Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Change,,,,, it's scary for the rightwing,,, fear change because......... they did nothing for decades to improve heathcare ~ everyone was making money as you got sick or died. The system works if you want to make money off of sick people and kill them.
If you listen to all of the rightwing propaganda the medical healthcare bill will KILL you. I truly believe if nothing is done, the insurance company will KILL you with failure to pay for your health care claims.
These are very foolish statements. Anyone who thinks the rising cost of health care (which IS the issue) is the fault of one party has their head in the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN
The system is broken and failed the country. The world health organization measured all of the nations with the “same” tools and found that the US is 37th in ranking. Our health care is not number 1 and it’s not even in the top 10. That’s criminal! Nothing has been done to improve the healthcare system in the country, and the only change that DID occur was when they changed it ~ changed the “healthcare for profit”. When they started making money off of sick people (above the cost of care) your health care went down. For profit hospitals, doctors, and medicine has caused the problem and destroyed the nations quality of care. They focus on the dollar not the treatment.
The reason health care costs have risen and quality has gone down is because there is price fixing and too much government intervention. Too many people like yourself expect the government to take care of you from cradle to grave while ignoring the facts that when our Federal Government sticks its nose into things costs rise and quality goes down.
The towers fell before he was in office and what would you rather he do....Smoke a cigar and think about it. I wish it hadn't went as it did but we always knew the outcome of our actions. Woud you keep giving life your best, love your family, and drive them all to church. Then a dog is chasing a cat across the road you swerve and kill half your family. If you knew how it was going to end you wouldn't have started the car. Until you are wearing someone elses shoes don't say what you would or wouldn't do because before you know it your going to have to get a second job to pay for that guy down the street that has been on disability for most his life but not really hurt. You be patient and share your money with the next guy and while your working all the time you can't get into the doctor because the illegals have the physcians all booked along with welfare women that were suppose to have a job after a period of time. Just get ready cause when it all goes to hell, well be flat ass broke.
These are very foolish statements. Anyone who thinks the rising cost of health care (which IS the issue) is the fault of one party has their head in the ground.
The reason health care costs have risen and quality has gone down is because there is price fixing and too much government intervention. Too many people like yourself expect the government to take care of you from cradle to grave while ignoring the facts that when our Federal Government sticks its nose into things costs rise and quality goes down.
What is the republican party answer to health care? In the past three decades with the exception of Clinton the nation has had republican presidencies in office. They never did anything then, and they don’t have a health care plan NOW. All they provide is fear propaganda from those talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, nothing factual or beneficial for Americans.
How can you say “the high costs of health care have risen because of price fixing and too much government intervention”? That’s the part of the problem of health care itself; there is little or no government intervention and control. Thank you for raising that thought and bringing it forward.
The health care for profit has been part of the problem, and little or no government control is the other. Affordable high quality medical care can be acquired in a large number of foreign countries. Those countries have government control and monitoring of the services being provided unlike the U.S. Maybe the answer is to have all medical care contracted offshore? It seems like the health industry has priced themselves out of business here. With all of the other industries that moved offshore maybe the medical industry should also, it would reduce costs and provide service at a lower rate.
I’d enjoy knowing what the republican party has offered for health care other then stall and do nothing with the hopes that the problem will go away. The republican talking heads on TV and radio have not given any answers ~ they’ve only been critical of everything that has already been worked out with those who came together to put this bill together.
Yeah ,,, maybe it’s the republican way,,, just let the sick go and die on their own. If they can’t pay for it, it’s not the problem of those in the republican party.
That’s the part of the problem of health care itself; there is little or no government intervention and control.
Have you never heard of Medicare?
Medicaid?
Government purchases nearly half of the health care services in this country.
Even liberals acknowledge that (when you back them into a corner and make them address the issue instead of endlessly dodging it and blaming everything since 1904 on George W Bush, that is).
What is the republican party answer to health care?
I don't speak for every Republican, only for myself.
However, some of my suggestions would be:
1) end employers 'self insuring'
2) allow groups other than employers to form a pool and buy group coverage
3) tort reform
4) HSAs for anyone who wants one
5) include COBRA cost in unemployment insurance
6) enforce immigration law to send non-paying illegals home for good
7) end cost shifting
8) raise retirement age/eligibilty for Medicare
9) hospital organizations and MDs professional organizations develop standardized forms/electronic formats that all insurors and government agencies must use to obtain services and submit payments
10) encourage telecommuting to reduce sedentary driving time, reduce exposure to pollutants, reduce stress from commuting, reduce auto accidents and injuries
Some of these are big ideas, some are small. I'm sure there's many more things that can be done.
But the answer is not one big government monopoly taking freedom away from all of us.
The single payer system that Obama wants is the wrong way to go. And make no mistake -- that is his goal and the goal of the Democratic plan, to destroy private health insurors and establish a government monopoly.
Among the points:
* The e-mail does not properly present the scenario of Natasha Richardson's death. While that particular part of Quebec where the Richardson incident occurred did not have medevac, this is not true for all of Canada. (Keep in mind that health care is on a province or territory basis, so each province or territory has its own system)
* What is in development will be a uniquely American system and not something exactly like another country's system or set of systems (i.e. Canada, UK).
* Elderly patients in England are not treated any differently than younger patients
Sorry, but that last part is innacurate-they are,but not based on age alone usually, more pre-existing disability level.But having said that there are certain treatments/surgeries that are very rare in people over 70.
This is because economic models of healthcare look at QUALYS -number of quality life years that can be gained by a treatment-this is always going to be lower if you are older.It's called evidence based practice, or rationing limited resources
OK, I read this article. It has a lot of misinformation and scare tactics in it. For example:
(Mods please note, I am paraphrasing except where I use quotation marks)
My responses are in blue:
It is supposed to be bad if you like Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials.
What these essentials are is not specified. You're supposed to be able to determine how much you will spend out of pocket in a given year, and put that in an HSA. Just how you're supposed to do that has never been discussed by the proponents. For example, do you know if you're going to have a heart attck, be diagnosed with cancer, whatever, in a given year?
"The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state." The federal government will determine what a qualified plan is.
You might be surprised to learn that every state does this now. In fact, sanrene, your state probably has more mandates than mine.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage.
Well, now, isn't that just awful?
"The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses."
This is a repeat of the above about HSA insurance. Stripped down plans sound good until you really need insurance. And, they are generally not that much cheaper, having priced some.
The article says you will be "assigned" a "Medical Home" and that the medical home will control your access to specialists.
Now, I haven't read through the whole bill, and it seems now like this is not going to be the final bill, anyway. It is the same thing as most ins. companies have now, that you have to designate a primary physician. It is the job of the primary to refer you to a specialist. Whether this person will be assigned or you will have a choice remains to be seen. I'd go with choice as the most likely, simply b/c it is the option most likely to appeal to the constituents (us).
that you have to designate a primary physician. It is the job of the primary to refer you to a specialist.
PCP s as the gatekeepers of the specialists and the receptionists as the gatekeeper of the PCP-just like UK-unless you pay extra on top of your NI contributions and go privately!Most can't afford that.
Of course the problem with this is if your PCP provider is hanging onto his budget-because he has to pay for every referral he makes.
------
[1] Government imposed scarcity - the licensing of medical care workers and criminalizing those who give care but are not licensed, imposes scarcity. If you want "Universal" health care, you have to decriminalize health care. Let the customer decide, not the government, on what construes satisfactory medical care. Provide a public access database of those who have passed exams and acquired credentials.
[2] Government imposed overhead expenses - the socialist health and tax imposes overhead expenses, so do mandated paperwork and storage of records. Those costs pass to the customer - who pays all the bills - as demonstrated by the high cost.
[3] Private insurance imposed overhead expenses - the bureaucracy imposed by private insurance has changed the physician's office into an administrative jungle of forms, receptionists, intake clerks, and office managers... which all have to be paid by the customer - eventually.
[4] Inequitable Tort awards - malpractice insurance premiums are sky high, as are awards. The sad truth is that the lawyers reap the majority of the benefits at the expense of the physicians, victims, and the patients who eventually pays the bill.
[5] Monopolies - Allopathic medicine has a bad habit of claiming any competing medical system as "quackery", despite their own history of bad practices and ineffective treatments.
The simplest way to reduce costs is to eliminate the parasites who feed on the transaction chain.
Patient ==> $$$ ==> Care giver.
----- NOT -------
Patient ==> $$$$ ==> GOVERNMENT ==> $ Care giver.
One thing is certain, any "national" (government controlled) medical system will benefit the government, first, and foremost. For they will have another excuse to tax, control, spend, manipulate and bribe their way to greater power.
An example of the inexpensive medical care is cataract surgery in the third world. The Wellness Revolution - Geoff Tabin
Tabin and Ruit deliver cataract surgery at $20 per surgery. Which is 175 times cheaper than $3,500 (U.S.A.) pricetag, thanks to the medical insurance “industry”. (Imagine the cost when UHC kicks in!)
It is stipulated that the surgeons are volunteering their time, and are probably using donated materials.
The question is:
In the private sector, who receives a cut of that $3500, beyond the medical staff and suppliers?
[] Investors in HMOs?
[] Tax accountants?
[] Lawyers?
[] Bureaucrats?
[] Other parasites?
And if we blindly rushed to Government imposed universal coverage, would that overhead not increase?
Obviously.
Again, the solution is not found in making it more expensive or complicated to buy health care. And government has never demonstrated the ability to do ANYTHING cheaper, better, faster than the private sector. Nor can you impose the obligation to be charitable, without it being involuntary servitude - unconstitutional.
Oh- right, I forgot, only those who "voluntarily" enrolled into Social Security are so obligated. (Embarrassment Flag On)
The Democrats can't wait to ration health care. What better way to rid yourself of troublesome opposition?
Do you really want politicians in charge of your health?
If you think so, think about when your party loses and the other is in power.
The same bozos that can't keep Social Security solvent, that can't balance the federal budget, that can't find a toilet seat for sale under $400 -- these are the guys you want in charge of health care?
Really?
Do you really want a health care system with all the efficiency of the DMV and all the compassion of the IRS?
that you have to designate a primary physician. It is the job of the primary to refer you to a specialist.
PCP s as the gatekeepers of the specialists and the receptionists as the gatekeeper of the PCP-just like UK-unless you pay extra on top of your NI contributions and go privately!Most can't afford that.
Of course the problem with this is if your PCP provider is hanging onto his budget-because he has to pay for every referral he makes.
It doesn't say anything about PCPs as gatekeepers. That's terminology from the HMO crowd. Nor does it say anything, even in this biased article about charging PCPs for referrals.
A friend of mine, who has a PPO and can see a specialist whenever she wants, went to a dermatologist for peeling skin on her breasts. The derm treated it as a skin disease for two years. It turned out she had breast cancer (Paget's), one symptom of which is peeling skin. Fortunately, she is OK. That's one reason to see a generalist for some things first, instead of referring yourself to a specialist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
