What is everyone thinking in reference to the Healthcare Reform Bill?
I've heard some really nasty stuff out there and am not sure what or who to beleive!
Art
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I have done something few of our legislators have done - actually read the bill. It operates under the premise that one commissioner, appointed by the president, can plan and operate a neational health care system. Please, this assumption alone should kill the bill.
a number of years ago the government wasn't happy with the way that private insurers handled flood insurance so they provided a "public" option. Today the ONLY option to purchase flood insurance is throught the government run agency that sells it. Oh, in 2008 it was running a deficit of $18 billion.
Also, Oregan has Universal Health Insurance for it's citizens. About three years ago a woman by the name of Barbara Wagner was denied an important cancer drug because it was too much money. They did, however, offer her they offered her "comfort care" which included "physician aid in dying". It was after all cheaper for the drug to kill her than the drugs to keep her alive. It turns out that one of the awful drug companies heard of it and gave her the medication free of charge. Sadly, she succombed to the disease, but I think you see the point.
Also, Oregan has Universal Health Insurance for it's citizens. About three years ago a woman by the name of Barbara Wagner was denied an important cancer drug because it was too much money. They did, however, offer her they offered her "comfort care" which included "physician aid in dying". It was after all cheaper for the drug to kill her than the drugs to keep her alive. It turns out that one of the awful drug companies heard of it and gave her the medication free of charge. Sadly, she succombed to the disease, but I think you see the point.
I thought o a government run healthcare program strikes the utmost in fear among those of us with any healthcare coverage. To those without healthcare this same provision offers a hope that your children and family can be cared for and when it is needed their pain will be taken care of - to them, governemtn managed healthcare is a God-send. If you have nothing, someone's half eaten sandwich fom a trash can looks and tastes great; to many of us a cold sandwich is not appetizing. The question is "are you willing to give up something you're used to to give those that have nothing, a little piece of mind and wellness for their sick children? I know where I stand.
what's interesting is that with the current House bill and under what has been put together so far in the Senate that by the year 2019 that under the house plan 15 million will stillbe uninsured and 35 million will be uninsured under the Senate proposal.
No one in this country goes without health care. Many hospitals around the country are near bankruptcy because they treat everyone that comes in the door of their emergency rooms and they get little or no reimbrsement from the gov't. Can our system be made better? YES. Does it need a complete overhaul. NO.
No one in this country goes without health care. Many hospitals around the country are near bankruptcy because they treat everyone that comes in the door of their emergency rooms and they get little or no reimbrsement from the gov't. Can our system be made better? YES. Does it need a complete overhaul. NO.
The current bill is not a complete overhaul... an example of a complete overhaul would be implimenting a single payer system such as 95% of other industrialized nations have in place.
Just another thought - The most important aspect of this reform is the public option. This happens to be the point of contention among opponents of the bill. What is wrong with the government providing more competition? Some assert that a public option will deteriorate the quality of care. I have a question for the opponents of a public option; the last time you mailed a letter, did you choose the public option?
The US Government already provides public health care to 27% of the population when you look at Medicaid, Medicare, the military and other programs.
That "free" health care that is given at hospitals, is already being paid for by all the other people (us) who use the hospital and incur higher costs. Unfortunately, those without health insurance don't get inexpensive preventative care, so they are forced to wait until the problem rises to an emergency room situation which costs us 20-50x more than a doctor's office visit.
In the US, we pay twice as much per person for health care as the next country and three times as much as the third, while the quality of our care (lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) ranks us somewhere around number 40 worldwide.
Health care costs are increasing at 3 times the rate of wages.
The US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care program.
All these statistics tell me we have got to do something. The current plan may not be the right plan, but anyone who says "our current system is fine" is wrong.
The most telling example I have heard was from a small business making computer keyboards in North Carolina. The owner was quoted as saying his health insurance costs meant that he had to put $3 worth of health care into every keyboard he made. The keyboards being shipped in from Asia only cost $3, so there was no way he could compete.
I think that if we want to remain competitive and support business, we have no choice but to undertake a massive reform of our system, and the solution that seems to make the most sense would be a single-payer system that is not for-profit.
US infant mortality higher than Cuba and Hungary
That "free" health care that is given at hospitals, is already being paid for by all the other people (us) who use the hospital and incur higher costs. Unfortunately, those without health insurance don't get inexpensive preventative care, so they are forced to wait until the problem rises to an emergency room situation which costs us 20-50x more than a doctor's office visit.
In the US, we pay twice as much per person for health care as the next country and three times as much as the third, while the quality of our care (lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) ranks us somewhere around number 40 worldwide.
Health care costs are increasing at 3 times the rate of wages.
The US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care program.
All these statistics tell me we have got to do something. The current plan may not be the right plan, but anyone who says "our current system is fine" is wrong.
The most telling example I have heard was from a small business making computer keyboards in North Carolina. The owner was quoted as saying his health insurance costs meant that he had to put $3 worth of health care into every keyboard he made. The keyboards being shipped in from Asia only cost $3, so there was no way he could compete.
I think that if we want to remain competitive and support business, we have no choice but to undertake a massive reform of our system, and the solution that seems to make the most sense would be a single-payer system that is not for-profit.
US infant mortality higher than Cuba and Hungary
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JasonR:
The US Government already provides public health care to 27% of the population when you look at Medicaid, Medicare, the military and other programs.
(And you prefer the care they get?)
That "free" health care that is given at hospitals, is already being paid for by all the other people (us) who use the hospital and incur higher costs. Unfortunately, those without health insurance don't get inexpensive preventative care, so they are forced to wait until the problem rises to an emergency room situation which costs us 20-50x more than a doctor's office visit.
(It is disingenuous to suggest that the lack of preventative care results in Emergency Room visits. I doubt that is very often the case.)
In the US, we pay twice as much per person for health care as the next country and three times as much as the third, while the quality of our care (lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) ranks us somewhere around number 40 worldwide.
(US mortality is more an inditement against our glutenous lifestyle than our medical care. What about quality of life?)
Health care costs are increasing at 3 times the rate of wages.
(How much of that is due to frivolous lawsuits and massive punitive damages?)
The US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care program.
(Which is why virtually all innovation and advancements in Medical Science comes from here. Do the best and brightest choose to become Doctors everywhere else?)
All these statistics tell me we have got to do something. The current plan may not be the right plan, but anyone who says "our current system is fine" is wrong.
(Ever heard of tort reform?)
(Currently, insurance companies provide coverage based on the terms of their policy. I'm sure there are times when they have to provide care when it isn't financially advisable but legally they have no choice (for the most part). My biggest concern is that Government run health care will not have that limitation and ALL decisions will have a financial limitation to them. In the UK, they have established the value of a human life at $45,000. Any care that is estimated to surpass that amount is denied. It would only be a matter of time before that would exist here. That is not the way I want decisions regarding my families healthcare to be handled.)
The US Government already provides public health care to 27% of the population when you look at Medicaid, Medicare, the military and other programs.
(And you prefer the care they get?)
That "free" health care that is given at hospitals, is already being paid for by all the other people (us) who use the hospital and incur higher costs. Unfortunately, those without health insurance don't get inexpensive preventative care, so they are forced to wait until the problem rises to an emergency room situation which costs us 20-50x more than a doctor's office visit.
(It is disingenuous to suggest that the lack of preventative care results in Emergency Room visits. I doubt that is very often the case.)
In the US, we pay twice as much per person for health care as the next country and three times as much as the third, while the quality of our care (lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) ranks us somewhere around number 40 worldwide.
(US mortality is more an inditement against our glutenous lifestyle than our medical care. What about quality of life?)
Health care costs are increasing at 3 times the rate of wages.
(How much of that is due to frivolous lawsuits and massive punitive damages?)
The US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care program.
(Which is why virtually all innovation and advancements in Medical Science comes from here. Do the best and brightest choose to become Doctors everywhere else?)
All these statistics tell me we have got to do something. The current plan may not be the right plan, but anyone who says "our current system is fine" is wrong.
(Ever heard of tort reform?)
(Currently, insurance companies provide coverage based on the terms of their policy. I'm sure there are times when they have to provide care when it isn't financially advisable but legally they have no choice (for the most part). My biggest concern is that Government run health care will not have that limitation and ALL decisions will have a financial limitation to them. In the UK, they have established the value of a human life at $45,000. Any care that is estimated to surpass that amount is denied. It would only be a matter of time before that would exist here. That is not the way I want decisions regarding my families healthcare to be handled.)
quote:Originally posted by dennisbrownjr:
Just another thought - The most important aspect of this reform is the public option. This happens to be the point of contention among opponents of the bill. What is wrong with the government providing more competition? Some assert that a public option will deteriorate the quality of care. I have a question for the opponents of a public option; the last time you mailed a letter, did you choose the public option?
I would take UPS or Fed Ex over USPS any time.
How many companies will choose to continue to offer health care coverage for it's employees if the gov't is providing it "for free?" Even if the public option remained, it will be like those who have to pay into publc schools even though their children go to private schools.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
(And you prefer the care they get?)
Yes, thank you. I was in the US Army and received very high quality care for my injuries, at least equal to what I have received in my civilian life. Do you have some experience with military health care that you haven't mentioned?
(It is disingenuous to suggest that the lack of preventative care results in Emergency Room visits. I doubt that is very often the case.)
Then why do you go to the doctor? Of course there are emergency reasons that people go to the emergency room, but where else can people with no insurance go for care? Of course they go to the emergency room.
(US mortality is more an inditement against our glutenous lifestyle than our medical care. What about quality of life?)
Perhaps, but you didn't explain infant mortality.
(How much of that is due to frivolous lawsuits and massive punitive damages?)
Very little actually. Let's start a new thread about tort reform, since it's about .001% (yes, 1 hundredth of 1%) of the cost of healthcare.
(Which is why virtually all innovation and advancements in Medical Science comes from here. Do the best and brightest choose to become Doctors everywhere else?)
I agree, there is no place where there are greater rewards for being in the medical field than here, but you know, I'm not willing to give up my money for someone else to become rich.
(Ever heard of tort reform?)
I have! see earlier response. According to the Department of Justice "the median inflation-adjusted award in all tort cases dropped 56.3% between 1992 and 2001 to $28,000." Seems like the problem is small and getting smaller.
(...In the UK, they have established the value of a human life at $45,000. Any care that is estimated to surpass that amount is denied.)
Simply untrue. Did you know that Steven Hawking was born, lives and works in the UK? How much do you think it costs to treat a man with ALS, diagnosed when he was 21, who is now 68 years old? I'm guessing more than $45k.
"<NHS> spokesman said: 'The NHS provides health services on the basis of clinical need - irrespective of age or ability to pay.'
She added: 'The NHS sees one million people every 36 hours and 93 per cent of patients rate their care as good or excellent."
I believe our system needs fixing, but a government take over will not fix anything.
Two points to consider.
One
I have family that lives in Canada. They complain about long waits to see doctors and specialists. It can take months to get board approval to see an oncologist. Can you imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to wait months to see an oncologist. It happens.
Two
People from other countries, providing they can afford it, choose to come to the U.S. for health care. Why would they do this if our system is so bad? For example: 5 year survival rates for all types of cancers in the U.S. are 66.3% (men) and 62.9% (women). European countries are: 47.3% (men) and 55.8% (women). Out of 100 men diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. 19 more will survive versus thier Europeon counterparts. I bet those 19 are glad they don't have socialized medicine.
Two points to consider.
One
I have family that lives in Canada. They complain about long waits to see doctors and specialists. It can take months to get board approval to see an oncologist. Can you imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to wait months to see an oncologist. It happens.
Two
People from other countries, providing they can afford it, choose to come to the U.S. for health care. Why would they do this if our system is so bad? For example: 5 year survival rates for all types of cancers in the U.S. are 66.3% (men) and 62.9% (women). European countries are: 47.3% (men) and 55.8% (women). Out of 100 men diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. 19 more will survive versus thier Europeon counterparts. I bet those 19 are glad they don't have socialized medicine.
(Did you get those numbers from FoxNews? By the way, I suggest you take the word "news" with a grain of salt when paired with Fox.)quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
I believe our system needs fixing, but a government take over will not fix anything.
Two points to consider.
One
I have family that lives in Canada. They complain about long waits to see doctors and specialists. It can take months to get board approval to see an oncologist. Can you imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to wait months to see an oncologist. It happens.
(We are NOT talking about Canada's Universal health care system - yet it is superior according to the World Health Organization to that of the US's. We are simply talking about giving people a another choice in insurance providers. Think of it more like if Humana went broke and the government bought them, and then turned them into a non-profit organization thus eliminating a great deal of the overhead costs. It makes sense to me.)
Two
People from other countries, providing they can afford it, choose to come to the U.S. for health care. Why would they do this if our system is so bad? For example: 5 year survival rates for all types of cancers in the U.S. are 66.3% (men) and 62.9% (women). European countries are: 47.3% (men) and 55.8% (women). Out of 100 men diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. 19 more will survive versus thier Europeon counterparts. I bet those 19 are glad they don't have socialized medicine.
good Lord, why in the world, when people are having a discussion about a topic, would you start to bash? This is about Healthcare. Perhaps you would prefer that when any comment be made or stats be given that the source also be given?
quote:Originally posted by dennisbrownjr:(Did you get those numbers from FoxNews? By the way, I suggest you take the word "news" with a grain of salt when paired with Fox.)quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
I believe our system needs fixing, but a government take over will not fix anything.
Two points to consider.
One
I have family that lives in Canada. They complain about long waits to see doctors and specialists. It can take months to get board approval to see an oncologist. Can you imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to wait months to see an oncologist. It happens.
(We are NOT talking about Canada's Universal health care system - yet it is superior according to the World Health Organization to that of the US's. We are simply talking about giving people a another choice in insurance providers. Think of it more like if Humana went broke and the government bought them, and then turned them into a non-profit organization thus eliminating a great deal of the overhead costs. It makes sense to me.)
Two
People from other countries, providing they can afford it, choose to come to the U.S. for health care. Why would they do this if our system is so bad? For example: 5 year survival rates for all types of cancers in the U.S. are 66.3% (men) and 62.9% (women). European countries are: 47.3% (men) and 55.8% (women). Out of 100 men diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. 19 more will survive versus thier Europeon counterparts. I bet those 19 are glad they don't have socialized medicine.
I know we are not talking about the Canadian system, but I believe we should compare systems that have already been operating under a national health system so we know where we are heading. Canada and many Europeon countires have been operating under a national system for many years. The numbers I provided on cancer survival rates are not from Fox News by the way. It is clear you back a government plan, while I clearly do not. One misconception that seems to be out there is that the two can co-exist. Economics 101, they can not. How can a private insurance company compete with the government which does not have to make a profit and does not have many of the costs a private for profit concern would have? Aditionally, companies will move employees over to the government plan as a way of lowering their costs. Read the bill it is in there. The House Bill contains provisions allowing companies to transition over. In the first year of the plan smaller companies can transition over and then gradually by year 3 larger companies will be able to transition over. Then end game is to have one single payer sytsem.
\
SOURCE: Canadian Press
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.
He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.
Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.
"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."
A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.
Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.
"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."
"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "
Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.
"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
SOURCE: Canadian Press
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.
He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.
Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.
"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."
A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.
Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.
"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."
"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "
Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.
"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
If the goal is to improve our health care system, do we really think that the politicians in Washington are going to do it? Businessweek reported in their August 17th issue that the health insurance industry has donated "more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to democrats". United Health Group brought a rolling road show to D.C. in July. I do not think with this type of influence that either party has the best interest of the public in mind.
I believe any healthcare bill that becomes law will be an ambiguous mess. It will allow the democrats to claim victory, while accomplishing little.
I believe any healthcare bill that becomes law will be an ambiguous mess. It will allow the democrats to claim victory, while accomplishing little.
quote:Originally posted by Neal:
SOURCE: Canadian Press
Stepping back for a sec and recognizing that the proposed bill does not implement a Canadian/UK single payer system, remember we pay more than three times what Canada pays per person.
Don't you think it would be possible to implement a system without the flaws of theirs if we pay three times more?
Jrlz, the government may not be the perfect answer to this question, but we've let private business have their shot at it and we're left with our current mess. Who else is left?
Claiming victory while accomplishing little is what our political system is all about! If you "fix" a problem like Healthcare, Gay marriage, Abortion, etc. then you have nothing to "ignite the base" for the next election, insuring they come out to vote and you get re-relected.
quote:(Did you get those numbers from FoxNews? By the way, I suggest you take the word "news" with a grain of salt when paired with Fox.)
I love FOX news and the babes are awesome!
First off we have the best healthcate in the world to begin with. Anybody who doesn't think so should travel abroad.
Second, does anybody believe that the government can do a better job than the private sector in providing healthcare? Come on really!!!
Third, doctors are among the best and the brightest. People with that level of intelligence will always go to where the money is like moths to a flame. If the government gets involved and limits what people in the medical field can earn you will see the number of doctors drop as fewer and fewer bright individuals choose to pursue a medical carreer.
Fourth, where in the United States Constitution does it give the federal government the power to take over our healthcare system or any other industry? This among many other things our government is doing is completely unconstitutional.
Second, does anybody believe that the government can do a better job than the private sector in providing healthcare? Come on really!!!
Third, doctors are among the best and the brightest. People with that level of intelligence will always go to where the money is like moths to a flame. If the government gets involved and limits what people in the medical field can earn you will see the number of doctors drop as fewer and fewer bright individuals choose to pursue a medical carreer.
Fourth, where in the United States Constitution does it give the federal government the power to take over our healthcare system or any other industry? This among many other things our government is doing is completely unconstitutional.
quote:In the US, we pay twice as much per person for health care as the next country and three times as much as the third, while the quality of our care (lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) ranks us somewhere around number 40 worldwide.
And yet... one dare not introduce this line of argument when discussing public education.
We both know that our quality of care is exceptionally high, and that the distortions to our lifespan, infant mortality, etc. outcomes are social reflections, not reflections on our health case system... inarguably the world's finest.
The leaders of the 39 countries supposedly in line ahead of us routinely spend the contents of their treasury to have their procedures performed in the United States.
quote:Originally posted by fisher:
First off we have the best healthcate in the world to begin with. Anybody who doesn't think so should travel abroad.
Not supported by the facts.
[Quote]Fourth, where in the United States Constitution does it give the federal government the power to take over our healthcare system or any other industry? This among many other things our government is doing is completely unconstitutional.[Quote]
Hrmm. The powers of the government in the constitution are largely decided by EXCLUSIONS such as "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech".
In the absence of such a restriction, I believe the power is assumed to be allowed.
quote:Originally posted by CashGap:
We both know that our quality of care is exceptionally high, and that the distortions to our lifespan, infant mortality, etc. outcomes are social reflections, not reflections on our health case system... inarguably the world's finest.
Despite your assertion, I do not know this.
Now we are debating constitutional law. Nice. I always thought that the founders of our contry wanted a consitution that limited the power of our federal government and realized that the States and the People held most of the power. The constitution spelled out what power the Federal Government. I am not a constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so I looked up the US Constitution on-line at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10
Amendement 10 seems to say that rights not granted to the federal government are to be assumed to be in the jurisdiction of the states and people. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That being said, the fact that the government is already running Medicare I do not see how they could be legally barred from running another insurance program. By the way it is projected that Medicare will go broke by 2019 if no changes are made. (That info was from Fox News)
Amendement 10 seems to say that rights not granted to the federal government are to be assumed to be in the jurisdiction of the states and people. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That being said, the fact that the government is already running Medicare I do not see how they could be legally barred from running another insurance program. By the way it is projected that Medicare will go broke by 2019 if no changes are made. (That info was from Fox News)
I've been sitting on he sidelines and reading and trying to comprehend. I took a stab at reading the bill and had to put it down after 5 pages. I will pick it up again.
I'm not happy that their will be more government if and when this bill is approved. I guess I am also a believer that less government is better. I don't get to vote on it, however I do get to email, and call my congressmans office even though they had not returned one phone call or email in the last month.
Art
I'm not happy that their will be more government if and when this bill is approved. I guess I am also a believer that less government is better. I don't get to vote on it, however I do get to email, and call my congressmans office even though they had not returned one phone call or email in the last month.
Art
quote:Originally posted by CashGap:
We both know that our quality of care is exceptionally high
I misread your post and thought "quality of care" was "quality of heathcare system" when I disagreed with you.
I am not trying to assert that the quality of care is poor, simply that the system which delivers that care has (many, large) issues.
I'd certainly welcome a private system where Americans who are employed and their children could receive affordable healthcare with a minimal amount of overheard for administrative costs and operating expenses.
However, what we currently have is a private system where many Americans who are employed do not have insurance, many of those who do have insurance can still encounter a traumatic medical event that could bankrupt them and many business owners find the cost of healthcare spiraling out of control making it harder and harder to remain profitable.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
By the way it is projected that Medicare will go broke by 2019 if no changes are made. (That info was from Fox News)
11 years earlier than was predicted just 8 years ago. Apparently (though not every source agrees), the reason for this is the dramatically higher cost of private services.
Some blamed the prescription drug benefit President Bush added, but that doesn't seem to justify the massive additional expenditures.
[/QUOTE]
I love FOX news and the babes are awesome![/QUOTE]
I wonder if they get their female anchors from Hooters.
I love FOX news and the babes are awesome![/QUOTE]
I wonder if they get their female anchors from Hooters.
I guess one of my questions would be, "Why is the price of healthcare out of control?"
What are the factors driving the increases, is it because a large segment of the population will know be over 50 years of age?
What are the factors driving the increases, is it because a large segment of the population will know be over 50 years of age?
I know we are not talking about the Canadian system, but I believe we should compare systems that have already been operating under a national health system so we know where we are heading. (Slippery slope argument - scare tactict) Canada and many Europeon countires have been operating under a national system for many years. The numbers I provided on cancer survival rates are not from Fox News by the way. (ok then, where are they from?) It is clear you back a government plan, (Actually, I back a Single payer plan. But I will take a public option if that is the only bill that has a possibility to pass congress) while I clearly do not (clearly). One misconception that seems to be out there is that the two can co-exist. Economics 101, they can not (Again, source?). How can a private insurance company compete with the government which does not have to make a profit and does not have many of the costs a private for profit concern would have? (Have you ever heard of mutual insurance companies? You may be insured by one. Here is link to an explanation of how "non-profit" insurance companies work; Mutual Insurance) Aditionally, companies will move employees over to the government plan as a way of lowering their costs. Read the bill it is in there. The House Bill contains provisions allowing companies to transition over. (Of course it does. If a small company can lower their costs by moving employees to a public option as opposed to dropping health care benefits altogether, what is wrong with that?) In the first year of the plan smaller companies can transition over and then gradually by year 3 larger companies will be able to transition over. (The public option is designed to lower all insurance premiums. Not eliminate private entities. If a private insurance company is higher than others, we have the right to switch now. It will be no different, except that we can choose a private company, mutual company, OR a public company.) Then end game is to have one single payer sytsem.
(To address your question: Can a public option and private entities co-exist? Let's look at a couple current, American examples of private entities competing with public entities. Private colleges such as Harvard and ITT, are they doing ok with state run colleges and Community colleges competing with them? Are UPS and Fedex going out of business with USPS offering the same services? This argument has no legitimate backing and is simply a scare tactic - similar to that of the "death panels" argument - intended to sway the minds of the uninformed. [/QUOTE]
(To address your question: Can a public option and private entities co-exist? Let's look at a couple current, American examples of private entities competing with public entities. Private colleges such as Harvard and ITT, are they doing ok with state run colleges and Community colleges competing with them? Are UPS and Fedex going out of business with USPS offering the same services? This argument has no legitimate backing and is simply a scare tactic - similar to that of the "death panels" argument - intended to sway the minds of the uninformed. [/QUOTE]
There will be no private options. Everyone has stated that the ultimate goal is to eliminate them.
There also will be government bureaucrats deciding what care you will receive (or won't receive) based on criteria they set up. There is no denying that and that is what scares me.
State-Run Hospitals (using your University analogy) would probably be an OK idea (and more constitutional).
Furthermore, I don't think it is the uninformed that are raising the concerns.
There also will be government bureaucrats deciding what care you will receive (or won't receive) based on criteria they set up. There is no denying that and that is what scares me.
State-Run Hospitals (using your University analogy) would probably be an OK idea (and more constitutional).
Furthermore, I don't think it is the uninformed that are raising the concerns.
Previous emails (mine and others) have suggested that part of the problem may be frivolous law suits and outlandish awards for damages. It was suggested that this doesn't account to much but I would contend that a part of this cost has to include the price medical providers have to pay for malpractice coverage (which gets passed down to us) as well as the cost of all the CYA tests that are done in fear of potential lawsuits.
You are right. It is not the uninformed raising the concerns. It is - thanks to foxnews, freedomworks.org, etc... - the misinformed that are raising the concerns.
I guess I am a little ignorant on how you disagree without being disagreeable. Would you like to enlighten me? What do you mean when you say disagreeable?
I have a question which is part of this discussion. Former Governor, Sarah Palin posted a note on her Facebook page that claimed that, under health insurance reform, a “death panel” of bureaucrats would “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” Do you believe this is accurate or completely false?