Posted 3 months, 22 days ago in 
8 votes. Average 3.38/5
Loading ...
The letter from a small business owner supporting health care reform indicates to me that here is another person who has given up and decided to become a ward of the state. That’s exactly what this bill is all about, giving up a large piece of our freedoms. Only this time this bill will take us to the tipping point of no return.
America as we know it will never be the same. Through health care rules, all aspects of American life including all our opportunities for success, our freedoms of choice in food, transportation, health care, education and recreation — virtually every aspect of life from “womb to tomb” will be dictated by a faceless bureaucrat.
Is that what all of those who sacrificed life and limb to protect our freedoms, fought for? I don’t think so. This bill is not the American way. It’s an ego trip for a socialist president and his cronies in Congress. Notice how quickly they are pushing for a quick vote before the August recess, when our representatives will face their constituents. Yes, a president must use his political capital (interesting term) before it’s gone and it always goes. This legislation is dead wrong.’
Stacking this humongous debt on top of what we already owe kills the American dream for generations to come. Is that what we want to leave for them?
Let your senators and representatives know how you feel.
Sen. Udall- FAX-202-224-6471
Sen. Bennet-FAX-202-228-5036
Rep. Salazar-Office-202-225-4761 FAX-202-226-9669
MARK BROWN
Grand Junction
108 Responses to “Agreeing to Obama’s health care reform means we’ve given up”
Posted July 31st, 2009 at 8:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I say BALONEY!!! and I urge everyone with a brain to call and DEMAND a public option, NOW.
Posted July 31st, 2009 at 9:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
raydee - How do you envision the “public plan”? Can you share the details and why you think it will make things better?
Posted August 1st, 2009 at 6:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If I knew how to design a health insurance plan, I surely would try. One thing that’s very clear is that the private insurance companies have been screwing us for many years. I believe that any public OPTION would force the private companies to give up some of their OBSCENE profits and compete or go out of business. If we ended up with a Canadian style plan, that would probably be okay with me as it is with the VAST MAJORITY of Canadians. Sure, the ditto-heads can always find examples of someone that’s dissatisfied, trying to gin up fear and panic.
Posted August 1st, 2009 at 8:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
raydeeoh says: “I believe that any public OPTION would force the private companies to give up some of their OBSCENE profits and compete or go out of business.”
What do you consider to be “obscene” profits? We keep hearing that but I’ve never seen any figures compared to other industries that are as diverse as health care.
you say, “If we ended up with a Canadian style plan, that would probably be okay with me as it is with the VAST MAJORITY of Canadians. Sure, the ditto-heads can always find examples of someone that’s dissatisfied, trying to gin up fear and panic.”
That’s true here in America too. Which sources from Canada do you consider unbiased and accurate? I remember hearing back in 2004 that Canada’s system was near collapse. Wonder if that’s still true. In what ways is ObamaCare as it stands now, similar and/or different?
Posted August 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The health insurance companies themselves are the problem. Doctors are routinely overruled by insurance company bureaucrats and it’s they (the bureacrats) that decide what care a patient can or can’t have. Furthermore this country can’t function without cheap labor and most of those jobs are devoid of benefits including health care. This talk of choice and scarmongering about socialized medicine is so much hot air. Yeah I know, everyone should either have a degree or figure out how to be a dynamic entrepenuer but I live in the real world. The status quo is not working and the teabagging blowhards need to wake up to themselves.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
isn’t it strange that ever since the last major governmental takeover in medical health care(medicaid, medicare)in 1965 under then president lyndon baines johnson and a democratically controlled congress, that the cost of medical care has rising at an astronomical rate? is there a correlation between government interference in private business sectors and then escalating and out of control costs in these business sectors?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Brown, thank you for your very valuable information. Now it’s time for Democrats to get to work.
Remember the caucuses when so many people showed up schools were scrambling to find extra rooms for us? Remember the convention at Central High? It was standing room only.
We got Salazar and Udall elected. We knocked on doors and made phone calls and donated way more than we could afford to get these people elected.
Remind your representatives that Brown, JMH, and festered et al are NEVER going to vote for a Democrat.
If we don’t pass healthcare reform that contains a strong public option, then 2010 will see another republican revolution. Successful healthcare reform will bring out the independent votes, especially because we Democrats will be organizing like crazy.
If these guys want to keep their jobs, remind them who put them there in the first place.
Mr. Brown gave you the phone numbers. Salazar’s voice mail is full right now but I’m going to keep calling and calling and calling. You need to call, email, fax, whatever it takes.
What are you waiting for? Get busy. There’s still a lot of work to do!
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
OH! That awful Canadian health care system.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12523427
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And an interesting blog by Paul Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Another good read.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/?scp=1&sq=why%20markets%20can‘t%20cure%20healthcare&st=cse
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Canada’s health care system has its problems”
“The Health Council of Canada recently published a report in which they reiterated Canada’s universal, publicly funded health care system is widely viewed as an essential part of a social safety net and a reflection of Canadians’ core values. But they also found that the cost of the system is a constant concern, and many fear that public health care is unsustainable.”
“Negative discussion about health care in Canada tends to focus on a persistent set of problems: access, wait times, and shortages of health care providers. This has been the case in times of good economy and during economic crisis.”
…
“By 2007, DESPITE GOVERNMENT PROMISES AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FUNNELED INTO THE CANADIAN HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM, “THE AVERAGE PATIENT WAITED MORE THAN 18 WEEKS BETWEEN SEEING THEIR FAMILY DOCTOR AND RECEIVING THE SURGERY OR TREATMENT THEY REQUIRED,” said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the independent Fraser Institute.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m7d11-Canadas-health-care-system-has-its-problems
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Krugman will appeal to liberals. For a look at the other side, here’s a “good read” by economist Thomas Sowell:
**************************************************
A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: “Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?” Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton.
The casual arrogance of that question is staggering. We talked endlessly about Hillary’s proposed government-run medical system a decade ago and decided against it for many reasons. Now this re-run of the same issues proceeds as if the question is whether the rest of us are “ready” to talk about such things.
Senator Clinton parades the usual litany of reasons why the government should run the medical system, beginning with “soaring health costs and millions of uninsured.” But, not only does she offer nothing that will actually reduce those costs, she declares that “our mental health delivery system is underfinanced.”
In other words, she wants to spend more money on shrinks. Can you imagine what will happen to costs if unverifiable diseases and unverifiable cures provide blank checks to be paid by the taxpayers?
“Universal health care” is a lovely phrase with political resonance in some quarters. But what does it mean concretely?
First of all, since people differ in what they want, nothing can be “universal” without being mandatory. In other words, we are talking about forcing people to belong to whatever program the politicians and bureaucrats come up with, regardless of what the people themselves might prefer.
As for health, it is the end result of many things — diet, exercise, genetics, lifestyle — most of which are beyond the scope of government. What the government can control — doctors, hospitals, medicines — are only part of the equation.
What the lovely phrase “universal health care” boils down to is politicians and bureaucrats forcing people to get their medical treatment and pharmaceutical drugs the way the politicians and bureaucrats decide.
Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
How is it going to be cheaper to manage hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical drugs, when it is going to take an army of bureaucrats and tons of red tape to do it? Economists say that there is no free lunch. There is no free red tape either.
Whatever charming visions may be conjured up by political rhetoric, what matters are the hard realities of government-run medical systems. Such systems have existed in many countries around the world. Why not look at what happens in those countries?
How many of those who gush about “universal health care” know that the countries which have it also have waiting times to get treated that are several times as long as people in America wait to see a specialist or get an operation? Waiting not only means longer suffering, it can also mean that a treatable disease can become untreatable — or even fatal — because of the delay.
Britain has had a government-run medical system for about half a century, so it might be a good source of facts — for those who are interested in facts, instead of political rhetoric.
A feature article in London’s Daily Mail referred to “our filthy hospitals.” The distinguished British magazine The Economist likewise commented on how dirty these hospitals are.
Why? Because British hospitals are so tied up in government rules and union contracts that a nurse has no authority to order the janitorial staff to mop the floor after a patient has vomited. If the nurse wants that floor mopped any time soon, she has to stop taking care of patients and go find a mop to clean it up herself.
Working for a government-run medical system is apparently not all that attractive to Britons who might go into the medical profession. Many of the doctors in Britain are from Third World countries whose medical schools are often substandard.
These are just some of the problems that go with government-run medical systems, whether in Britain or in other countries around the world. But what are mere facts compared to a lovely phrase like “universal health care”?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3652
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, Thomas Sowell ALWAYS has the best interests of regular Americans at heart! (grins sarcastically) This is laughable.
raydeeohman, if you haven’t done so, look at my thread titled “Health Care: A British Subject’s Real Life Experience”.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
FF says, “Yes, Thomas Sowell ALWAYS has the best interests of regular Americans at heart! (grins sarcastically) This is laughable.”
Why do you say that?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
fastfreddie - Thanks, I did read it. I just love the way these ditto-heads throw pure nonsense up in defense of their bullshit. I cited the testamony of an actual medical professional that has REAL experience with Canada’s health care system as well as the opinion of a well respected Nobel laureate economist and that’s the response I get. They just like to argue, it seems to me. Private insurance doesn’t work (we WILL go broke with the status quo)so how about some real suggestions, if they don’t want a single payer system.
Also, there’s so much misinformation out there aimed at scareing the hell out of us that many people are now buying into it, according to latest polls.
I wonder just how many of the people that seem to have nothing better to do than monopolize the discussion, are on some kind of public assistance (or have family members in that situation) including our current single payer system - Medicare? Or VA medical care? If these are so bad, then why not get off them and pay for your health care?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thomas Sowell - now there’s a good one for you. He would have us (or Isreal) bomb Iran. Yep, that would sure help things. Looks to me like just another right-wing numb nut.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That JMH would consider a source from CAPITALIST magazine to be unbiased is indeed laughable, but wholly unsurprising.
And he talks about liberals being ‘brainwashed’…
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The following excellent letter was sent to all of the people listed below. It is from the President of the National Union of Public and General Employees of Canada.
They are through letting those in the US trash their system with lies and distortions. They took this way of setting the record straight about their remarkable system and are rightly proud of it’s accomplishments. And why shouldn’t they be since it gives far better results at much less costs than America’s current system. Why would some do such a dastardly thing to our neighbor? The only answer is for selfish gains.
I wish our leaders would accept their kind invitation to come and see for themselves and benefit from their willingness to share the successes.
July 24, 2009
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
All members of the U.S. House of Representatives
All members of the U.S. Senate
Dear Friends,
I am writing to you on behalf of the 340,000 members of the National Union of Public and General Employees (Canada) about the scurrilous misrepresentations of Canada and our single-payer health system in the debate over the future of health care in the United States.
We applaud you for reopening the national discussion of health care reform in the U.S. There are various policy proposals on the table and you’ll have important decisions to make in the months ahead. As legislators, it’s critical that you use the best available evidence to inform your decisions.
Unfortunately, rather than a true debate about its merits, Canada’s single-payer system, and by extension Canada’s reputation, has been the victim of a multi-million dollar tidal wave of special-interest propaganda and scare tactics. You need to know that an objective examination of the evidence reveals that Canada’s single-payer health system is the triumph of values and economics.
Our system speaks volumes about the character of our nation. It provides all Canadians with equal access to care on the basis of need, not wealth or privilege or status. Previous generations understood that sickness doesn’t discriminate and they made the collective moral decision that health care shouldn’t discriminate either. It was a courageous initiative by visionary men and women that changed us as a nation and cemented our role as one of the world’s compassionate societies. We will always defend the proud legacy we have inherited from previous generations of Canadians.
Indeed, Canadians today still strongly support the core values on which our system is premised - equality, compassion and solidarity. In fact, our Medicare system is now tied to our understanding of citizenship. More than just a social program, Medicare to us represents a birthright and an identifying mark of “Canadian-ness”. It is, we believe, the clearest reflection of who we are and what we value.
But more than that, our single-payer system is, quite simply, a good and sensible idea that serves Canadians extremely well. The overheated rhetoric and outright falsehoods that you’ve heard about the quality and viability of Canada’s system simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
When it comes to health outcomes, on almost every critical measure, whether it is life expectancy rates, infant mortality rates, or potential years of lost life, Canada rates much better than the U.S. and we’re among the best in the world. Notwithstanding the “real life” stories you’ve heard in TV ads launched by the group Patients United Now, a very strong majority of Canadians who use the system are highly satisfied with the quality and standard of care they receive.
In terms of controlling costs, health spending in Canada is on par with most countries in the Western world and it’s substantially lower than in the U.S. And yet we devote a smaller portion of Gross Domestic Product to health care today than we did over a decade ago. It’s totally unthinkable to Canadians to experience bankruptcy due to medical bills, as do over one million Americans every year. Unlike in the U.S., not a single Canadian who is unemployed has lost the ability to access health care during the current economic recession.
In addition, our single-payer system provides both small and large businesses in Canada with a clear competitive advantage. Employers don’t have to provide basic health care for their workers - our single-payer system does that. Our businesses also enjoy the benefits of a healthier and more productive workforce thanks to our universal system. Unlike in the U.S. where basic health care is a major source of labour relations strife, it’s hardly an issue at the bargaining table in Canada. We also enjoy greater labour mobility because workers who don’t have to worry about losing health benefits are more willing and able to switch jobs and move to where the work is.
Finally, what you’re being told about government-run health care with patients suffering and dying on wait lists is nothing but lies. No need for emergency or urgent care is ever neglected in Canada. If your doctor says you need the care urgently, you get it, period. Moreover, Statistics Canada reports that the median wait time for elective surgery is four weeks and the median wait time for diagnostic imaging like MRIs is three weeks. And contrary to popular myth, we’re free to choose whatever doctor we want. And all decisions about care and treatment are left to patients and their doctors - there’s no interference by the government or private
insurance companies.
An objective review of the evidence shows that Canada’s single-payer system has consistently delivered affordable, timely, accessible, comprehensive and high-quality care to the overwhelming majority of Canadians on the basis of need, not wealth. It has also contributed to our international competitiveness and the productivity of our workforce.
Times of great need, we are told, are the times when true leaders emerge and display the ability to separate fact from fiction and the courage to set aside political agendas for the sake of the common good. The challenge facing health care reform in the U.S. demands that kind of ability and courage from each of you.
I would be pleased to speak or meet with you at anytime, or if you’re interested we could arrange a “study mission” to Canada, to ensure you have an accurate picture of the benefits and popularity of Canada’s most cherished social program. Please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
James Clancy
National President
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
seabee-
Aha! You’ve exposed the nefarious plot from our insidious socialist neighbors from the North to influence our legislators, and take down our glorious for-profit health care system, using the WMD of “The Truth”!! Good work, you’re a real Patriot!
Now let’s bomb ‘em.
U S A !! U S A!!
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey guys, perhaps part of the reason for JMH’s disagreeable attitude is that you keep referring to HER as a HE! I’m just sayin’…
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What country receieves billions in aid from the U.S. and gives its citizens free medical care. Israel.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A little more HONEST information:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_fact_check
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
kemosabe123 said “What country receieves billions in aid from the U.S. and gives its citizens free medical care. Israel.”
Okay. : shrug : Your point being…?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
raydeeohman, thanks for saving me the trouble of posting the fact check. But I dunno, it is from AP, and those non-Fox liberal media types sure do slant everything, don’t they? (wink wink)
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, I think kemo’s point is that we are giving a lot of aid dollars to another country that actually HAS national health care, but WE do not. It doesn’t matter to me if it is Israel or anywhere else, we should spend it at home.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, fastfreddie answered your question faster and better than I could. I’m surprised you did not “get the point.” The fact is we give billions to foreign countries who do not appreciate it, we fight wars we can not win, yet we can’t take care of our own citizens. The country is sick.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Definitely, I can see that side. To me, it just shows that they have their priorities in a better order than we do.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This country already has a public plan. It’s called Medicare. It is $38 Trillion in the hole. It is BANKRUPT.
Why should anyone believe that expanding Medicare to cover everyone, before fixing the Medicare we already have, will not drive the country bankrupt?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But, Medicare doesn’t cover everyone…so it’s not really ‘public’ is it?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Medicare is not public? Really? It’s private insurance?
Wow, Curm, you have a news flash there.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is it available to EVERYONE? Like public transportation? The public library?
Get it?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, YOU DON’T GET IT.
Medicare IS PUBLIC. Public means it is run by the government.
GET IT??????
The point, which you are not able to grasp, is that a public health insurance plan is already in place. AND IT IS BANKRUPT.
GET IT????????????
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, calm down, you’re gonna bust a blood vessel or something. Luckily, you’re covered, right?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Look, bullish, before you caterwaul yourself into a stroke, here…I get your meaning. You’re saying ‘government run’ equals ‘public’. I say, ‘public’ equals ‘available to all’, as regards health insurance. We don’t have that yet. Not for everyone.
Every Member of Congress has care available at Bethesda Medical Center. It’s government run, and some of the finest care in the country, if not the world. But it’s not ‘public’, is it?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF,
“This country already has a public plan. It’s called Medicare. It is $38 Trillion in the hole. It is BANKRUPT. Why should anyone believe that expanding Medicare to cover everyone, before fixing the Medicare we already have, will not drive the country bankrupt?”
I think you have it backwards. We have to fix health care inflation, and then financing Medicare will be relatively easy to accomplish. If we don’t reduce health care inflation we are cooked. Here are some references for to cogitate on;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02sun1.html?hpw
Trustees Report Summary
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sorry I messed up the Trustees report summary URL, here it is;
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C’mon Curm, I’m more than willing to discuss this very calmly.
Now tell me. Why should I trust the government to expand a program that is so deeply in the hole?
Let me run this one by you.
Why not force everyone who is not already insured to buy insurance? Why not make it akin to social security and Medicare where the insurance premium is deducted from an employee’s paycheck? For those who cannot afford the full cost of insurtance, give them a tax credit. And for those whose income is deemed to be low enough where insurance is totally unaffordable, put them into Medicaid, an already existing public plan.
Then, mandate that private insureres accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Then, establish a blue ribbon, bipartisan committee to come up with a fiscal fix for Medicare. This fix must include a way to reduce skyrocketing medical costs. It is more than likely also include a rise in taxes. This part is not easy so it must be given enough time to comeup with a solution.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, Medicare already reimburses the health care industry at substantially less that private insurers. And it is still bankrupt. My resposne to you is the same as the one to Curm.
What do you think?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF,
I don’t believe it is proper to make a blanket statement that “Medicare already reimburses the health care industry at substantially less that private insurers.” In point of fact, some private insurers rely on Medicare reimbursement as the basis for their own reimbursements. And others require additional conditions be met before they will reimburse for certain procedures. But, we must not be distracted by this sort of minutiae. The problem is not Medicare it is the much larger inflation in health care cost vs growth in GDP and personal income. The financing of Medicare was predicated on earnings per enrollee keeping pace with health care costs which has not happened. The opposite has occurred wages have stagnated and Medical costs are skyrocketing.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rm, I believe you can find proof that what I say regarding Medicare’s lower reimbursement is correct by the fact that many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients. There is only one reason for that.
Now, the fact that medical costs are rising faster than inflation, is a given.
But how do you fix it? That is the question.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF,
Did you read the Trustees report? In case you haven’t here is a quote;
“Part B of the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet next year’s expected costs. However, expected steep cost increases will result in rapidly growing general revenue financing needs-projected to rise from 1.3 percent of GDP in 2008 to about 4.7 percent in 2083-as well as substantial increases over time in beneficiary premium charges.
It is expected that about one quarter of Part B enrollees will be subject to unusually large premium increases in the next two years. This occurs because it is projected that the other three-quarters of Part B enrollees will not be subject to premium increases in those years due to low projected Social Security benefit COLAs and a “hold-harmless” provision of current law that limits premium increases to the increase in Social Security benefits.”
Yes we know the doctors don’t receive enough money but that part of medicare is solvent. As far as lowering the runaway inflation todays NYT editorial has some ideas and feels that President Obama’s administration is headed in the right direction.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF,
Here is a specific example of the Obama administration doing something to reduce costs and rectify the problem of General Practitioners not taking new medicare patients. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oops,
I forgot the link;
http://covertrationingblog.com/cardiology-topics/cardiologists-react-badly-to-proposed-medicare-payment-cuts
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm: I read your post regarding Medicare and the issue of how to fix it remains. The NY Times editorial lists a number of ideas not currently incorporated in the House bill. The House bill was scored by the CBO, which is led by a Democrat, appointed by Democrats, who says the bill does not lower costs and raises the deficit.
So I am back to my suggestion that a biparisan, blue-ribbon committee be formed to study the problem in depth and give an opinion for implementation. This is not an issue that can be resolved in 2 or 3 months. It needs to be done right even if it takes 6-12 months to get the proper solution.
In the meantime, let’s move with deliberate speed to get everyone insured (including those who can afford to buy it but refuse to do so). Come up with a means to pay for that. Then address health care inflation in a thorough manner.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “my suggestion that a biparisan, blue-ribbon committee be formed to study the problem in depth and give an opinion for implementation. This is not an issue that can be resolved in 2 or 3 months. It needs to be done right even if it takes 6-12 months to get the proper solution”.
As I recall the my Repulican party had eight years to improve health care. Now my former party wants more time to study the issue which has been discussed for dozens of years. All of a sudden they know how to do what they failed to do at their time at bat? All the delay has been caused by lobbyists who do not want and will allow the true fix except only under their dead bodies.
Further delay and more talk is their way of killing reform that removes the profit motive. More time is not going to change their desire to stop this needed and meanful change.
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF,
I think that in order to achieve proper health care reform it will take even longer then you are suggesting. It should be an ongoing project with benchmarks for cost reduction along the way. Can we get any Republicans to join the bipartisan blue collar committee?
Posted August 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, I suggested it should be bipartisan, so, of course, Republicans would be appointed.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish - serious question, no snark intended:
Are there ANY republicans who advocate ‘universal’ coverage for all Americans, as you suggest?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm: “Are there ANY republicans who advocate ‘universal’ coverage for all Americans, as you suggest?”
What I mean by universal coverage is mandatory health care insurance for everyone. I believe that most republicans would be in favor of that as well as most private insurers.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The people who advocate Universal Health Coverage on a committee with those who would simply make paid health insurance mandatory?
That’s a recipe for getting nothing accomplished.
This whole business of “those who can afford, it but choose not to”…who exactly are those people?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The people who advocate Universal Health Coverage on a committee with those who would simply make paid health insurance mandatory?
That’s a recipe for getting nothing accomplished.”
Don’t understand what you mean.
“This whole business of “those who can afford, it but choose not to”…who exactly are those people?”
These are people who make enough money to afford health insurance, and choose not to buy it. I don’t recall the exact percentage of the uninsured that this category represents but it is significant.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I mean, anyone who wants to make paid insurance coverage mandatory is working with the insurance industry’s interests in mind. Any public option (Medicare and Medicaid included) is anathema to their interests. So, the committee would be less of a ‘bipartisan’ entity and more of a guaranteed gridlock. Or, more accurately, a stall. Nothing gets changed, so the industry doesn’t lose any money. For one side, that’s a win-win.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I mean, anyone who wants to make paid insurance coverage mandatory is working with the insurance industry’s interests in mind. “Any public option (Medicare and Medicaid included) is anathema to their interests.”
Medicare is mandatory health insurance. The premiums payments are mandatory by everyone. It comes out of the paycheck just like Social Security.
“So,the committee would be less of a ‘bipartisan’ entity and more of a guaranteed gridlock. Or, more accurately, a stall. Nothing gets changed, so the industry doesn’t lose any money. For one side, that’s a win-win.”
The committee’s charge, as I envision it, is to come up with a solution to the long-term rise in health care costs.
It appears that for some, you included, the primary interest is to destroy the private insurance industry and replace it with a single public opition. That is not in any proposal that I’ve seen and it wouldn’t sell in this country.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Again, Medicare may be ‘mandatory’, in your definition, but it’s not available to all, now is it?
I have no problem with the private industry, except that it’s the only option for those who don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. As such, they have an inordinate, and frankly, unethical amount of power over life
and death matters. But having a public option would definitely knock them down a peg or two, though, now wouldn’t it?
The assumption that I want private insurance industry destroyed is in error; as a matter of fact, my new job offers insurance (a wide selection of good packages, as a matter of fact), and I intend on taking advantage of it.
But just because my family will be taken care of, doesn’t mean I have the “I’ve got mine, everyone else can sink or swim” attitude.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Again, Medicare may be ‘mandatory’, in your definition, but it’s not available to all, now is it?”
Stop playing games, Curm. If you want to have a serious conversation, let’s have one. If not, I have better things to do.
Medicare is 100% available to all who turn 65. And it is 100% mandatory for everyone to contribute to it. And the way it is handled is by mandatory paycheck deductions. I propose that health insurance for all be handled through the same type of deduction. That is the only point I am making.
“The assumption that I want private insurance industry destroyed is in error; as a matter of fact, my new job offers insurance (a wide selection of good packages, as a matter of fact), and I intend on taking advantage of it.”
So why not make that available to everyone? A wide selection of private plans in a fully competititve industry. One where no one can be turned away. One where the consumer has the option of changing carriers if they don’t like the one they have? One where the consumer can take his insurance with him when he changes jobs.
“But just because my family will be taken care of, doesn’t mean I have the “I’ve got mine, everyone else can sink or swim” attitude.”
And did I disagree with that in my proposal?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
your constant portrayals of Medicare as the “public, mandatory” option are specious arguments, because they ignore the precentage of the population UNDER 65. That’s like claiming a low number of highway deaths, by only counting motorcycle fatalities. I’m not playing games. You’re being downright disingenuous.
And the claim that the industry is, or even could be, ‘fully competitive’ is ludicrous! This is an industry where the customer is at the mercy of the provider to determine whether they will live up to their contracts! Name me another non-insurance industry that can do that. I don’t just dare you to…I defy you to.
The fact that you continually ignore is:
If you need (or even anticipate the need for) medical care, and you don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, you HAVE to pay for health insurance, or
pay for it out of pocket. (We all know about $100 aspirin, right?)
So the industry can play with people’s lives in a lot crueler ways than the ‘horror stories’ we hear from the “Socialized Medicine Kills” lobby.
And, yes, I’m going to get health insurance once it’s available.
It’s the only game in town.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So why not make that available to everyone? A wide selection of private plans in a fully competititve industry. One where no one can be turned away.”
So is the government going to dictate to the insurance companies that they cannot turn away anyone? How can insurance companies compete if they are being forced to accept clients that they know are going to lose money on? Isn’t that government interference in a free market? Isn’t that the problem in the first place?
“One where the consumer has the option of changing carriers if they don’t like the one they have?”
Are they going to dictate the prices that are charged to enable consumers to change plans? They’ll have to since most people cannot afford to switch to a plan that is not offered by their employer because the employer covers a big part of the costs. Going to a different plan or provider means the consumer will have to pay the full cost of the plan, and most people cannot afford that.
“One where the consumer can take his insurance with him when he changes jobs.”
So you are going to disassociate the health plans from the employer? Then the consumer will have to pay the full cost of the plan, which will mean even fewer people will have health insurance.
It seems that what you are advocating will by necessity be a government health care plan, simply because the government will be dictating to the insurance companies who to cover and what to charge. How is that any different, in reality, than a single payer system? The only difference is that in your model the money will go to the insurance company first, rather than via the government. The end result will be the same.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Capitol Hill Press Conference
AAFP Board Chair Makes Compelling Case for Health Care Reform
By James Arvantes • Washington
7/31/2009
AAFP Board Chair Jim King, M.D., of Selmer, Tenn., urged Congress this week to enact health care reform legislation to avert a deepening crisis that threatens to derail the nation’s health care delivery system and to curtail or deny access to care for millions of Americans.
AAFP Board Chair Jim King, M.D., left, explains during a Capitol Hill press conference why Congress should pass health care reform legislation this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., looks on. “Family physicians cannot understand why we would ever want to continue a health care system that reduces productivity, accelerates cost increases and promotes inefficiency,” said King during a packed Capitol Hill press conference on July 30 that also featured Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; and Sens. Patricia Murray, D-Wash., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
King described the current health care system as “fragmented, uncoordinated and duplicative,” and questioned why the status quo would be acceptable to anyone.
“If we don’t achieve a system that works for everybody, health care delay in this country will (lead) to a deterioration in quality,” warned King, one of only two physicians to speak at the press conference.
And without reform, millions of Americans will not be able to afford what he termed “the normal, inexpensive, preventive care that saves lives and money,” he added.
“Millions of other Americans will be denied coverage when they apply for health insurance because of their health status,” said King. “Most businesses will be crushed by the weight of health insurance premiums that will either affect their bottom line or be passed onto their workers in (the form of ) reduced wages.”
View a brief YouTube video of the July 30 Capitol Hill press conference on the need for health care reform.Representatives from the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Student Association, Doctors for America and the National Physicians Alliance stood by King onstage. Together, the seven organizations represent 450,000 physicians and medical students, enough people to fill every seat in Chicago’s Wrigley Field 11 times over, King pointed out.
“Can you imagine 11 Wrigley Fields, full of doctors who demand reform?” he asked.
King and the representatives from the other organizations met with the four senators in Reid’s office before the press conference and handed each of them a letter re-emphasizing support for health care reform.
“Americans need affordable choices and stable coverage,” the letter says. “Not passing health care reform will result in continued rising costs, poorer quality of care and more people uninsured.”
“We are confident that the reforms being proposed will allow us to provide better quality care to our patients, while preserving patient choice of plan and doctor,” the letter also states.
During the press conference, King said, “We are too close to achieving health care reform to stop now.”
“Achieving this will benefit all Americans,” he said. “We have a rare opportunity to reshape health care in this country and to provide primary care that prevents costly illness.”
King also pointed out that the AAFP, in cooperation with the Herndon Alliance, has launched a Web-based video production, known as Heal Health Care Now, that features nine family physicians describing their experiences with the current health care system and calling for health care reform.
The senators said the presence of the AAFP and the other physician groups at the press conference speaks volumes about the need for health care reform.
“For the past weeks and months, you have heard from countless people talking — many senators, many House members, advocates and critics,” said Reid. “But few know the perilous state of our health care system like physicians.”
“Our doctors’ orders are very, very clear,” Reid added. “If we don’t start taking better care of our health care system, it is only going to get worse.”
Both Reid and Schumer predicted that Congress would pass health care legislation by the end of this year. Meanwhile, Murray, who also is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the committee has taken the lead in health care reform by recently approving the Affordable Health Choices Act.
That legislation contains a “very important section on preventive health care,” a first step in turning the system around to focus on prevention, Murray said.
The legislation also addresses workforce issues, providing scholarships and loans to encourage medical students to pursue careers in primary care and family medicine. “We need to have incentives to get primary care physicians — family physicians — into the field,” said Murray.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“your constant portrayals of Medicare as the “public, mandatory” option are specious arguments, because they ignore the precentage of the population UNDER 65.”
You obviously do not understand my point.
Medicare is a public plan - Do you disagree?
Medicare is mandatory. You cannot opt out and say you choose not to pay your premiums- Do you disagree?
Medicare coverage begins at age 65 - Do you disagree?
Medicare is bankrupt? - Do you disagree?
I propose to make health insurance coverage MANDATORY - Do you disagree?
I propose that premiums be paid out of an employee’s paycheck, as a mandatory deduction, in the same way that Medicare premiums are currently paid - Do you disagree?
I propose that those who cannot afford to pay the entire cost of insurance be helped by the givernment - Do you disagree?
I propose that folks below a certain income level, where any insurance premium is too much, be put on a public government insurance program, free of charge, called Medicaid - Do you disagree?
“That’s like claiming a low number of highway deaths, by only counting motorcycle fatalities. I’m not playing games. You’re being downright disingenuous.”
How am I being disingenuous?
“And the claim that the industry is, or even could be, ‘fully competitive’ is ludicrous! This is an industry where the customer is at the mercy of the provider to determine whether they will live up to their contracts! Name me another non-insurance industry that can do that. I don’t just dare you to…I defy you to.”
If you don’t read my posts and continue to rant about the insurance industry we will not get anywhere.
Here is what I wrote:
“So why not make that available to everyone? A wide selection of private plans in a fully competititve industry. One where no one can be turned away. One where the consumer has the option of changing carriers if they don’t like the one they have? One where the consumer can take his insurance with him when he changes jobs.”
These are things that do not currently exist. I am proposing changes to the system to make it better. No?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott:
“So is the government going to dictate to the insurance companies that they cannot turn away anyone?”
Yes.
“How can insurance companies compete if they are being forced to accept clients that they know are going to lose money on? Isn’t that government interference in a free market? Isn’t that the problem in the first place?”
Because the government will also mandate that everyone must have insurance. And that includes the healthy young folks who can afford to buy it but refuse to do so.
“Are they going to dictate the prices that are charged to enable consumers to change plans? They’ll have to since most people cannot afford to switch to a plan that is not offered by their employer because the employer covers a big part of the costs. Going to a different plan or provider means the consumer will have to pay the full cost of the plan, and most people cannot afford that.”
If the employer covers a big part of the cost, then why would one want to switch?
“So you are going to disassociate the health plans from the employer? Then the consumer will have to pay the full cost of the plan, which will mean even fewer people will have health insurance.”
The employee is able to keep his insurance while he is between jobs. Yes, he will have to make up for the old epmloyer’s contribution for that intermediate period.
“It seems that what you are advocating will by necessity be a government health care plan, simply because the government will be dictating to the insurance companies who to cover and what to charge.”
I have not said anywhere that the government decides how much insurance companies charge.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said: “So is the government going to dictate to the insurance companies that they cannot turn away anyone?”
bullishfrog said: “Yes.”
How is that free market?
“Because the government will also mandate that everyone must have insurance. And that includes the healthy young folks who can afford to buy it but refuse to do so.”
Do you really think that is a significant percentage?
“If the employer covers a big part of the cost, then why would one want to switch?”
You said they should have the option to switch if they do not like the coverage being offered. But if they cannot afford the full cost, they cannot switch.
“The employee is able to keep his insurance while he is between jobs. Yes, he will have to make up for the old epmloyer’s contribution for that intermediate period.”
And how is he going to pay for an additional 100-500% increase in his health coverage costs while he does not have a job?
“I have not said anywhere that the government decides how much insurance companies charge.”
Then the insurance companies are free to charge exorbitant rates that the consumer HAS to pay, since he is required to have health coverage. For someone with a pre-existing condition, the insurance company can simply charge a sky-high rate to insure that they make a profit despite the high level of benefits to be paid. All you’re doing is guaranteeing that the insurance company makes a profit on consumers that have no choice but to buy their services.
I honestly don’t see this as solving the health care crisis.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The insurance industry would never, ever, in a million years, ALLOW the government to tell them they can’t deny care. A public option wouldn’t destroy the industry. People who can afford it would still be able to buy a higher level of care. That’s the way the system works, and will still work.
What you are proposing, bullish, is enforced capitalism, under the misguided assumption that ‘free enterprise’ would level the playing field between consumer and provider, or that somehow, the market would level itself out, becoming fair to all. “Free Enterprise” does not apply when the product or service is something people cannot live without, or do themselves. Period.
If that were true, we wouldn’t need Medicare or Medicaid.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said: “So is the government going to dictate to the insurance companies that they cannot turn away anyone?”
“How is that free market?”
The government is permitted to regulate free markets.
“Because the government will also mandate that everyone must have insurance. And that includes the healthy young folks who can afford to buy it but refuse to do so.”
“Do you really think that is a significant percentage?”
I have seen the numbers. They were shown on this site (unisured who can afford to pay for all or a portion of their insurance), by JMH, on another thread. The numbers are very substantial.
“If the employer covers a big part of the cost, then why would one want to switch?”
“You said they should have the option to switch if they do not like the coverage being offered. But if they cannot afford the full cost, they cannot switch.”
I am self employed. I pay the full cost of my insurance. I have the option to switch in my proposed system. I may not be able to switch to a more expensive option which offers more coverage.
“The employee is able to keep his insurance while he is between jobs. Yes, he will have to make up for the old epmloyer’s contribution for that intermediate period.”
And how is he going to pay for an additional 100-500% increase in his health coverage costs while he does not have a job?
If he is unable to get a job, and he has no means of paying for insurance, he would fall into the Medicaid category.
“I have not said anywhere that the government decides how much insurance companies charge.”
Then the insurance companies are free to charge exorbitant rates that the consumer HAS to pay, since he is required to have health coverage.”
Not in a competitive system.
“For someone with a pre-existing condition, the insurance company can simply charge a sky-high rate to insure that they make a profit despite the high level of benefits to be paid. All you’re doing is guaranteeing that the insurance company makes a profit on consumers that have no choice but to buy their services.”
The insurance companies will not be allowed to charge a rate that is significantly higher for those with pre-existing conditions. That would be part of the new regulations. They may have to pay somewhat more than someone of the same age, as is the case between smokers and non-smokers.
I am not inventing this. I have heard a number of insurance executives already agree to this.
And, by the way, everything I propose (other than a bipartisan blue ribbon committe to address rising costs) is included in the health care bill that came out of committee on Friday.
“I honestly don’t see this as solving the health care crisis.”
The crisis is one of escalating costs. That is the issue which would be addressed by a bipartisan committee and would require time to resolve.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm: “The insurance industry would never, ever, in a million years, ALLOW the government to tell them they can’t deny care.”
You have not been paying attention to what helath care executives have been saying. They have already conceded that point.
“A public option wouldn’t destroy the industry. People who can afford it would still be able to buy a higher level of care. That’s the way the system works, and will still work.”
I disagree. A public option run by the government has no fiscal controls. If it did, Medicare would not be bankrupt. A public plan can undercharge on its premiums in order to drive out private insurance, and run a deficit. That is what Medicare does.
If a public plan was forced to charge premiums equal to costs, then the playing field would be leveled. I would be in favor of not-for-profit health insurance companies (they already exist) where there is no profit but the company must pay for its costs thorugh the premius charged.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The government is permitted to regulate free markets.”
This sounds more like the regulation that the government recently imposed on the auto industry. That didn’t go over very well with a lot of people. And this would be permanent.
“I have seen the numbers. They were shown on this site (unisured who can afford to pay for all or a portion of their insurance), by JMH, on another thread. The numbers are very substantial.”
Forgive me for not trusting the numbers that JMH provided. I really doubt that there are many people that can afford coverage that don’t have it. There are far more that want it and cannot afford it.
“I am self employed. I pay the full cost of my insurance. I have the option to switch in my proposed system. I may not be able to switch to a more expensive option which offers more coverage.”
Then they don’t really have the option to switch, do they? If they can only afford one plan, then the fact that other plans exist doesn’t mean they have another option.
“If he is unable to get a job, and he has no means of paying for insurance, he would fall into the Medicaid category.”
Then he is not keeping his coverage between jobs. Now, if he was under a Medicaid-like plan in the first place, he would get to retain the same coverage.
“Not in a competitive system.”
Why not? Any other company would be doing the same thing. Someone with an ailment requiring expensive treatment is not going to find an insurance carrier that is going to charge less than what they will be paying out in benefits, especially if the government is requiring the person to purchase coverage, but not limiting what that coverage can cost.
“The insurance companies will not be allowed to charge a rate that is significantly higher for those with pre-existing conditions. That would be part of the new regulations. They may have to pay somewhat more than someone of the same age, as is the case between smokers and non-smokers.”
So the government WILL be dictating how much they can charge.
“I am not inventing this. I have heard a number of insurance executives already agree to this.”
Agreeing to let the government place a limitation on their profits? I’m betting there is more to it.
“And, by the way, everything I propose (other than a bipartisan blue ribbon committe to address rising costs) is included in the health care bill that came out of committee on Friday.”
Great.
“The crisis is one of escalating costs. That is the issue which would be addressed by a bipartisan committee and would require time to resolve.”
No argument. But it seems that once the costs are under control, a single payer system would still be a better option, since the profit motive is removed completely.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The government is permitted to regulate free markets.”
“This sounds more like the regulation that the government recently imposed on the auto industry. That didn’t go over very well with a lot of people. And this would be permanent.”
Scot, this is already part of the bill that came out of the House. I agree with this part of the bill. I see no reason to discuss it further.
“I have seen the numbers. They were shown on this site (unisured who can afford to pay for all or a portion of their insurance), by JMH, on another thread. The numbers are very substantial.”
“Forgive me for not trusting the numbers that JMH provided. I really doubt that there are many people that can afford coverage that don’t have it. There are far more that want it and cannot afford it.”
It is you choice not to trust anything. The number are available on the web. Find the ones you can believe in., I haven’t seen anything that disputes the site JMH quoted. I saw the same exact figures used on CNBC.
“I am self employed. I pay the full cost of my insurance. I have the option to switch in my proposed system. I may not be able to switch to a more expensive option which offers more coverage.”
“Then they don’t really have the option to switch, do they? If they can only afford one plan, then the fact that other plans exist doesn’t mean they have another option.”
They have an option to switch. They may not be able to afford all the plans available.
“If he is unable to get a job, and he has no means of paying for insurance, he would fall into the Medicaid category.”
“Then he is not keeping his coverage between jobs. Now, if he was under a Medicaid-like plan in the first place, he would get to retain the same coverage.”
You are assumming that every single person who loses their jobs has zero savings and, therefore, no ability to pay for anythong between jobs. That is certainly not the case. Thise who fall into the category of having no money then qualify for welfare. And that includes free medical insurance. That is not the case today. That would be something new.
“Not in a competitive system.”
“Why not? Any other company would be doing the same thing. Someone with an ailment requiring expensive treatment is not going to find an insurance carrier that is going to charge less than what they will be paying out in benefits, especially if the government is requiring the person to purchase coverage, but not limiting what that coverage can cost.”
A company aquires business from another company, in the same industry, by being more efficient, better managed, and maybe willing to accept a lower profit margin that can be made up through increased volume.
“The insurance companies will not be allowed to charge a rate that is significantly higher for those with pre-existing conditions. That would be part of the new regulations. They may have to pay somewhat more than someone of the same age, as is the case between smokers and non-smokers.”
So the government WILL be dictating how much they can charge.
The government will, as part of new regulations, dictate that someone with pre-existing conditions will not pay signioficantly mre than anyone else. The government does not dictate the base charge.
“I am not inventing this. I have heard a number of insurance executives already agree to this.”
Agreeing to let the government place a limitation on their profits? I’m betting there is more to it.
Who said anything about the government placing a limit on profits? Let me repeat this one more time. The government will mandate that everyone must have insurance. That includes a pool of young healthy individuals who are not currently insured. Those individuals, which incur lower health care expenses, will help offset those with pre-existing conditions.
“And, by the way, everything I propose (other than a bipartisan blue ribbon committe to address rising costs) is included in the health care bill that came out of committee on Friday.”
Great.
“The crisis is one of escalating costs. That is the issue which would be addressed by a bipartisan committee and would require time to resolve.”
“No argument. But it seems that once the costs are under control, a single payer system would still be a better option, since the profit motive is removed completely.”
This country will not go for that. No one in government is proposing that. Let’s move on and deal with reality.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i just don’t see your system working in reality. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You know, it makes you wonder why the insurance industry is suddenly willing to even ‘talk’ about reforms, after all these years….
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm says, “The insurance industry would never, ever, in a million years, ALLOW the government to tell them they can’t deny care. A public option wouldn’t destroy the industry. People who can afford it would still be able to buy a higher level of care. That’s the way the system works, and will still work.”
If you look at the provisions of the ObamaCare plans, there won’t BE a much higher level of (promised) care.
The Government already regulates the insurance industry. In fact, that’s one of the problems. Every special interest has lobbied for comprehensive mandatory coverage of every condition or disease.
Just as ONE example that I’m familiar with, it was a major victory for the autism community when it was legislated that interventions for autism spectrum disorders be included under Major Medical. Until then, autism was considered a developmental disability - not usually covered by medical insurance. (it really is BOTH) The ‘back story’ being that government educational and disability systems were FAILING at meeting THEIR responsibilities to these children. Why? Funding. Even though it’s true that autism is neurological (medical) in origin, many (most) treatments SHOULD be covered under the IDEA - the Law which requires Education and/or HHS systems to provide services for children with disabilities. In that sense, the government ’simply’ shifted some of it’s own Human Service responsibilities to the disabled - to private health insurance. Multiply that same back story to any number of developmental disabilities and you’ve pinpointed one of the reasons for the rising cost of health care in general. It’s a giant shell game with the government double dipping in private pockets (thru taxes & insurance regs) to avoid it’s legitimate responsibilities to children and adults with special needs.
If you actually look at some the provisions in ObamaCare there are many other examples of duplication of non-medical services into this “health care” plan. Another example - While one can certainly make a case for parent education as important to a child’s health, it certainly goes well beyond MEDICAL care and fits more with BO’s idea of “cradle to grave” government.
Barney Frank recently said (or slipped up or admitted) that a public option was the best way towards single payer. HE knows the details of this “public option” but we’re getting a mixed message from Obama. Kind of like an exterminator showing up at your front door with a flame thrower trying to assure you they’re only spraying for bugs. Not to worry, you’ll still have all your other stuff. Who to believe? Words or common sense.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm: “You know, it makes you wonder why the insurance industry is suddenly willing to even ‘talk’ about reforms, after all these years….”
Because they are fighting for their lives.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish-
I agree, totally and unequivocally.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is no desire among the populations of Canada, Australia or the EU nations to drop thier respective systems and replace them with our private for-profit one. I hope the Obama government can fix the problem because the status quo IS NOT WORKING. The ignorant protestors can shout, chant and have their public temper tantrums but it won’t change the truth.
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s a question I would like to see answered.
If, as some say, we have the best health care system in the world, then why isn’t any other country trying to emulate it?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excellent question Scott just why are they sticking with their “second rate plan”? Well maybe because they get better outcomes by living longer and healthier and at half the cost of ours.
We could turn that question around and ask why are we not embracing their proven better solution?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah, but longer and healthier lives under socialistic health care isn’t really living at all.
Right?
Posted August 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice come back Scott
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “Ah, but longer and healthier lives under socialistic health care isn’t really living at all.”
Do you have the stats to prove that “socialistic health care” leads to increased life span? By how much? What other factors besides medical care contribute to lifespan?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Where did I say that socialized health care leads to longer lifespans than othe forms of health care? You really like making things up for me, don’t you?
According to this:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
the US ranks 50th out of 224, behind countries such as Australia, Canada, Sweden and France. It isn’t the “socialized” aspect that contributes to the increased lifespans. It’s that fact that EVERYONE has access to health care that increases life span.
Answer this: If the US has such a great system, why are we 50th?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s a FACT: We need to be comparing OUR current system with what is being proposed by OUR government for the whole country WE live in.
Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who’ve experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
Do we really need a complete overhaul of INSURANCE or do we need to fix the administration of the FREE HEALTH CARE that is already available through Medicare and Medicaid?
Why aren’t more people moving to countries that offer socialized medicine in the same way people flock to America? Last I heard, Canadian hospitals on the border with the US aren’t being inundated and driven into bankruptcy with US citizens clamoring for their health care.
“Canada’s health care system has its problems”
“Negative discussion about health care in Canada tends to focus on a persistent set of problems: access, wait times, and shortages of health care providers. This has been the case in times of good economy and during economic crisis.”
“By 2007, despite government promises and billions of dollars funneled into the Canadian health-care system, “the average patient waited more than 18 weeks between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required,” said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the independent Fraser Institute.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m7d11-Canadas-health-care-system-has-its-problems
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What a surprise. He didn’t answer the question.
If our system is so great, why are we 50th?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott;
Because those traitors at the CIA are just making up facts to support the socialist agenda! Besides, Any Real American would give up a measly 6.16 years of his life to live in the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
Hey…50th place….50 stars on the flag…Our leaders planned this, man… It’s AWESOME!!
Take that, Macau.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says: “Where did I say that socialized health care leads to longer lifespans than othe forms of health care? You really like making things up for me, don’t you?”
You said, “Ah, but longer and healthier lives under socialistic health care isn’t really living at all.”
Then that wasn’t sarcasm? People don’t really live longer and healthier lives under socialistic health care? If you were being serious that “longer and healthier lives under socialistic health care isn’t really living at all”, then why do you think so many people are touting how great the UK and Canadian systems are?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, that was sarcasm. And yes, people apparently do live longer under socialistic health care. I don’t believe that the socalistic element has anything to do with it, other than it means that all of a given countries’ citizens have health care, which is not something that this country can claim.
I’ll try to spell things out for you in the future. By the way, if we have such a great system, why are we in 50th place?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says “It isn’t the “socialized” aspect that contributes to the increased lifespans.”
EXACTLY
Scott asks, “If our system is so great, why are we 50th?”
LIFESTYLE and the “care” we give OURSELVES plays a much bigger role than after-the-damage medical care. Prevention isn’t just trips to the doctor. It’s LIFESTYLE. The US has the highest rate of obesity in the world. Childhood obesity is increasing at an alarming rate. Adult onset Diabetes is increasing. We are an affluent country that lives on fast food, soda and couch potatoes.
You really ought to also look at different stats. The US is #1 in the rate of obesity - Japan #28 in obesity #3 lifespan.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Scott says “It isn’t the “socialized” aspect that contributes to the increased lifespans.”
EXACTLY”
I never said otherwise. The fact that those countries with longer lifespans also tend to have socialized health care is interesting though. Are you trying to say that having health care has nothing to do with lifespan?
“LIFESTYLE and the “care” we give OURSELVES plays a much bigger role than after-the-damage medical care. Prevention isn’t just trips to the doctor.”
No, but it is part of it, and people who go to the doctor are more likely to take better care of themselves. Having the ability to go to the doctor influences your lifestyle.
“It’s LIFESTYLE. The US has the highest rate of obesity in the world. Childhood obesity is increasing at an alarming rate. Adult onset Diabetes is increasing. We are an affluent country that lives on fast food, soda and couch potatoes.”
No argument here. Too bad so many of those couch potatoes don’t have dependable access to health care. They’re the ones that are most likely to need it. If only there was a way that they could get that…
“You really ought to also look at different stats. The US is #1 in the rate of obesity - Japan #28 in obesity #3 lifespan.”
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity”
Right, and having universal health care wouldn’t affect obesity rates at all.
Sheesh.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “No, but it is part of it, and people who go to the doctor are more likely to take better care of themselves. Having the ability to go to the doctor influences your lifestyle.”
Really? Where’s the data on that.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “No, but it is part of it, and people who go to the doctor are more likely to take better care of themselves. Having the ability to go to the doctor influences your lifestyle.”
Really? You’re attributing cause and effect to a correlation. BAD science. Tsk tsk
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “Right, and having universal health care wouldn’t affect obesity rates at all.”
Probably not. Eating healthy and exercising affects obesity rates. Perhaps we’d save more money and be more healthy if we limited Food Stamps to only healthy foods, taxed junk food to death, bought everyone a Stair-stepper, and made your tax rate dependent on body weight. Hooray for social engineering!!!
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/07/14/thoughts-on-a-national-health-care-system/ Post #97 :
“But since we’re talking about the government reforming HEALTH care - here’s another idea:
Do a the same kind of cost-benefit analysis on groceries that the Federal Commission is doing for medical treatments. Restrict what can be bought by Food Stamps to exclude snack foods, sugared cereals and fully prepared convenience foods/meals. Will save money and improve health!”
So, if YOU suggest it, it’s not ’social engineering’?
Or are you going to use the “I was just being facetious” excuse?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH:
“Really? Where’s the data on that.”
Are you saying that people who go to the doctor DON’T take better care of themselves than people who don’t? It seems to me that going to the doctor is by definition a way of taking care of yourself. Got any reason to say otherwise other than just to disagree with me?
“Really? You’re attributing cause and effect to a correlation. BAD science. Tsk tsk”
Cause and effect ARE correlated. That’s what makes them cause and effect. If you are under the impression that they aren’t, then you have no idea what bad science is or isn’t.
“Probably not. Eating healthy and exercising affects obesity rates.”
And who encourages their patients to eat healthy and exercise? Doctors!! That is a correlation.
“Perhaps we’d save more money and be more healthy if we limited Food Stamps to only healthy foods, taxed junk food to death, bought everyone a Stair-stepper, and made your tax rate dependent on body weight. Hooray for social engineering!!!”
Curmudgeon pretty much answered this one. Double standard much?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said: Scott says, “..people who go to the doctor are more likely to take better care of themselves. Having the ability to go to the doctor influences your lifestyle.”
Any data on that yet?
Scott said: “Cause and effect ARE correlated. That’s what makes them cause and effect. If you are under the impression that they aren’t, then you have no idea what bad science is or isn’t.”
I didn’t say that cause and effect aren’t correlated. But not all correlations indicate a CAUSAL relationship.
You say, “And who encourages their patients to eat healthy and exercise? Doctors!! That is a correlation.”
Only if the patients actually DO eat healthy and exercise - changing their LIFESTYLE. Going to the doctor and having him/her tell you to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise will not magically influence you to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise. In reality, nutrition and health education can be delivered more cost-effectively in our schools and the media. The only thing that can actually CAUSE people to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise is a NANNY. Much cheaper too.
Don’t forget where this conversation started. You wanted to know why the US was #50 in lifespan and I gave a reason. We’re an affluent country that has the #1 rate of obesity. There IS a cause and effect relationship between diet and obesity and all sorts of health problems.
Are you arguing with that or just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, quit arguing with JMH. She’s a lost cause. Get to work and contact Salazar, Bennet, and Udall. I talked to a very nice lady at Salazar’s office today. I told her if the Democrats blow healthcare again there will for sure be another republican revolution in 2010. John DeMint called it Obama’s Waterloo. Clearly they want to regain power and if that happens we’ll be bombing Iran and North Korea. Do you want to sacrifice your children to the military-industrial complex?
If Democrats don’t pass healthcare reform with a strong public option they will be out of jobs in 2010. JMH is never going to vote for a Democrat. You call ALL of them and tell them that.
Sadly it’s just a matter of who can out-shout who. Get on your soap box and start shouting.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm -
You don’t see the difference between limiting what TAXPAYER FUNDED Food Stamps can buy and social engineering through taxation? Or are you just being obtuse….
I’m flattered that you keep such close track of my posts.. lol
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
xena says, “Scott, quit arguing with JMH. She’s a lost cause.”
LOL!
Do you disagree with something I said?
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
xena says,” Clearly they want to regain power and if that happens we’ll be bombing Iran and North Korea. Do you want to sacrifice your children to the military-industrial complex?”
Oooooooooh, sounds scary.
xena says, “If Democrats don’t pass healthcare reform with a strong public option they will be out of jobs in 2010.”
And if they pass what’s ACTUALLY in the “Public Option” so far, they’re still toast.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
xena: “I told her if the Democrats blow healthcare again there will for sure be another republican revolution in 2010. John DeMint called it Obama’s Waterloo. Clearly they want to regain power and if that happens we’ll be bombing Iran and North Korea. Do you want to sacrifice your children to the military-industrial complex? If Democrats don’t pass healthcare reform with a strong public option they will be out of jobs in 2010.”
What Xena fails to understand is that this country is not in love with the idea of a strong public option. If Americans wanted that, the House bill would have passed already.
What Xena fails to understand is that Americans are already scared by the unbelievably high deficits which the Obama budget has produced. And they are not willing to trust him with a public option which could drive the country bankrupt.
What Xena fails to understand is that America is not France, is not Canada, and is not England. The citizens of those countries do, indeed, approve of the big welfare state financed by big taxes. The citizens of the United States do not.
And that is why the Democrats cannot come up with a bill that they can pass. It’s all up to them, they don’t need Republican support to pass anything.
So, Xena, you should continue to call your Democrat legislators. Push them to pass what Americans don’t want. Enough of them won’t. They want to keep their jobs.
Obama will get a health care bill passed this year. It will kick the ball forward, but it won’t contain a public option. That’s my prediction.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ooooo. Ouch ouch ouch ouch. Hit a nerve.
Scott, dgadbc, seabwwII, fastfreddie, raydeohman, curmudgion . . . see? I was right. This is what counts. People don’t want rationed healthcare, lack of choice, forced euthanisia of seniors, mandatory sex change,fundihg for elective abortions, presidents who were born in Kenya (or is it Australia?)and NONE of this is in the healthcare reform proposal.
They are lieing and it’s up to you and me to shout them down. Get to work.
I’m done with these guys. No need to report back. This conversation was long past over 30 posts ago. Just get busy and CALL YOUR REPRSENTATIVES.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Xena: “I’m done with these guys.”
Lol. Good for you. Smart move.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Any data on that yet?”
Would it matter? If you are disputing that being able to go to the doctor affects your lifestyle, then nothing I say will change your mind. I have neither the time nor interest in chasing rabbits just so you can continue to disagree with me.
“I didn’t say that cause and effect aren’t correlated. But not all correlations indicate a CAUSAL relationship.”
Yes, actually you did. You said “You’re attributing cause and effect to a correlation. BAD science.” Perhaps that’s not what you meant to say, but it is what you said.
“Only if the patients actually DO eat healthy and exercise - changing their LIFESTYLE. Going to the doctor and having him/her tell you to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise will not magically influence you to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise.”
No, but you are more likely to if the doctor tells you to.
“In reality, nutrition and health education can be delivered more cost-effectively in our schools and the media. The only thing that can actually CAUSE people to eat healthy and lose weight and exercise is a NANNY. Much cheaper too.”
No argument. Its irrelevant, but I don’t disagree.
“Don’t forget where this conversation started. You wanted to know why the US was #50 in lifespan and I gave a reason. We’re an affluent country that has the #1 rate of obesity. There IS a cause and effect relationship between diet and obesity and all sorts of health problems.”
And none of that justifies not having health care for all citizens. Nice distraction, but just because the US is #1 in obesity does not mean people should be denied health care.
“Are you arguing with that or just arguing for the sake of arguing?”
No, I’m pointing out that you are simply trying to distract attention from the main issue. You are the one throwing red herrings across the trail. Why would you be doing that, I wonder?
Actually, I don’t wonder at all.
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 11:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “No, but you are more likely to if the doctor tells you to.”
If that’s the case, you need a Nanny, not a Doctor.
You say, “And none of that justifies not having health care for all citizens. Nice distraction, but just because the US is #1 in obesity does not mean people should be denied health care.”
You threw the red herring distraction. You asked why the US was #50 is life expectancy. I answered. Quite obviously I never said that “just because the US is #1 in obesity does not mean people should be denied health care.”
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 4:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The question on why the US was #50 in life span is completely relevant. You apparently take the position that the low position of the US has nothing to do with health care, but rather obesity, which (bizarrely) you apparently also think has nothing to do with health care.
I don’t think anything more need be said.
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 7:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course there are variables, other than which country has universal health care and which doesn’t, that determines longevity. If having universal health care was the only determinant, there would not be such a wide disparity among those countries that have it.
On the other hand, there can be no disputing that someone receiving zero health care is more likely to have a shorter life than one who does.
But how much higher the US would move if universal health care existed here is impossible to say. Denmark, which already has it, is barely above the US figure and England is not much higher. Further, what is the average longevity for the 85% of US citizens who are insured? Shouldn’t that be the group that should be measured if one wants to know the effectiveness of the US system?
In any event, providing health care for everyone does not require a single payer government run health care system.
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It would be interesting to see statistics on the longevity of those with and those without health care. I tried to find some briefly last night, but couldn’t. Does anyone know where they might be found?
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 8:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Does anyone know where they might be found?”
If you are referring to the uninsured in the US, I don’t think you’ll have much luck there because I suspect most folks are unisured for only a portion of their life.
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Probably true.
What do you think about JMH’s contention that the health care situation has little or nothing to do with the lowered life spans in the US?
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well said, bf.
What Scott and others fail to see is that no one who opposes the “reform” being proposed is opposing access to health care for all citizens. And everyone agrees that we need to bring down the cost of health care. But attempting to blame all the literal ills of our country on the quality of health care in the US is pure propaganda.
Scott says, “The question on why the US was #50 in life span is completely relevant. You apparently take the position that the low position of the US has nothing to do with health care, but rather obesity, which (bizarrely) you apparently also think has nothing to do with health care.”
That’s not what I’m saying and I think you’re smart enough to know that.
All I’m saying is that numbers can be deceiving (I think you know that too) and we’re being told a lie whenever someone in the government cites statistics on longevity as an indicator of poor quality or inaccessible health care.
In statistical analysis, we also have to know what those numbers measure - and the truth is that measures of longevity include all causes of death. In addition to obesity, other factors at work in the US statistic are traffic accidents, homicides, smoking, drug addiction, and the deaths of young men and women in our military. No matter how one stands on the recent uses of our military, it is still true that most deaths involve young people - which can significantly skew longevity averages downward. Similarly, the woman who just knocked off 4 VERY young children by driving drunk also just brought the AVERAGE longevity in the US down a notch. It’s just simple math. Eliminating any one “unnatural” early COD factor will change the statistic but still won’t accurately reflect health care. All such “unnatural”, lifestyle-related deaths are much better explained by our culture rather than the quality of our health care or access to health care.
The only valid way to look at quality of health care is to look at survival rates for various diseases and conditions. For example, US survival rates for breast and prostate cancer are unequivocally higher than anywhere on the planet. That said, there is still a disparity between States as well as between various sub-populations. That said, we DO need to look more closely at the disparities. We don’t need to junk the whole system.
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“What Scott and others fail to see is that no one who opposes the “reform” being proposed is opposing access to health care for all citizens.”
Mind reading again, huh?
“And everyone agrees that we need to bring down the cost of health care. But attempting to blame all the literal ills of our country on the quality of health care in the US is pure propaganda.”
And what you apparently fail to see (as evidenced by your statement here) is that no one is blaming ALL of the health problems on the quality of health care. That is irrelevant to the point that not everyone HAS health care, and that is what is currently being discussed. Accusing people of claims they are not making does not advance the discussion. It only serves as a distraction to what the discussion should be about.
“That’s not what I’m saying and I think you’re smart enough to know that.”
That’s sure what it sounded like you said in post #84, where you said that lifestyle has far more to do with longevity than healthcare. What percentage of longevity, do you think then, is attributable to the quality of health care?
“All I’m saying is that numbers can be deceiving (I think you know that too) and we’re being told a lie whenever someone in the government cites statistics on longevity as an indicator of poor quality or inaccessible health care.”
So here you are saying that longevity is not an indicator of quality or accessability of health care. Make up your mind. Sure, there are other factors involved, but do you really think that a lack of health care does not impact longevity at all?
“In statistical analysis, we also have to know what those numbers measure - and the truth is that measures of longevity include all causes of death. In addition to obesity, other factors at work in the US statistic are traffic accidents, homicides, smoking, drug addiction, and the deaths of young men and women in our military. No matter how one stands on the recent uses of our military, it is still true that most deaths involve young people - which can significantly skew longevity averages downward. Similarly, the woman who just knocked off 4 VERY young children by driving drunk also just brought the AVERAGE longevity in the US down a notch. It’s just simple math. Eliminating any one “unnatural” early COD factor will change the statistic but still won’t accurately reflect health care. All such “unnatural”, lifestyle-related deaths are much better explained by our culture rather than the quality of our health care or access to health care.”
Wrong. Most of those conditions are directly affected by the quality of health care they receive. Those who receive little or no care will decrease the statistics more than those who receive more and better care. Sure, some accident victims die regardless, but do you think that US accident victims die more frequently than those in other countries?
“The only valid way to look at quality of health care is to look at survival rates for various diseases and conditions. For example, US survival rates for breast and prostate cancer are unequivocally higher than anywhere on the planet. That said, there is still a disparity between States as well as between various sub-populations. That said, we DO need to look more closely at the disparities. We don’t need to junk the whole system.”
Who is saying that the whole system needs to be junked? You are once again, attacking a straw-man. Last I heard, the REFORM program currently under discussion was a modification of the existing system, not a complete replacement. Am I wrong?
Posted August 5th, 2009 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My primary concern of the Democratic health care reform proposal, as it stands now, is it’s impact on the deficit. Apparently, most Americans agree.
New polling on health care reform:
“the Quinnipiac national poll -– with an unusually large sample of more than 2,000 interviews –- found that almost three in four Americans don’t believe Mr. Obama’s promise that any health reform that he signs will not add to the federal deficit.”
“What’s clear from the poll data is that the simple message being offered by Mr. Obama’s critics has taken hold, that you can’t insure 45 million to 50 million people without someone, somewhere having to pay more money. And voters are worried they will foot the bill.”
“So much so, that there is poll data indicating that they might be willing to junk the whole health care overhaul.”
“In the Quinnipiac survey, 55% (including 54% of the key independent voter bloc) said they were more concerned that the overhaul would increase the deficit than that Congress would not pass some kind of overhaul. That same 57% (and 59% of independents) disagreed with the following statement: “Overhauling the nation’s health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it means substantially increasing the federal budget deficit.””
“The poll found 59% of the public disagreed (and only 36% agreed) with the following statement: Congress should approve a health care overhaul even if only Democrats support it.””
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/08/05/poll-shows-perils-for-obamas-health-overhaul/
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.