Healthcare reform

[Texsox]

A "needless test, ordered to make my Doctor more money" saved my life.

 

Doc "The test came back negative. We can wait and see what happens, (insurance company recommendation) or we can keep looking"

Me "What would the next step be?"

Doc "We'd send you over to the hospital and run some special tests. The insurance company will balk at paying for them unless you have another problem."

Me "See my passport, look at the countries. Kings and billionaires from those countries come here for treatment. I don't want a problem like this while I am in Taiwan or India, their best Doctors are here. LOL"

Doc. "Wait until you see the bill"

Problem found, a "time bomb" dismantled. Tex rides again.

 

I'm not certain how he made any money on those tests, I paid the Doctors there direct, it was not billed through my primary care Doc.

 

Cubana -- We are better at just about everything than France, Canada, Cuba, etc. We would also do Medical better. But I have faith and trust in America, perhaps we haven't earned your trust yet.

 

The US has the best health care in the world if you are working for a company with medical benefits. We suck if you are unemployed, "working poor", etc. It is a myth that the poor receive these great benefits.

[Texsox]

Yeah, like Politicians really care about the people..... NOT.

 

I'm sorry, but I'll trust private insurers over most politicians.

 

Certainly the customer service person the private insurer hires in Malaysia will care much more about you!

 

Basically you are trusting the CEOs, (think Enron) to pay and consult with your Doctor instead of your elected officials who desperately want to get reelected. The same elected officials that keep offering us more and more so we vote for them. The same officials who have added more and more benefits to Social Security.

 

I trust elected officials with my health care coverage, I am more worried that they will over spend and offer a carte blanche program that will become too benefit laden.

[kapkomet]

The numbers aren't important. Don't get sucked into arguing about petty crap.

Yes, they are, because the "numbers" is why they are trying to force this down our throat.

 

[Texsox]

The numbers certainly are a big part of it, and an interesting double edged sword. The more there are, the greater the need. The more there are, the greater the cost.

 

I just look at people I know, and myself, who change jobs, get downsized, fired, s*** canned, etc. and begin worrying about the health of their children and spouse. One serious injury or illness and hey are financially ruined for life. That could come after working twenty, thirty years for a company, or just being a fresh out of college student off their parent's policy. I know the United States can come up with a better system. The cost of those uninsured or poor patients is already being paid within the system. With higher prices for all consumers and lower benefits by insurance companies.

[lostfan]

Yes, they are, because the "numbers" is why they are trying to force this down our throat.

Not really. The number is "a lot," we already know that. The fact that something has to be done is pretty obvious. We can argue about what needs to be done exactly all day though, since anybody that thinks everything is fine and dandy right now is delusional.

[spiderman]

Not really. The number is "a lot," we already know that. The fact that something has to be done is pretty obvious. We can argue about what needs to be done exactly all day though, since anybody that thinks everything is fine and dandy right now is delusional.

 

ok, then what needs to be done in your view? Let's assume that Obama won't get a single payer system. How do we improve health care through cutting costs, insuring everyone (like those with pre-existing conditions)?

[lostfan]

ok, then what needs to be done in your view? Let's assume that Obama won't get a single payer system. How do we improve health care through cutting costs, insuring everyone (like those with pre-existing conditions)?

Already gone over this somewhere in this 13-page thread and I'm too lazy to type it again.

[Y2HH]

Bottom line is this is going to cost a lot of money, no matter what plan they decide on.

 

And then you'll hear people start complaining about how the whole system is screwed up within few years time, and you can write it down and remember I said this. At that time, when this inevitably comes true, you can all start calling me a prophet.

 

I'm actually tired of discussing politics and politically charged issues these days, doesn't matter what any of us think anyway, democrat, republican, independent -- they're going to do what they want to do, with or without our input.

 

All I do know is that if there is a problem, the government, unlike any other entity, can come in and find a way to make it even worse -- and this will be no different. In a way, it's actually funny to watch...in a sad yet ironically funny, "if we only knew then what we know now", kind of ways...

[southsider2k5]

I don't think we need to look at cutting Doctor salaries - I think we need to look closer at having doctors do less of the medical work. This is already a trend underway, of course. But I think a lot of things we currently go to "the doctor" for - regular checkups, immunizations, many basic treatments - can be handled well by medical professionals who are not doctors and whose time is cheaper.

 

Who are all of these currently underutilized health care professionals, and what are they doing now?

[NorthSideSox72]

Who are all of these currently underutilized health care professionals, and what are they doing now?

I don't think there are any, or not many. Is your point that you don't currently have staffing for that sort of rebalancing? I think that's obvious, as is the case most of the time when you rebalance a company or industry to change personnel focus. You lose some of one type of personnel through attrition or whatever, and you open up new jobs elsewhere.

 

[lostfan]

It's a lot easier and cheaper to hire nurses than it is doctors isn't it? There are a lot of things nurses are capable of doing, and wish they could do, so I agree with that larger point.

[Cknolls]

Who are all of these currently underutilized health care professionals, and what are they doing now?

 

 

All I can think of is the janitor from SCRUBS.

[Balta1701]

ok, then what needs to be done in your view? Let's assume that Obama won't get a single payer system. How do we improve health care through cutting costs, insuring everyone (like those with pre-existing conditions)?

If there is no public option, then reform will not happen. The elephant in the room right now is that there is no motivation for anyone in the medical industry to bring down costs. If you try to craft a reform without a public option as a competitor, it won't get through Congress because the only cost-controls that can be applied are things that will be demagogued as rationing. If you try to insure the 50 million uninsured without extracting huge cost savings, then the cost of the plan goes through the roof (like $5 trillion over 10 years) and Congress will never pass it. If you try to control the cost of the plan, then you get scoffed at for how few of the uninsured that you cover (a $1 trillion plan covers like an additional 8 million people without a public option) and Congress will never pass it.

 

We're not going to get single-payer no matter how much some of us may want it. The only way anything meaningful will happen is if we can push through a combination of a public option where the government has the ability to control costs at the same time as providing a subsidized mandate. That's the only way to get a CBO score that doesn't send the cost through the roof while at the same time making a large dent in the number of uninsured and controlling costs.

[Y2HH]

If there is no public option, then reform will not happen. The elephant in the room right now is that there is no motivation for anyone in the medical industry to bring down costs. If you try to craft a reform without a public option as a competitor, it won't get through Congress because the only cost-controls that can be applied are things that will be demagogued as rationing. If you try to insure the 50 million uninsured without extracting huge cost savings, then the cost of the plan goes through the roof (like $5 trillion over 10 years) and Congress will never pass it. If you try to control the cost of the plan, then you get scoffed at for how few of the uninsured that you cover (a $1 trillion plan covers like an additional 8 million people without a public option) and Congress will never pass it.

 

We're not going to get single-payer no matter how much some of us may want it. The only way anything meaningful will happen is if we can push through a combination of a public option where the government has the ability to control costs at the same time as providing a subsidized mandate. That's the only way to get a CBO score that doesn't send the cost through the roof while at the same time making a large dent in the number of uninsured and controlling costs.

 

The idea of giving the government the ability to "control costs" without any kind of rules as to how/why is crazy. What if the government decides that they'd like to pay nurses only 5$ an hour for their work? Combine that with the fact that the private insurers cannot do the same...and you have unfair price controls on one side...you'd drive everyone with talent out of the industry, which they're in because they're well compensated, and you'd end up with shoddy healthcare -- not exactly what they were looking for in the first place, now is it.

[lostfan]

I may have read that incorrectly, but how are cost controls against skyrocketing costs unfair? I'm going to ask my job to double my salary, since I know they have the money. When they tell me no, how would I look if I cried about how unfair it was? There's a finite amount of money to be spent and since inefficiency is one of the factors that goes into the high costs, that definitely is our problem, not theirs.

Edited June 22, 2009 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

How are cost controls against skyrocketing costs unfair? I'm going to ask my job to double my salary, since I know they have the money. When they tell me no, how would I look if I cried about how unfair it was? There's a finite amount of money to be spent and since inefficiency is one of the factors that goes into the high costs, that definitely is our problem, not theirs.

 

Like I said, with proper rules in place it's fair -- but just blanket control over costs is stupid, you never hand a government that kind of power in a free market.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

Like I said, with proper rules in place it's fair -- but just blanket control over costs is stupid, you never hand a government that kind of power in a free market.

Yeah, I had to re-read your post there.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option

 

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector....

 

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

[Y2HH]

Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option

 

Funny, I wasn't asked -- nor was anybody I know.

 

In other words, in response to that "poll", my f***ing ass. I already pay high income taxes, dividend taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, name it taxes -- soon maybe a soda pop tax, too. So they can stick that ridiculous poll straight up their lying candy asses.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Y2HH

[HuskyCaucasian]

Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option

So, I posed this link to my facebook and got a comment by someone who said socialized medican is evil, then got this response...

I have a good friend who had a life saving heart by-pass surgery a couple of years ago who would not be here today if we had government run/socialized healthcare. He would have been put on a a waiting list and would have died before his name finally made it to the top of the list.

 

So, let me try and parse this out. Someone who is less fortunate and cant afford proper healthcare could not get on the list since he cant afford it, so this guys good friend got the surgery because he is more fortunate. Ergo, screw the other people, the better off are more worthy.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

Those kinds of anecdotal horror stories (on either end) are just worthless noise to me. They add nothing to the discussion.

Edited June 22, 2009 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

So, I posed this link to my facebook and got a comment by someone who said socialized medican is evil, then got this response...

 

 

So, let me try and parse this out. Someone who is less fortunate and cant afford proper healthcare could not get on the list since he cant afford it, so this guys good friend got the surgery because he is more fortunate. Ergo, screw the other people, the better off are more worthy.

 

As they say, the strong survive. Nature implemented this rule for a reason, so naturally, humanity will buck this trend to proove mother nature wrong -- only a thousand years from now, nature will show us why it was right.

 

While the movie Idiocracy was a stretch, it's not going to be far from the truth.

 

While I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm also saying it's my place in the world to say screw the other people, one way or the other.

[Balta1701]

As they say, the strong survive. Nature implemented this rule for a reason, so naturally, humanity will buck this trend to proove mother nature wrong -- only a thousand years from now, nature will show us why it was right.

 

While the movie Idiocracy was a stretch, it's not going to be far from the truth.

 

While I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm also saying it's my place in the world to say screw the other people, one way or the other.

Really? You actually went there? Our health care system is fine because the poor get killed off by it and that's ok because the rich are better?

[southsider2k5]

I don't think there are any, or not many. Is your point that you don't currently have staffing for that sort of rebalancing? I think that's obvious, as is the case most of the time when you rebalance a company or industry to change personnel focus. You lose some of one type of personnel through attrition or whatever, and you open up new jobs elsewhere.

 

 

It's a lot easier and cheaper to hire nurses than it is doctors isn't it? There are a lot of things nurses are capable of doing, and wish they could do, so I agree with that larger point.

 

That's kinda my point. There are already shortages of doctors and nurses all over the country, and that is with the big 17% OF GDP getting spent for health care. Every facility I have been to for myself, my wife, and my kids is packed the gills. We have no more capacity in the system. There are no more doctors, in fact we are importing them for emergency situations from other countries. Why do you think you see so many more Doctor Patel's than Doctor Smith's anymore? There aren't any more nurses to be hired. I know for a fact that the state of Indiana has such a huge shortage of them that they are trying to figure out how to bribe more people to go to school to be nurses. Our hospital just had to add on at 50% of our old capacity just to keep pace with the need for beds.

 

The idea that somehow we are going to add the new comical number of eighty million people to the system, and somehow we are going to get better care for cheaper is completely illogical. There is no where to treat the people we have now. We don't have enough personel to treat the patients we have now. But somehow we are going to treat all of our uninsured, plus 20 million of Mexicos, and things are going to be BETTER? Really?

 

If they are serious about cutting the doctors wages, the shortage of staff is going to exaggerated, not to mention the attrition of supposedly asking these people to do about 30% more work (new patients totals according to Balta) who now have NO reason to be prudent in their pursuit of whatever health care they want because now someone else is paying for it. You will crush the system.

[Balta1701]

The idea of giving the government the ability to "control costs" without any kind of rules as to how/why is crazy. What if the government decides that they'd like to pay nurses only 5$ an hour for their work? Combine that with the fact that the private insurers cannot do the same...and you have unfair price controls on one side...you'd drive everyone with talent out of the industry, which they're in because they're well compensated, and you'd end up with shoddy healthcare -- not exactly what they were looking for in the first place, now is it.

This is EXACTLY the point of a public option and why it's necessary.

 

If you attempt to put cost-controls in without a public option, you wind up with exactly the sort of thing that you're talking about...insurers still spend the same amount of money trying to drive people out of their markets, but then they also realize they can't make as much money on certain procedures so they start favoring all the areas where they can make money, and the price controls wind up screwing everything else. So you wind up with treatments being approved or not approved based on what the cost controls say, and you wind up with all sorts of creative techniques (See; the pharmaceutical industry) coming out of the industry with no benefit to people that do nothing except allow health care providers and insurers to charge more.

 

What we're saying is...a public option is more efficient. Which is why it's necessary. It cuts down on the paperwork and the overhead dramatically because everyone can be insured and because insurers won't be able to increase their profits by only insuring the healthy (as they do now). If an insurer then wants to produce a profit...it has to be profitable by outdoing the public option in efficiency, not by finding creative ways to avoid payment.