Healthcare deserves its own thread

[bobblehead]

read my original post where i copied someones article. That is why the current system is hurting, because gov't got involved in the first place. As for your MRI, you could have shopped around and gotten it done for around 500 if you negotiated and pointed out your insurance would only pay 400. I'm risking looking like an ass, but you went right where you were told and got an MRI without looking into it at all didn't you.

[Scott Campbell]

Just viewed the PBS Frontline episode on this.

My perspective on health care has changed greatly since 1994 when Billary tried to pass it through Congress. My wife was diagnosed with MS. The treatments alone cost $1800-$2000 per month. I have seen far too many friends run to the point of bankruptcy because of drug costs and hospital bills.

I am prefacing this as saying I am on the whole conservative. But, we are at a point in our country that reform is needed on all fronts.

The approach we need will not happen overnight, but MUST be done:
1.) Tort reform (malpractice laws have to be more stringent, far too many large payouts have been given, plus the burden to the judicial system is enormous)
2.) True portability regardless of income status or medical condition.
3.) Provide health care to all citizens in its most basic form. If one wants to have a private room at a hospital or other elective add-ons, they can purchase a supplemental plan.
4.) Regulation to a certain degree is necessary regarding drug manufacturers. I have seen first hand the amount of money companies have thrown at doctor's just to prescribe their medication. My sister has also through her pharmacy. The drug companies are providing kickbacks to doctor's for prescribing certain drugs. Same goes for procedures. My crappy insurance only covered $400 for a $2000 MRI on my knee last month. Considering a Japanese hospital can only charge $100, something appears a bit wrong. I can deal with a happy medium here.

I do not want the government involved. But when we have the current free market system falling flat on its face, something needs to be done.

I'm starting to lean your way. Mandatory portability would my first priority. But what I really want to see happen is that health care get paid for more equally by everybody. I perceive much of the Left wanting to pull their typical shennanigans and get somebody else to pay for theirs - typically those they define as the "rich". By definition this typically includes anybody making $5 a year more than themselves and up.

[MJZiggy]

Well, Scott, right now you're paying for indigent care 100% (as am I) you may as well get something out of it too.

[mraynrand]

Tex, you are so behind the times. Don't you know that Health care is a basic human right? That a college education is the birthright of every American. And that the rich (anyone earning 75K or more) are going to provide it? Wake up man! You seem like a fuddy duddy trapped in some sort of "Little House on the Prairie" time-warp, where Americans are God fearing self-reliant individualists. Those days are over.

M.A.R. I don't know much about your posting history, but based on your screen name, I'm going to leap to the assumption that you are one of the good guys, and that your post above is mostly sarcasm.

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has resisted providing health care to all its citizens, and you guys act like it is some wild-eyed notion.

That's just lame. Again, everyone can get healthcare and the U.S. spends more than any meaningful comparable country on healthcare. The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities. Of the 45 million uninsured, many can afford health care, many are illegals, and many others are elgible for existing programs. The critical problems in health care are 1) third party payer systems don't make people responsible in any meaningful way for economizing. If you can get virtually low or no co-pay why should you limit visits or expensive alternatives - 2) high tech care is assumed to be better - resulting in patients asking for the cadillac care version (like an expensive new artificial hip or knee for example when all that's needed is a standard version). Companies prey on this mentality and push the new stuff even if it's no better - certainly they push all sorts of things that have never been demonstrated to be better and they resist studies that demonstrate otherwise. 3) coverage for all sorts of things that would seem to be excessive or non-standard 4) End of life expenses that are out of this world - in many cases people spend more in the last two weeks of life than throughout their entire life. As difficult as it seems, people have to make choices that recognize their mortality. Everyone dies. Physicians should prevent death when it's in their power. Individuals and their families have to be responsibly told what is excessive and have a sense when to let go. I'm certainly not advocating the direction of Europe, with physicians essentially deciding when to Euthanize, but rather that people have to come to grips with their own mortality.

Most everyone can afford healthcare. The U.S. has by far the greatest healthcare system in the world. It can take care of people who truly cannot afford care, just so long as those who can pay, do so, and there is some rational use of resources

Ziggy, the mortality figures have nothing to do with quality of care - they have more to do with what is considered infant mortality. U.S. figures include neonatal.

Econ 101 - any time you subsidize something, the quality drops and costs go up. Ask yourselves this - if Government provides healthcare for 'free', what incentive do you have to govern your use of it? If government provides healthcare, then they must control it's distribution. Since it's 'free of charge', demand will exceed supply, and thus supply must be rationed. Who will ration it, and how? How will government prevent the 'rich' and/or people who place a premium on health care from seeking out higher quality health care, or from spending more on health care they choose to receive. What if physicians don't want to work for government wages, or the people who are intelligent enough decide not to train as physicians. Will government put a gun to their heads and force them to train as physicians. At some point they must if health care is to remain 'free' and to remain 'a basic human right.' If you think this sounds absurd, it's already happening. The costs are rising so fast that medicare and medicaid cannot reimburse so physicians are quitting and hospitals are recruiting from overseas - bringing in more poorly trained physicians. What is happening to our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS?? Funny, I went out for walk in the woods and nowhere did I see healthcare growing on trees. I would have expected it, if it were a basic human right.

[Scott Campbell]

The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities.

The whole post was great, but that's the point I liked best.

[PackFan#1]

That's just lame. Again, everyone can get healthcare and the U.S. spends more than any meaningful comparable country on healthcare. The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities. Of the 45 million uninsured, many can afford health care, many are illegals, and many others are elgible for existing programs. The critical problems in health care are 1) third party payer systems don't make people responsible in any meaningful way for economizing. If you can get virtually low or no co-pay why should you limit visits or expensive alternatives - 2) high tech care is assumed to be better - resulting in patients asking for the cadillac care version (like an expensive new artificial hip or knee for example when all that's needed is a standard version). Companies prey on this mentality and push the new stuff even if it's no better - certainly they push all sorts of things that have never been demonstrated to be better and they resist studies that demonstrate otherwise. 3) coverage for all sorts of things that would seem to be excessive or non-standard 4) End of life expenses that are out of this world - in many cases people spend more in the last two weeks of life than throughout their entire life. As difficult as it seems, people have to make choices that recognize their mortality. Everyone dies. Physicians should prevent death when it's in their power. Individuals and their families have to be responsibly told what is excessive and have a sense when to let go. I'm certainly not advocating the direction of Europe, with physicians essentially deciding when to Euthanize, but rather that people have to come to grips with their own mortality.

Most everyone can afford healthcare. The U.S. has by far the greatest healthcare system in the world. It can take care of people who truly cannot afford care, just so long as those who can pay, do so, and there is some rational use of resources

Ziggy, the mortality figures have nothing to do with quality of care - they have more to do with what is considered infant mortality. U.S. figures include neonatal.

Econ 101 - any time you subsidize something, the quality drops and costs go up. Ask yourselves this - if Government provides healthcare for 'free', what incentive do you have to govern your use of it? If government provides healthcare, then they must control it's distribution. Since it's 'free of charge', demand will exceed supply, and thus supply must be rationed. Who will ration it, and how? How will government prevent the 'rich' and/or people who place a premium on health care from seeking out higher quality health care, or from spending more on health care they choose to receive. What if physicians don't want to work for government wages, or the people who are intelligent enough decide not to train as physicians. Will government put a gun to their heads and force them to train as physicians. At some point they must if health care is to remain 'free' and to remain 'a basic human right.' If you think this sounds absurd, it's already happening. The costs are rising so fast that medicare and medicaid cannot reimburse so physicians are quitting and hospitals are recruiting from overseas - bringing in more poorly trained physicians. What is happening to our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS?? Funny, I went out for walk in the woods and nowhere did I see healthcare growing on trees. I would have expected it, if it were a basic human right.

To translate the above post: We don't give a fuck about people who can't afford health care. Let them die. And people with genetic diseases? They are "responsible" for their diseases, not the person or persons that passed on the diseases to them, so since they were "irresponsible" to began with, let them die. Hey, humans are merely animals with a big brain (those that are "irresponsible" have smaller than average brains). Survival of the fittest is the law of nature.

[Freak Out]

The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities.

The whole post was great, but that's the point I liked best.

I'm entitled to have my tax dollars spent wisely.

[Scott Campbell]

The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities.

The whole post was great, but that's the point I liked best.

I'm entitled to have my tax dollars spent wisely.

No arguments here.

[bobblehead]

To translate the above post: We don't give a fuck about people who can't afford health care. Let them die. And people with genetic diseases? They are "responsible" for their diseases, not the person or persons that passed on the diseases to them, so since they were "irresponsible" to began with, let them die. Hey, humans are merely animals with a big brain (those that are "irresponsible" have smaller than average brains). Survival of the fittest is the law of nature.

As usual pack, you have a very unique ability to read things that aren't there and you further the debate through civil well thought out discourse.

[bobblehead]

Well, Scott, right now you're paying for indigent care 100% (as am I) you may as well get something out of it too.

This is a very bad path to go down. First, its fundamentally wrong (especially if you agree to it for this reason and then they decide means testing is required to keep costs down).

Second, allowing gov't to REALLY mess it up in an attempt to get mine has been a long standing inhiibitor of progress in this country already.

[bobblehead]

Health care is available for everyone and even though it burdens the people who can pay for it, its a good system and its the right way to do things in this country

No, health care is not available for everyone. Although it is true if you have a bone sticking-out, an emergency room won't refuse you. There are a lot of other services that are needed to keep a person healthy.

Under our current system, the only way for private insurance companies to survive is to reject coverage to people who are likely to get sick. There are all sorts of barriers that keep 50 million people out of the system - too poor to afford it, uninsurable, not falling into any of the categories for medicare.

But MedicAID will cover most of those.

No, this is a false rumor that republicans are fond of repeating. The safety net that you think exists is not there. ( I unfortunately had to learn about these realities first-hand once.) Medicaid is federally funded, administered by the states. They cover very narrow categories, in particular their definition of "disabled" describes very few people.

http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/

1) I'm a libertarian who votes republican out of lesser of 2 evils.
2) ok, most was an overstatement, but a lot of those truly in need will be covered by medicaid.
3) After reading that gov't website and getting a headache I'm more convinced than ever I don't want them in charge of my healthcare.


4) I have't watched the video yet as I hate watching things longer than 2 minutes on a computer, but I will at some point.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched the first chapter, Great Britian....you can't deny the reporter is giving us his biased perspective starting out by saying our healthcare is a mess and in big trouble.

He also states that UK people have "no bills" for healthcare as though higher taxes aren't bills....he later admits "much higher taxes".

He and the times reporter also talk about elective procedures...you know, hip replacements and heart surgeries. Yea, I guess you can always put those off. Good news though, now with the conservatives taking over wait lines for these things have been cut from 18 months down to 6 months because they finally are spending more money on the system...ooops, isn't that like costs going up? Oh yea, they also reduced wait times by forcing hospitals to compete for business...sounds free marketish. And best of all, the crappy hospitals that no one is choosing now that they can choose are protesting the new policy.

This was from a liberal prospective no less.

They did make some positive points, on how doctors get a bonus for keeping patients healthy, I like that. It makes doctors work a bit harder on preventive medicine and screenings. Some patients were so diligent about their health that they came in twice a week according to the doctor interviewed.

Sorry, but after seeing the UK one I'm not overly impressed. He also didn't address the issue of innovative medicine/techniques which is my main issue.

Oh, forgot the best part of all, the doctor in the interview, you know, Mr. Preventive medicine. He was complaining about having a heart attack right here in Las Vegas and being brought to county where the care was great, but it was really expensive. I guess his bonus for keeping patients healthy is shot huh.

[PackFan#1]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched

Next, go check out Michael Moore's unbiased "Sicko."

[Harlan Huckleby]

4) I have't watched the video yet as I hate watching things longer than 2 minutes on a computer, but I will at some point.

I agree. It will be replayed on PBS sometime. The whole thing is well worth watching. Its a little dry, they go through about 5 countries, but damn was it eye-opening.

Regarding the biases in the documentary: Frontline often is pretty awful. But I was extremely impressed in the thorough report they did this time, which is probably due to the integrity of the individual who made this film. Of course their bias is that our system needs repair, but they didn't sugar-coat the problems that other approaches have encountered.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched

Next, go check out "Sicko."

I like Michael Moore as an entertainer, but don't take him seriously as a documentary maker, he plays fast and loose with the facts.

However, I've heard that "Sicko" is his best work as a real documentary, that he has done an honest job. I've been meaning to check it out.