in the other direction. We can worry about what choices people make once they're insured.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, people don't often like to learn (I took a phone call today for a woman asking to book an appointment to have her Rx refilled. I told her it would be three weeks when she frantically informed me that she only had one pill left).

 

 

 

She's probably selling her pills and/or her spouse/children are stealing them. I suspect it's the former.

 

 

 

he Liberal argument is that the government should provide for the people, when this will lead to more lax behavior from patients ("oh, the government will take care of it") and they will less proactively care for their own health.

 

 

 

Erm, no it doesn't. Americans are for less conscious of their health than any other people on this planet, and the government doesn't take care of them. They indulge in grotesque size meals, drink corn syrup, and inject liquid fat into their veins and arteries.

 

 

 

Health care choices are important in reducing the amount of people getting sick, and preventing them from even entering the ER. However, this can't happen when they're not educated on the topic, and when they're not insured to have a doctor give them some recommendations and preventive care in the first place.

 

 

 

A balance needs to be struck, and neither side seems to want to compromise. I, along with a sizeable part of the nation, think that we are rushing into a 1 trillion+ dollar mistake. Socialized medicine can work, but not like this. This just seems like a half-assed pork-filled bill that the Democrats want to ramrod through while they still have the majority before the lowering approval ratings for Congress lead to a more balanced representation in the next round of elections.

 

 

 

What does "pork" mean? Pork seems to mean any spending that's not for the Military Industrial Complex these days.

 

 

 

Lol. God I wish this plan was as "liberal" as you're making it out to be. This plan is practically a give away to insurance companies because there will be a mandate. There's no other way to ensure that everyone is covered, barring a single payer system. It's a give away to Pharma, who get protection on their drug patents for 12 years (as the bill stands now).

 

 

 

More balanced representation? Dude, get a clue. What's left of the GOP is a bunch of angry, white, far far right, religious nationalists. The Democratic party has so many conservatives in it opposing Obama that we don't even need the GOP at this point. They're just noise.

 

 

 

While the Democrats are working on health care, we have 9 Republican representatives proposing a bill asking for the President's birth certificate. We have an opposition party that doesn't believe in evolution. We have an opposition party that claims global warming is a hoax, and the response is thunderous applause. We have an opposition party that presents a budget without numbers, and instead puts a charts and arrows. We have an opposition party who is not bringing a single idea to the table and is only opposing what the President wants to do.

 

 

 

When Arlen Specter is considered "left enough" to become a Democrat, there is something seriously wrong with the political discourse that you're framing. Right now the Democrats are about as right wing as the Republicans used to be in the 1960's and 1970's. Eisenhower was to the left of Obama. Richard Nixon's health care plan was pretty much what Obama is currently proposing, just to give you some perspective of how far right this nation has shifted since religion became politicized with Ronald Reagan.

Oh good. I was hoping at least one of the parties would be shifting in it's politics soon. It might be the Democrats, but hey. Anything's better than what we've had for political ideologies of the Parties in the last decade. If you haven't noticed, I and many other moderates are pretty pissed with the Republicans post-Bush (I mean, he wasn't nearly this bad) and their recent surge of right-wing hiijinks. I think that while they need to represent the ideals of the Party, they also need to GET STUFF DONE and propose real legislation that benefits Americans instead of constantly trying to slander the Democrats. They don't need to. The polls show that Americans are not very satisfied with the President as was expected, and Congress' "out of control spending" seems to be the biggest comment given on lowering approval ratings for Congress. The Democrats don't need help routing themselves back into the so-called balance. What we do need is a new generation of Congressman who puts his country first and his party second. Unfortunately this may require Party reform which is...yeah, unlikely to happen.

 

 

 

Oh, and the lady is not selling pills. I meant to mention in the post that we get that call every ten minutes. People earnestly just wait until the last minute and then freak out. We monitor length of Rx draw when filling orders, so if they come back too often we get suspicious. It's fairly easy to root out who's coming in just to get the "good stuff" and those who really need the medication.

 

 

 

And that malpractice reform is exactly what I think we need. Caps on how much people can sue for. That alone will bring down medical bills by a hefty amount. Which is something that benefits every man, woman, and child (sans lawyer) in this nation.

I don't disagree that they need to put party second and the people first, but it's not going to happen. It will never happen. But that's ok. That's why I blast both parties when I think their ideas are dumb. I could care less about the Democratic Party. When all of that hubub started with Nancy Pelosi and the CIA, I urged an investigation of everything (and I still do *cough* Eric Holder you better investigate or I'm not voting in 2012 *cough*). I believed she would be vindicated as it's not a surprise that the CIA would hide things from Congress, and I was right (she was vindicated).

 

 

 

Party loyalty is foolish. However, because of how right wing both parties have shifted, there's no chance in hell I'd vote for a Republican in the near future. It's just gotten so ridiculous. The racism, the sexism, the homophobia, etc. I mean, seriously...calling Obama a socialist? Please, the man's not even a liberal. If he were a politician in Canada, he'd be in the Conservative Party. The only other political system that's this messed up is Britain's, although it's not nearly as bad.

 

 

 

Speaking of party loyalty, here's another new gem from the GOP, admitting that they want to kill health care reform for the 2010 elections:

 

 

 

[yt]apstme71AZk[/yt]

 

 

 

And for those out there who believe, that would like to have something optimistic to look at, we are plotting the demise on a week by week basis of where Bill Clinton was in 1993 and where Obama is today and his demise ratio is greater than Clintons was in 1993. So, hes trying to do the same things, except more extreme.

 

 

 

[snip]

 

 

 

I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And thats going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.

 

 

 

Thanks, James Inhofe!

 

 

 

And about caps: I don't think caps are needed. Malpractice suits account for a small amount of health care expenditures in this country. However, I don't deny it could use tweaking. Here's an idea from HRC and BO from when they were in the Senate, and it was killed in committee. It's shown results in over 300 hospitals around the country, with suits dropping about 68% from 2001 to 2007:

 

 

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful ... ?query=TOC

 

 

 

This is a similar idea to the Scandinavian system, as explained by USA Today:

 

 

 

For nearly a decade, the University of Michigan Health System has been using a program in which patients report errors to a hospital "risk-management" program before filing suit. The hospital investigates and, if warranted, issues an apology and an offer of compensation to the patient. If the patient turns that down, he or she can go to court. The vast majority settle. The system moves quickly, sometimes catching errors before they're reported.

 

 

 

In August 2001, there were 262 open claims against the medical center. In 2007, the number was 83. Some Michigan lawyers who represent patients praise the system quite a testament to its ability to treat injured patients fairly.

 

 

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/ ... -heal.html

 

 

 

Caps and awards are not the issue. The number of suits are.

 

 

 

And here's more about it:

Insurance regulations, not liability caps, reduce rates

 

 

 

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/documents/1008.pdf

This is a great article by The New Yorker that everyone interested in the state of health care in America should read.

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ct_gawande

I am with Barihawk on this one. I hate to say this, but +1.

 

 

 

Let's hope Congress reads this bill this time. :lol:

Lol, Americans.

Just wanted to post that there is a good discussion going on right now here

 

 

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... genumber=1

 

 

 

on this very subject, and there are some knowledgeable people posting

This is a great article by The New Yorker that everyone interested in the state of health care in America should read.

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ct_gawande

 

 

 

For reference, McAllen has one of the six hospitals in Texas that are not operated under a not-for-profit agreement with the government. As such, they get no extra funding and have to pay taxes. It's fair to say that they would be greedy in trying to get their investment's worth. Why a profit hospital? Because McAllen is so remote that the not-for-profit groups had a difficult time trying to establish care, the PA-based profit medical firm swooped in and took advantage of the situation.

 

 

 

Almost every major metropolitan area has a religious-based non-profit healthcare system in place that gives away not only free care to a LOT of people, but operates specialized clinics in rural areas that allow those patients to avoid profit doctors as well. In addition, all lab appointments are free of charge to both patient and insurance.

 

 

 

Of course, this is the New Yorker. A magazine with a very poignant agenda that prides itself on it's ability to present a facade to it's readers (being a magazine marketed at the "wealthy intellectual elite" but really designed for those who wish to be). If the journalist had spent those eight pages reviewing other hospital networks in the state, it would have been a much different article. Yes, they are screwing people out there. But also realize that programs like Medicare are stretched extremely thin (because Hillary avoided all those questions about the baby boomers hitting that nice age about 15 years ago). No attempt has been made to regulate or reform what we have.

Everyone come to John "cow farts cause global warming" Boehner's Beach Party Fundraiser!:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) took the unusual step of requesting the House clerk to read aloud a 55-page motion to recommit, a process that took over 40 minutes. The obstructionist tactic, the Politicos Glenn Thrush reports, appears to have been orchestrated by the GOP in order to delay House proceedings so Republicans could attend the annual Boehner Beach Party fundraising event at the Cantina Marina, a D.C. restaurant near the waterfront.

 

 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthru ... party.html

 

 

 

It's just a coincidence, right?

Another coincidence? :roll:

 

 

 

Shares of U.S. health insurers rose broadly on Tuesday on hopes a health reform bill would not include a government-run option, which has drawn strong opposition from insurers who fear it would destroy the private marketplace.

 

 

 

The S&P Managed Health Care index of large U.S. health insurers closed 6.5 percent higher.

 

 

 

Aetna rose 12.6 percent, Coventry was up 12.7 percent and Cigna was 7.7 percent higher, all on the New York Stock Exchange. Centene rose 7.9 percent.

 

 

 

Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_ ... healthcare

 

 

 

Apparently, an ad for PatientsUnitedNow.com features a "Canadian" woman who escaped Canada's "horrible" health care by traveling to the United States to get her brain tumor operated on. I find these type of ads very offensive because they brainwash the American populace into thinking that the US is superior over every other nation on Earth. This is probably one of the most blatantly offensive political commercials that I've seen aired on public TV.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on commercials such as these?

 

 

 

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.)

 

 

 

Apparently, an ad for PatientsUnitedNow.com features a "Canadian" woman who escaped Canada's "horrible" health care by traveling to the United States to get her brain tumor operated on. I find these type of ads very offensive because they brainwash the American populace into thinking that the US is superior over every other nation on Earth. This is probably one of the most blatantly offensive political commercials that I've seen aired on public TV.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on commercials such as these?

 

 

 

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.)

 

 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 052609.php

 

 

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... ll/21/3/19

 

 

 

And a conservative bunks the argument that innovation would be hurt if we went to a single payer system:

 

 

 

http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medica ... n-mcardle/

 

 

 

Apparently, an ad for PatientsUnitedNow.com features a "Canadian" woman who escaped Canada's "horrible" health care by traveling to the United States to get her brain tumor operated on. I find these type of ads very offensive because they brainwash the American populace into thinking that the US is superior over every other nation on Earth. This is probably one of the most blatantly offensive political commercials that I've seen aired on public TV.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on commercials such as these?

 

 

 

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.)

 

The US might have some of the best hospitals in the world for people who can afford it, but the point is the US healthcare system is probably one of the worst in the "civilised" world for ordinary people due to patients being at the mercy of insurance companies who only care about how much profit they can make.

 

 

 

Apparently, an ad for PatientsUnitedNow.com features a "Canadian" woman who escaped Canada's "horrible" health care by traveling to the United States to get her brain tumor operated on. I find these type of ads very offensive because they brainwash the American populace into thinking that the US is superior over every other nation on Earth. This is probably one of the most blatantly offensive political commercials that I've seen aired on public TV.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on commercials such as these?

 

 

 

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.)

 

The US might have some of the best hospitals in the world for people who can afford it, but the point is the US healthcare system is probably one of the worst in the "civilised" world for ordinary people due to patients being at the mercy of insurance companies who only care about how much profit they can make.

 

 

 

As opposed to the government holding the cards of a patient's care and deciding what is "worth" covering? I've seen enough Medicare/Medicaid claims get rejected because the government kicked them back to us claiming "this ingrown toenail is not necessary, this swollen finger was not necessary" and we have to send those people a bill.

 

 

 

You are basically taking control away from the "greedy insurance companies" (who, by the way, make craptons of money while insuring MUCH more than the government does right now for low costs to the consumer) and giving them to a government that is very badly in debt and is about to go into "penny crunching" mode. They are going to try to cut costs wherever they absolutely can.

 

 

 

Also, this system is going to be horrifically abused. The price tag we have now is completely inaccurate, because it only shows how many people actually need it, but not how many could actually take advantage of it. You wouldn't believe how many people I see driving BMW's into the lot in designer clothing, their kids in name brand clothes, and pulling out medicaid cards because they are too cheap to buy good insurance. That's abuse considering that many people who actually need it can't get it.

 

 

 

I think if Congress spent at least four (and preferably Obama's entire eight years) to pound this thing out (with new ideas and critiques coming in through election cycles in Congress, providing more input and response from the people), it might actually work. Instead we have a bill that's literally been crammed through the process as fast as possible with loopholes the size of Texas.