With so many SZ members across the world, I'm wondering what people think about the current health care debate in the US? Especially interested in people from other countries think about this...



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Well, you asked...

I think it's a shame! Everyone should have, be entitled to and be able to afford it. There's nothing "socialist" about it. Gosh, what a '50ish mindset. I thought McCarthyism was a thing of the past. Doesn't look like it!

Okay, since I am a citizen of Taiwan:


Taiwan Takes Fast Track to Universal Health Care

At the end of the 20th century, Taiwan became a rich country, almost overnight. But it still had a poor country's health care � about half the population had no coverage at all. So Taiwan set out to design a national health care system from scratch. What makes Taiwan unique is the way the country figured out how to cover everyone.

Follow the Oxcart

Hongjen Chang was one of the officials in charge back then. Walking through Taipei's imposing Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Park, he recalls how they did it.

"Taiwan is a small island," he says. "We always look abroad internationally for ideas."

Chang quotes a Chinese saying: "'The track of the previous cart is the teacher of the following cart.'"

In other words, if someone else's oxcart has found a good route to universal health coverage, follow those tracks. "If they were trapped in trouble, avoid that track. Find a new track," Chang says.

The government consulted experts from around the world, like Taiwanese American health economist Tsung-mei Cheng.

"In the end, the program that they finally set up in 1995 really is like a car that was made of different parts, imported from overseas, but manufactured domestically," Cheng says.

A Consolidated System

They wanted a system that gave everybody equal access to health care � free choice of doctors, with no waiting time � and a system that encouraged a lot of competition among medical providers.

To finance the scheme they chose a national insurance system: a single, government-run fund that forces everybody to join in and pay.

The result is a system that works a lot like Canada's, or like the U.S. Medicare system, but with more benefits.

"It has drug benefits, vision care, traditional Chinese medicine, kidney dialysis, inpatient care, outpatient care, just about everything under the sun," Cheng says.

To satisfy the patients in Taiwan, there's no gatekeeper who controls access to specialists and no waiting lines.

If you woke up in Taiwan with shoulder pain, for example, Chang says that you would be able to see an orthopedic specialist the same morning, no recommendation from a general practitioner required.

"Our people don't like the idea of gatekeepers. They want to decide by themselves," Chang says.

Don't Forget Your Smart Card

By consolidating so much � one government plan that covers everybody � Taiwan achieves remarkable efficiency.

Everybody here has to have a smart card to go to the doctor. The doctor puts it in a reader and the patient's history and medications all show up on the screen. The bill goes directly to the government insurance office and is paid automatically.

So Taiwan has the lowest administrative costs in world: less than 2 percent.

They also use that smart card to track patterns of use.

"If a patient goes to see a doctor or hospital over 20 times a month, or 50 times in a three-month period, then the IT picks that person out. The person then gets a visit from the government, the Bureau of National Health Insurance, and they have a little chat. And this works very well," Cheng says.

That may be too much like Big Brother for some people in the United States, but surveys show the Taiwanese are highly satisfied with their health care.

Plus, no one goes bankrupt because of medical bills, Chang says.

So the patients are safe from bankruptcy. But the system itself is under strain. Chang says that Taiwan spends 6.23 percent of its GDP on health care, compared to 16 percent in America.

So the United States spends too much on health care, and doesn't even cover everybody. But the Taiwanese don't bring in enough money to pay for all the services they offer.

"So actually, as we speak, the government is borrowing from banks to pay what there isn't enough to pay the providers," Cheng says.

Taiwan's politicians are reluctant to increase premiums: they're afraid the voters will punish them.

+++So that's the problem here. And frankly, the solution is fairly obvious: increase the spending a little, to maybe 8 percent of GDP.

Of course, if Taiwan did that, it would still be spending less than half of what America spends.

+++The article was written in 2008. Since then there has been a slight premium increase.

To supplement the cash flow Taiwan started the National Lottery along with the NHI. Both were initiated at the same time. Pretty smart since the Taiwanese love to gamble.

So how does this system work? You pay a monthly premium. Your employer pays 60%, you pay 40%. When seeing a doctor you pay a registration fee (usually around $4 to $5). Consultation and drugs are free.

Everyone has to have National Health Insurance in Taiwan. Foreign expacts that live or work here are included.

I actually saw the interview with that official where he talked about following the good tracks, avoiding the bad ones when Taiwan put its system, in place.

American is a frighteningly political country and right now, we're stuck in the muck and the mire of HC reform. I think something will get done this Fall, but nothing very stupendous...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Australia has nationlized health care. But as I haven't lived there for almost 20 years I can't really comment on it. But the one thing that is obvious is that when health care is controlled by private business as it is here in the USA it is obvious that a large proportion of the money that goes into health care is taken back out as profit and not used for health care at all. Don't tell me that that is in the interest of public health. I don't have any more to say on the subject.

That's why I prefer it to be controlled by the government instead of the private sector. Call it socialist, if you like, but I don't see those making six to seven figure salaries be very concerned about the general population's health. When the small print overpowers the bold print you know that you're in for something that's not on your side.

A couple of years ago I spent three days in a hospital due to a kidney infection. Total cost for hospital stay and medication: $0. In fact, I only had to pay $3 registration fee.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Taike--

No offense intended, but I must interject here.

It is my nation's tax dollars and defense system that enables Taiwan to be able to afford their national healthcare system.

Or to even exist as Taiwan, for that matter.


--Mac

Nigel, I too thought that the greedy bastards at the health insurance companies were just raking in the dough while the country got a crappy return. However, the facts don't support that.

According to Morningstar Financial, a very reputable financal reporting group, the average Health Insurance Co.'s profit margin last year was 3.4% Which ranks them 87th out of the top 215 industries researched, just slightly above the median of 2.2%. The highest profit margins were beverages (25.9%), health care real estate trusts and application based software. Microsoft was 24.9%, Google was 20.6% and Exxon 9%.

If we're looking for a healthcare villain with regard to profits, I say we look at Pharmaceuticals and their profit margin of 16.4% which ranks them 7th out of 215. Others segments of healthcare with margins well above the median include healthcare information (9.4 percent), home healthcare firms (8.5 percent), medical labs (8.2 percent), and generic drugmakers (6.5 percent).

I support scrapping our current system and replacing it with a single payer plan, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html



------------------
Bill in Dayton

No offense intended but I'd really like this thread to stay on healthcare reform. What do you think about it?



------------------
Bill in Dayton

We have nationalized health care here in Greece, of course there are private practice doctors and private hospitals, and whoever wants to, can go to them.

If you have an emergency, regardless if it is a serious issue like a heart attack or you simply closed the car door on your finger, you can visit an emergency room in a public hospital, wait your turn (or be rushed in) and be treated on the spot, or hospitalized. Doesn't matter if you are Greek or any other nationality, or a tourist. An ambulance will come and pick you up if you are unable to move yourself.

Of course do not expect what you see in the "ER" in terms of caring professionals, the sheer volume of outpatients exceeds the physical and mental capacity of the doctors and nurses, but usually they do what they can, and more. Couple that with a "Oh my God, I was shaving in the morning and cut my cheek a little, I am in the verge of death" national mentality, and the persons going to the hospital double. Add their close relatives who try to come with them in case the "patient" needs any "assistance", and this becomes the grim picture of Greek public hospitals. and of course everyone tries to get first in the waiting line...

Interestingly, I have no problem with that... maybe I have more patience than the average Greek, but I think I have been treated well in the past, and hope so with the future. I had a vocal cord nodue removed, my father had a pacemaker installed and was treated for prostate something, my mother was hospitalised for cardiac arrythmia (minor), etc, all in a public hospital, and for FREE. (Not exactly free, because every working person or pensioner gives a percentage to the Health fund).

The system of course is not without problems, this being Greece and not a civilized country. Too many to mention. Hoping for the future...

As we go along, for those of you in other countries like Taike and Trident...you almost certainly pay a higher income tax to fund this system of healthcare.

Is that much of an issue in your land? What would the likely reaction be if your leaders said they were going to cut everyone's taxes but unless you're over 64, in the military or very, very, very poor-now you're on your own for health insurance and health care?

------------------
Bill in Dayton

All I know about the American health care is what I've seen in the movie SICKO and that scared the life out of me. I've always believed that America is one of the greatest countries on earth (still do) but the level of greed I saw in that movie truly sickened me to the core.

I live in Ireland which as far as technology goes we are almost backwards over here. Yet we rank 18 places higher in our free health care over America's system. Sorry now but that's just comical and wrong on so many levels. Take the profit out from Medical Care and you get Quality. Your Mail, Fire Department and Police Force do just fine don't they ?

Regards
James

Bill ... those are interesting numbers... we often see profit figures shown in $$$ - such as ABC OIl company had $10 billion in profits, but rarely do we see the profit margin shown.... with all the problems of running a business, is it wrong to try to achieve a profit margin of 3.4% or even higher? ...(Not to change direction of this thread, but as a side note, I find it interesting when people complain about 'big business' making big profits, but LOVE it when those profits show up in their 401K or other investment portfolio.)

It is interesting that I quite recently have spoke to two gentleman from Germany and one from England and all three said that they felt the US system was better than what they had in their country.

I understand that there are people in the US who flat out cannot afford health care, but I also see the 'uninsured' numbers increased by people who will have the latest HD flat screen tv, the newest and best 'do-it-all telephone with costly monthly charges, etc. etc, and yet NOT have health care ...

What I can't understand is why health care in the US would have to have so much bureaucracy that it would cost billions to trillions of dollars !!!

t.

"SICKO" is in no way a realistic portrayal of our current health care. Moore basically cherry picked the most dramatically heinous situations he could find and weaved them together and coming up with his conclusions.

Our postal service is not a very efficient part of our gov't. Private delivery couriers (Fed Ex, UPS) have taken a lot of business from them because they do it better, faster, cheaper.

Fire and Police I would say are outstanding provided the funds are in place to allow them to perform their duties at the numbers they need. The recent Stimulus Package has sent millions of dollars into hundreds of cities to maintain operating budgets for both fire/police services.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

A friend of mine is a health systems researcher who've I've been corresponding with regularly. Also, I should say my Wife Patty is very close to graduating with her Masters of Nursing...she'll be a CNS Certified Nurse Specialist with a specialty in Adult Care focusing on Pain Mgt. (I've learned more about medicine and our health systems in the last year than I ever could've imagined, lol...

Anyway, Dr. Aaron Carroll wrote "Its not wrong that they make money, its HOW they make it. Insurance Co's. can only make $$$ in two basic ways. 1) Covering healthy people who need little or less expensive care and 2) Not paying for care. This is as much economic forces as it is moral ones. As a member of a free market based industry, these Ins. Co's compete for the available dollars. No one begrudges them for that. But when they compete-they get better at 1) Not covering sick people and 2) Not paying for care. That's not good for a health care system. That�s the real problem. It�s the amount spent on underwriting, claims review, advertising, and � yes � executive salaries that we could do without.

As to how they still make money in these difficult times? Well, it turns out that many people are delaying care because they can�t afford the co-pays or co-insurance. Insurance companies run on such tight margins that even small delays like this can result in pretty impressive increases in revenues, which can compensate for lost customers and premiums as people lose their jobs and insurance."

You can read more of Dr. Aaron Carroll's work at his blog: http://mdcarroll.com/



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Most NHS systems work similar, with the main advantage that if you become ill or have an accident, you do not have to worry about whether you can pay for the treatment.
The downsides are that it costs a lot more to run, and you cannot expect instant treatment for none life threatening health issues. (No great problems unless waiting lists are excessive)
The main problem with the UK system is that the staff are stuck in a Rut, and don�t like to change, therefore there are not as many patients treated as there could be, for the money spent.
Private Healthcare is also available if required, (Many of the larger employers include it as standard in the employee contract) and it�s entirely up to the individual to decide. (Life threatening emergencies are still done on the NHS)
I would not accept Tax cuts for reduced front line services, as Tax cuts can easily be achieved by making Local and National Government (Public sector) more accountable.
As to buying TV�s etc, then that is Human nature, in that no one expects anything to happen to them, only to others.
In spite of its faults, (As mentioned above) the UK NHS is still an excellent system.
NOTE:
Culture also plays a part in the type of healthcare needed, and what works in one country may not be suitable for another.

Regards

Bill

100% of Brazilian people has health assistance controlled by federal government.
34% of people has private health assistance.

How's it work, Chico?

------------------
Bill in Dayton

If I may add, Bill:

I haven't paid taxes since I became a citizen (1994)as local teachers and the military are tax-exempt. There's been talk that this will come to an end (this year?) but, even then, the tax rate is 6%.

Expat teachers are taxed 20% for the first six months and then pay 6%. Upon leaving the country they'll get a tax return.

The monthly premium is $20 and then there's a tobacco tax surcharge that goes to the NHI, and contributions from the national lottery. Families pay a lower rate.

As for elder care, it's tradition that family members take care of their parents so having three generations under one roof is very common. Nursing homes aren't very popular and filial piety is still mainstream. Parents that live with their children or on their own are paid monthly allowances by their children. Even working parents with married children receive such allowances.

And then there's the Smart Card:

The new healthcare cards completely replaced the old paper cards. The new smart cards consolidate functions of four different vouchers, including the regular paper card, the Children's Health Handbook, the Prenatal Exam Handbook and the Catastrophic Illness Certificate. To the card holder, it is two cards and two handbooks all-in-one, and also a great convenience: not having to renew the card every six visits. To the healthcare providers (medical institutions), proof of identification is faster and accurate and transactions are more efficient, allowing them to focus on their core services instead of administrative work. To the Bureau of National Health Insurance, information became highly manageable and timely, and fraud is drastically reduced.

Taike

Question for you, Bill...or Tony,...or...

Can someone with cancer or a fatal disease apply for health insurance from a private insurance company AND at the same rate as any other citizen?

It wouldn't be an issue in Taiwan as every citizen is required to have NHI in the first place and the premium is the same for everyone. How would such person fare in your country?

Tony Mads says:

It is interesting that I quite recently have spoke to two gentleman from Germany and one from England and all three said that they felt the US system was better than what they had in their country.

Believe me, they're a mimority. Just last week there was a debate going on on MSN and those in favor of their national health care insurance vastly outnumbered those that agreed with the three gentlemen.

Mind you, I'm not saying the Taiwan's NHI is the best as it isn't. But I do believe it to be a very good system that has saved many from financial ruin. I don't know what the best system is but I am a firm believer that every citizen is entitled to the same health care and service no matter their status or financial well-being. At least no one ever gets turned away from a hospital, even those that may not have NHI. They just end up paying the total fee but as far as I know it hasn't happened.

Taike

They would not find health insurance anywhere in the private market. If they were declared disabled, they could get some benefits from our Medicare program.

***************

Tony Mads says:

It is interesting that I quite recently have spoke to two gentleman from Germany and one from England and all three said that they felt the US system was better than what they had in their country.

Believe me, they're a mimority. Just last week there was a debate going on on MSN and those in favor of their national health care insurance vastly outnumbered those that agreed with the three gentlemen.

Mind you, I'm not saying the Taiwan's NHI is the best as it isn't. But I do believe it to be a very good system that has saved many from financial ruin. I don't know what the best system is but I am a firm believer that every citizen is entitled to the same health care and service no matter their status or financial well-being. At least no one ever gets turned away from a hospital, even those that may not have NHI. They just end up paying the total fee but as far as I know it hasn't happened.

Taike[/QUOTE]

Here's the most recent rankings of various health system,s by country from the WHO(World Health Orginazation)
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html



------------------
Bill in Dayton

They would not find health insurance anywhere in the private market. If they were declared disabled, they could get some benefits from our Medicare program.

***************

So what are some of the benefits of the Medicare program in this case? To me it sounds like being left out in the cold. "Some" is a loophole to many other loopholes. As we all know too well, it's the small print that matters the most but conveniently omitted in sales speeches.

I am aware of the list, Bill. Am not surprised that Taiwan isn't listed since it's not recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations.

Anyway, my apologies for hijacking your thread...sorta...ahum.

Regards

Taike

Generally speaking, if you're declared poor enough or sick (disabled) enough, then you can qualify for Medicare. Medicare isn't anything fancy, but is has been a decent option for the poorest & sickest among us who have no other better options.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

That isnt a movie it is propaganda full of easily disproven lies, James.


--Mac

Okay, I think that the current system is working alright but needs some tweaking.

For example, the same lawmakers trying to institute a total change of the current system also hampered the ability to purchase health insurance plans with more features or lower costs by passing a law limiting the purchase of said health insurance to being in the state you live in at the time.

I think that the currently held meme bantered about by politicians and those in favor of a government run healthcare system, in which they keep stating that up to 54% of the population currently does not have health insurance coverage is a flat out distortion. In my internet searching, I find that number to be MUCH lower, somewhere around the 15% mark.

I think that I do not want a healthcare system that is run by the government because the government has proven itself to be able to screw up every other thing it manages to gain control of to date. The Post Office is running around all those fossil fuel vehicles every day while the majority of business utilize private delivery services such as Fedex or UPS because the prices are lower and the service is better. The Social Security system is very near bankrupt, I doubt if I'll be able to collect anything from it after all these years of putting money into it. Congress was never supposed to touch that Social Security money. Hah! They took it and don't intend to put it back into the fund. Income Tax was supposed to be a "temporary measure" in order to get the nation through World War I. Is the Kaiser dead yet? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government run housing, brought us the current economic crisis by handing out mortgages to people who had no means in which to pay them back. Banks are folding by the tens now. The government FORCED them to issue those housing loans.

Healthcare crisis?

There is no crisis.

There *are* some problems with the current system. They can be fixed. Those fixes do not necessitate a total restructuring of what has worked for a long time, and after last November, I am living proof of that. I had no health insurance, got a deadly infection, yet was admitted immediately to the hospital via the emergency room, had several operations to remove the infection, was in hospital for almost a month -- and had no health insurance after years of paying for same, but was between employers and coverage when the disease struck. My wife told them we were nearly indigent, that did not in any way change nor disallow the treatment I received, I got the very finest anyway.

We must learn to stop letting the few declare a crisis every few months so that they can gain power by expoiting the nonexisting crisis of their own creation.

That's some of what I think about the subject.


--Mac

I disagree.

Insurance companies make money by *investing* the pool of money they receive from subscribers.

Or at least that's the way it is *supposed* to work.


--Mac

In far too many cases, that is exactly what happens.

Which is another reason why I don't want our government running the entire healthcare system. They've had five decades to make Medicaire/Medicaid live up to the politician's promises -- and it has not. It is just another bloated government beaurocracy.


--Mac

But that's exactly why I disagree with the current system. It creates a rift between the have and have-nots. Why should a less well-off person be not entitled to have the same benefits as someone more affluent? In my opinion, a country should be responsible for all of its citizens, not matter what their income or social status. It's good to know that my S20 entitles me to the same health care and benefits as anyone else. "Decent" doesn't do the job.

Regards

Taike

If it's all lies and propaganda then how can he get away with it, or even get on TV Shows like Oprah Winfrey to talk about it.

Surly he has to be telling the truth or he would be locked up for life ?.

Regards
James

In the vast majority of cases, Ins. Co's. are regulated by the States, not the federal gov't. In many cases, there's also Community Ratings Standards, mandated by the states that help provide affordability and coverage to its citizens.



I agree with your numbers...actually, I come up with 16% (From a recent AP Wire story):

The 46 million number (actually 45.7 million) cited by Obama and others comes from the Census Bureau's annual Current Population Survey for 2007. It's the consensus figure, but some researchers believe the CPS overstates the number of uninsured people, partly by undercounting how many people are on Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor.

Another government survey, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey done by the Department of Health and Human Services, says that about 40 million people were uninsured for all of 2007, and about 70 million were uninsured for part of the year.

All those numbers are out-of-date. Taking into account the effects of the recession, with widespread job losses cutting into employer-provided health care � more than 5 million jobs have been lost since last August � researchers at the Urban Institute and elsewhere estimate that the present-day number of uninsured is closer to 50 million. That's the number used by the Congressional Budget Office.



Social Security is solvent for the next 28 years with no reforms, but the current Administration is looking at ways to help its long term growth...
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/arti...retire-planning



I'm glad for you and your family that your situation worked out as it did. But as the Devil's Advocate in this thread, who do you suppose DID pay for your treatment?

That takes us in part to one of the reasons HC in the US is so high. Your costs had to go somewhere, Mac. Directly perhaps the Hospital, Doctors, etc. all just wrote your charges off. Indirectly, the costs associated with your care were absorbed in higher premiums and/or fees for others who do pay for hc.

We don't just pay a little more...we pay a LOT more than any Industrialized Country in the world, and yet we don't have the outcomes you'd think that money would buy.

Our healthcare is rationed because not everyone's story ends as well as yours did. Too many people can't gain access to HC so preventable illnesses turn into sometimes fatal ones for no other reason than no insurance.

You're spot on regarding the history lessons about social security. We've seen both Republican and Democratic Administrations pass on the many opportunities to shut down the program.

Your comment about not needing to totally restructure HC jives with what Pres. Obama said last week. If you have insurance-you can keep it....You still choose what Dr. you go to and so on...We're more likely playing with the edges...Presidents since T. Roosevelt have sought HC reforms, with little success. It is a veritable "3rd rail" of US Politics it seems...

Thanks for weighing in...

ps-Checked out your website...Very cool. Maybe someday you can walk me through some recording stuff...


------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-18-2009).]

Let's say he carefully skated on the thin ice on the safe side of libel, James. Mostly, he presented things in a very out of context way. Were there some valid points in the film, sure...but he hurts himself by his approach.

No one really takes him very seriously...



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Hi Bill.

There's always two sides to every story but if you search YouTube for interviews on Sicko he always comes up as the guy fighting for the people. Take this video for example.

They try to say he is not telling the truth, but then listen to what he says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA&feature=fvw

He might not do things the way everyone agrees with, but the guy does seem to have his heart in the right place. It's too big a subject for me to take sides and I will only ever know a fraction of what you guys do since it's your country and not mine. All I can say is that I hope everyone in America agrees on the fact that the system is not perfect and there is a lot that can be done to move America up that list. People should not die if they cannot afford health care.

37th place for one of the greatest nation on the planet tells me that there is something very wrong with that system. If there is one thing I have learned about America though is that anything is possible. You guys put a man on the moon for crying out loud. If you can overcome those odds surly you can fix the medical care issues.

My only fear is that the type of system your trying to fix is a private system. A company does not put a person before profit. A company is run on pure logic designed to do one thing and one thing only which is to make a profit and to increase that profit each year.

Needless to say I think you guys have a hard hill to climb. Your the only Country in the Western world I know of with a private health care system.

Regards
James

Here's a follow up to the clip I posted above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ

I'm with James on this one.

--------------------------------------------
Steering clear of the uninsured: How some city hospitals are moving away from the poor
http://journalism.cuny.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=hm
--------------------------------------------
This is actually what was shown in Michael Moore's movie as well. So it's definitely profit before people.

Any hospital or physician would be sued in Taiwan. In fact, just last week the government announced that any medical institution that turns away those that've contracted the H1N1 virus will be heavily fined.

Regards

Taike

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 09-18-2009).]

If I were to make the case against universal health care I suppose I could take a page from some of the Tea Party attendees and channel Ayn Rand for a few minutes, lol. The hard core argument against could be this:

Those people with health care in the USA haven't somehow, lifted themselves up via education, industriousness or perhaps good fortune. They have earned the quality health care. Those people who have not improved themselves are unable to afford coverage. In short, improve yourself, earn a handsome living and you too can have health care...Fail to educate yourself, toil as a common laborer, you'll get what you get...

Mind you, I utterly disagree with the above. I heard a protester at the DC Tea party saying the above. He literally had a US flag in one hand and a Bible in the other. I can buy that thinking for large screen TVs, fancy cars, nice clothes and big houses. I believe Health Care is a right, not a privilege. Everyone should have it...

Many in the US have wrapped themselves in both the Flag and the Bible but in my eyes behave in such an Un-American and Non Christian way its amazing.

Its not my place to judge anyone but there is some hypocrisy. The conservatives cozied up to the religious right sometime ago yet both camps are curiously quiet when it comes to letting their fellow brothers & sisters in Christ receive health care similar to what they often have. Medicare is great for seniors 65 and older, but if you propose it for someone 64, well now you're trampling on the Constitution. HOW DARE YOU??? They call that Socialism, Communism and a few other "ism's" I can't remember.

We have goofballs taking guns to our town hall meetings on health care and even to appearances that President Obama makes. They do so claiming its their constitutional right to do so and if anyone disagrees with them they'll have to pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

I am perfectly fine with someone rejected HR 3200 because of actual content of the Bill. Same for the new Baucus Bill. But there's too much ideology firing up the far right and I personally fear that someone will make a serious attempt on Obama's life.

We're pretty screwed up over here in a great many ways, lol...I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but we've really gummed some things up badly, guys...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-18-2009).]

Not in the US of A.

Doesn't work that way, we have the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech.

Oprah Winfrey Show is just another sad and sordid case of misinformation and disinformation.


--Mac

Apparently, at least for the moment, it will be ME.

I just received a composite billing that amounts to, *drumroll* $104,598.75 from the hospital.

Needless to say, I don't have it, am in negotiations on how to work that out as I type.

But my point is this: I GOT THE VERY BEST OF HEALTHCARE WHEN I NEEDED IT, REGARDLESS.

And the proof of that is that I am still alive.

My flesh-eating bacteria infection was indeed classified as, "Life Threatening" -- and I spent a week and a half in ICU (Intensive Care Unit) over this malady.

I was NOT turned away, service was NOT refused.

Yet there are politicians out there claiming that to be the case.

Meanwhile, there are signs posted at every entrance to that hospital explaining that no person shall be turned away due to financial ability to pay, whatsoever. That is currently coded into law.

Therefore, those politicians making that claim must be flat out LYING.

And they are.


--Mac

Well, that is still pending. Right now they are billing ME. Blood from a stone, and all that. Not too good for my credit rating at the moment, but I gotta say it beats the hell out of a casket. I'll survive and the Lord will find a way.

Maybe they will have to list me as a "write off". The system is prepared for those instances, actually. Happens all the time. This is one of the beautiful things about the private insurance system, the fact that all monies are invested into a pool that is then used to pay for expenses, NOT the direct amount of money paid by the insured.



Look, I'm no deadbeat, for over 4 decades I maintained health insurance payments. It is one of those ironies of life that I never really needed to take advantage of the insurance coverage to such a demanding level until last November, when, in a situation where the falling economy left me laid off and between jobs, the disaster of disease struck. However, for those years that I paid into the system, I'm sure they made enough money off of me to pay for the defaulted bills of many others. Besides that, the insurance companies were INVESTING the monies I'd sent them and at the standard return rate of 12% per annum, plus the "rule of 9" that applies to such investments, they still made a profit. And then some.



We GET a lot more, too. So do those industrialized countries, in the form of new treatments devised here in the US, new medicines discovered and marketed here, research and development, etc.



I invite you to visit any general nonprivate hospital and read the sign posted at the ER door, by federal law. It disagrees with that.

Do you know that the video of the man with the AR-15 rifle over his shoulder and the sidearm, at the rally in Arizona, which the mainstream media showed only the torso shot of, was a BLACK man?

MSNBC, CNN, etc. CROPPED the full video so that nobody could see the man's head nor hands. They also had to LOOP a small section repeatdedly to get a long enough segment to show while they reported on "white" racists bringing guns to teaparties and Obama being in danger.

The full video is easily found in places like YouTube, you can see for yourself.

He was standing on the Obama side of the street, too, incidentally.

The disengenuous nature being used by those in favor of universal healthcare is the most disturbing part of all this and is the reason that many of us are extremely skeptical concerning the issue.

I'm being too nice. Disengenuous my a$$, there are outright lies being propagated.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,

--Mac

Hospitals are required by law to treat those patients, correct. But the story doesn't end there, does it? What if, God forbid, it turns bad? What if they decide your patient profile doesn't fit just right, so they're going to squeeze you hard for every penny you owe them? The choices you'd likely have would be pretty harsh ones-ones that you probably shouldn't have to make.

Once in the Hospital system, patients are directed towards different practices based on their insurance status. You feel you got great care...terrific. But did you? Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't. Unless you're a HC professional, you'd never know.

Hospitals can't survive financially with too many cases of treating the uninsured. They have to recoup the revenues somewhere. Non profits will cover it through additional donations, public hospitals will cover it through Gov't subsidies and private hospitals will recover it in their own way.

According to Dr. Carter, the health systems analyst, the US HC System produces lower outcomes in almost every metric used to compare systems. Infant mortality, life expectancy, cost, access, etc....we do badly on and pay more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. This is also supported by studies from the World Health Organisation, Kaiser Family Foundation and others...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-19-2009).]

Not sure what you mean by "we get a lot more, too."

Yes, people are not turned away from Hospitals for treatment, yet that doesn't solve any problems. My wife is currently an infusion nurse. If patients have good insurance they go to a private practice for their treatments...usually....the ins. co. will allow all recommended treatments. For those without good coverage, they go to the infusion clinic where they are processed as medicare/medicaid patients. Too often these are people who have tried to buy private health insurance, but have been denied or seen their coverage terminated because of various questionable reasons. They won't get the same exact treatment that those with ins. do.

Regarding the guy with the gun at the Obama rally. I usually watch CNN, as opposed to Fox or MSNBC and I remember watching it in the afternoon with Rick Sanchez...So, yes I knew he was a black man. I also know he was in attendance at the preachers sermon the day before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVwfdaYuy1k&feature=related

I've also heard several former secret service personnel agree that threats against the Pres. are up significantly from any previous records.

The videos of the slave images with Obama in chains, among others at recent Tea Parties-especially the DC one, are pretty racist. Other cartoons and images of recent weeks don't reflect well on any of the participants. I also think that some of the RW rhetoric is inflammatory and possibly provoking some part of this behavior.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-19-2009).]

Well Bill, I appreciate your having the courage to at least tell it like it really is. Since the subject of racism (and how it may be effecting the health care debate) has already been introduced, I'll throw in some of my own feelings on the matter.

I cannot fathom how any Black man, regardless of base ideology, could embrace, defend, and apologize for, the current state of the Republican party. With it's not so recent shift to the far right, it's clear 'write-off' of minority support from any quarter, it's shrill racist rhetoric, it's regressive policies, it's anti-intellectualism (parents pulling kids out of school so they don't have to listen to the president telling them to stay in school and strive for excellence - never happened before with any other president), congressmen disrespecting the office of the president in unprecedented ways, extreme racist posters and signs freely exhibited at nearly every Republican rally,....and the list goes on. How, oh how, could any Black man with even an ounce of self-esteem, embrace a party that so clearly wants no part of them.

If anyone points to shills like Joe Watkins and Ron whats-his-name, all I can say is, puuuullllllease. And oh yeah, Micheal Steele. What a joke. If he actually thinks he's in charge of the Republican party, he must have an IQ of 20. When the 'head' of the party has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh, I think that says it all.

Although the President doesn't want to have this conversation at this time (a clear distraction to the task of passing important legislation), there is no denying the truth of former President Jimmy Carter's (still a man of honor, regardless to how you may view his presidency) take on the role of race in the current health care debate.

Personally, I hope the Republican party does stop the trend towards being the party of right-wing nutcases, and starts to become more inclusive. We need a two-party system in order for democracy to work properly in this country. But when one party is taken over by the lunatic fringe and there is zero tolerance for compromise or even reasoned debate, what chance do we have to solve some of the problems that face this great nation.

As a former officer in the military, I have excellent health coverage and will for life. Millions of my fellow Americans do not. In the richest country in the world, this is unacceptable. Clearly, changes in the health care system need to be made. Let's at least give the President and the Congress a chance to improve the current system. Didn't a majority of people in this country put him in office for the express purpose of effecting change?

chas

The Steele thing baffles me with regard to how this plays out. I think they appointed him as GOP head as a clear response to Obama's election. But then the party elders, mostly old white guys, cut him off at the knees early on with the Limbaugh stuff.

I don't think for one moment the Rep. party has long term plans for Steele to retain his leadership post. I think he was short term "window dressing" and if the Obama Administration/Dems looks to do well in the mid term elections then he's an easy guy to kick to the curb. I predict they will then bring in a fire breathing, bible banging ass kicker of the enth degree to whip up the right.

I don't view as credible any serious attempt to court minority votes from the Right. Its easier to expand the base of the Republican party that to grow around the edges.

The party of inclusion? Room for everybody under our tent? I haven't seen anything that suggest those are anything more than cheap phrases. Blacks, Hispanics, GLBT's, etc. imo, are too much trouble to court when the GOP can just rustle up some good old fashioned fear to expand their base. Which I think is the exact wrong thing to do.

If I was head of the GOP I would appeal to the Indy voters, many in traditional conservative areas and woo them back into the fold. The attacks on Obama are too shrill, too crass for many mainstream people's taste. Calm the message down, focus on spending and the budget and actually come up with some good plans. That would bring many of the Indies back into the fold next election cycle.

There is precedent for Congressmen to heckle, boo, etc the President during congressional speeches. Where the Joe Wilson thing does differ from anything before it was his outward name calling. To mumble as part of a group with little actual verbage is one thing, to shout "You Lie" loud enough for everyone to hear is a different thing.

The Carter thing-I'm conflicted on. While a much better human than a president, he's been around long enough to know what his comments would do. He knows Obama doesn't need the distraction, yet he did it anyway. Sometimes I think Carter, almost shrewdly, positions and inserts himself into current events as they suit, in his mind, his needs.

He should probably be quiet for now...

Thank you for your service...


------------------
Bill in Dayton


[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-20-2009).]

I believe that the defense of a country, the education of its' citizens, and the health of those citizens is the tripod that supports the nation. Ignore any one of those things, and the nation will inevitably topple.

Currently, though only the DEFENSE of this country is universal. The Armed Forces make no distinction between poor and rich. The land and property of ALL its' citizens is equally defended. We don't have the Army only protecting rich people's land. This Land is OUR Land....

Unfortunately, the education of its' citizens and the health of the nation is in the hands of private 'for profit' corporations. And what is the PRIMARY goal of a corporation..? Yep. PROFIT. If it is more profitable to only cover the few the proud, the rich, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to only educate the rich, that is what will happen (and has).

If the Armed Forces can survive a mandate to protect us ALL, why not the others?

The basic problem we have with the debate is pride. The lists of where we stand in the world with regard to life expectancy, access to health care, literacy, infant mortality, and a plethora of other categories up to and including 'quality of life' have us WAY down the list. Yet, you ask just about ANY American where he THINKS the USA is, and you will hear a universal 'USA... #1! Hell yeah!'

It is SO hard to persuade anyone to change anything, when they THINK they are already at the top of any list. Pride is killing the debate in the States. Were we to actually acknowledge our shortcomings in all these fields, the marches on Washington would be to demand that we BECOME the best, not to prevent any effort at achieving that, which seems to be their current goal.

You want to get outraged, demand an answer from your elected officials... WHY IS THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD NOT NUMBER ONE? Until we acknowledge our pitiful position on all these 'quality of life' polls, we will continue to stymie any effort to change it...

Look at the outrage at Michael Moore and 'Sicko'... Rather than indignation at how he MIGHT be not showing everything in its' BEST light and a grudging acknowledgment that there MIGHT be some things in it that actually ARE true, why is the indignation not there for the things that ARE true? Surely there are sufficient for even the most patriotic flag-waver to reevaluate his unquestioning acceptance of the status quo?

When the States are at the TOP of those lists, we will FINALLY be able to say 'USA... #1' and it actually be true.

One of my degrees is in Medical Laboratory Tehnology. My father was an Oral Facial Maxillary Surgeon, my sister still practices in another state as an Emergency Medical Physician.

I know I got great care.

With the type and severity of the bloodstream infection I suffered by ignoring too long the flesh-eating bacteria infection, the usual outcome is death of the patient. I finally called for an ambulance when my blood pressure dropped like a rock.

I am concerned that the care received would and could change drastically if there were government beaurocrat gatekeepers involved. That sort of system always results in rather draconic "catch all" rules and regulations, money saving plans at the expense of life saving plans, the whole nine yards of what the government can screw up, which is just about anything and everything they lay their hands on.

I do know about these situations where people get shuttled from hospital to hospital when they should be receiving care. That is something that is wrong with the current system and could be changed with a few tweaks here and there, perhaps even some passage of laws by our congress.

But as a practicing design engineer I can't see the complete dismantling of a system that works a majority percentage of the time and replacing it with something run by people who manage to mess up everything else already.

The sheer amount of disengenuousness (word? screwit, it is a word now) being hurtled about concerning this issue should be ample cause for concern IMO.

It is like you are riding around enjoying driving your car, it runs like a top, sure there may be a few things that need attention, but you weren't planning to buy a brand new car for some time to come yet, just address some of those problems with repairs, but then some high up politician comes up to your driver's side window and informs you that the card you are still driving is totally dead and in need of abrupt replacement.

Who are you going to believe?

That politician or your own lyin' eyes?


--Mac


--Mac

Mac- Between your education and experiential proximity to relatives in the HC industry, I fully believe your assessment in the caliber of the treatment you got.

I have to challenge you on the basic premise of your argument that "a complete dismantling" of the current system is even being considered.

I'm most familiar with HR 3200 and the Baucus Bills. In neither, according to both right & left evaluations, is the current HC system eliminated.

Consider:

*People will not be required by the Gov't to change their insurance plans, change their preferred Doctors, change their preferred facilities/etc.

*The 85% of employed people who currently get HC from their employers will continue to do so. The percentage will actually increase as larger employers are mandated to provide health insurance for their employees or face penalties.

*Insurance Co's will no longer be able to deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. (Which may come in very handy when you look for coverage in the future, depending on the circumstances of your recent issues.)

*Insurance Co's will not be allowed to cancel your insurance after you get sick.

*Providers will still negotiate rates and agreements with private ins. co's...

...and so on...

Whether there winds up being a public option or not, the essence of our long standing HC system will still very much remain in place.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

I disagree on education and health care being in the hands of private corporations. Most of the US born and raised members of this forum, I'd wager experienced public school education. Further, many of us have received post HS degrees from Public Colleges and Universities. I think you're referring to the "best" education experiences being private, which many would agree with you on.

Quote:

The basic problem we have with the debate is pride. The lists of where we stand in the world with regard to life expectancy, access to health care, literacy, infant mortality, and a plethora of other categories up to and including 'quality of life' have us WAY down the list. Yet, you ask just about ANY American where he THINKS the USA is, and you will hear a universal 'USA... #1! Hell yeah!'

You and I are singing the same song when you refer to the many different metrics that show the US system in a very poor light. We divert when it comes to the basic problem of the debate. You say its Pride and perhaps blinding Nationalism. I think its moreso ignorance and gullability. People still believe there will be death panels. People still believe that Gov't is going to "takeover" all health care. The din from mostly the right has acted like feedback out of a Bose L1 system. The very clear signals are still there, but the overwhelming shrill of the feedback has mostly drowned it out. People won't often take the time to educate themselves about issues. There seems to be a malaise in our country. People know some things aren't the way they should be, but won't act in a thoughtful manner. If a guy like me, with a 2 yr. Associates of Arts in Theatre and Music from Allegheny Community College and a BSBA in Marketing from Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh can muddle through this stuff, asking questions when I don't understand something and read/watch content from both sides, well...anyone can.

Maybe we're not earnest enough anymore. People find comfort in crowds but not necessarily accurate info. I think too many people in the US think party affiliation or favorite talk show guy and then develop their thinking from that point outwards, which of course is just not an efficient way to develop a thought or understand an issue.

Quote:

Look at the outrage at Michael Moore and 'Sicko'... Rather than indignation at how he MIGHT be not showing everything in its' BEST light and a grudging acknowledgment that there MIGHT be some things in it that actually ARE true, why is the indignation not there for the things that ARE true? Surely there are sufficient for even the most patriotic flag-waver to reevaluate his unquestioning acceptance of the status quo?

Because its easier to make fun of some fat-ass than educating yourself on the pros/cons of his movies. Checking his statements, verifying his allegations, etc. Who wants to do that? People want entertained. They don't want to have to do 20 hours of research to decide if they liked the movie or not, right?

Moore f*cked up. He wanted his work to be considered in a serious way, but he has not carried himself as such. To most people, I think Moore is known as, "Oh yeah...that fat guy with the baseball hat who makes movies and pissing people off." Mostly accurate, its his fault they view him that way. His movies are cheap efforts at viewing various problems in the US. He does it on the cheap and very sensationally. Cherry picking the sexiest examples he can find and then portraying those in less than a fully fair context.


------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-20-2009).]

However biased Mr. Moore's opinions and views are, it is balanced on the Right by demagogues who present THEIR blinkered view from the Right with at least as much misinformation or just plain ignoring anything that doesn't fit their world view as anything from the Left.

The day we wake up over here, and start to question our politicians and economic system about the realization that we are NOT 'the best' at almost any health care category will be the day the country perhaps adopts a system that works better. As Taike said, the lead cart shows the way. but ONLY to following carts that have their eyes open and their ears unstopped. Close your mind tight, and only listen to those who bellow platitudes about us always being #1 at everything, and it is easy to fool yourself into thinking you actually ARE the lead cart...

It is funny. Americans LIKE to be #1 in sports. If they aren't, in any anything they care about, they will spend their way to #1. But the health of our citizens? Happy in the teens...

Maybe mediocrity IS the American Way?

Bang on, Diki. The Right doesn't have exclusive access to misinformation.

We have a long way to go to even get to the teens in overall health care. 37th in the world according to the WHO's study 9 years ago. Don't be surprised if our ranking either stays the same or drops even lower.

In 2000, when WHO did their study. The US unemployment rate was 4.0% As of this August, we're sitting at 9.7%, more than DOUBLE what it was 9 years ago.

With more than twice the number of people now unemployed and left to acquire health insurance / health care on their own, what are the chances our "access" and affordability ratings will have improved? Not very good.

This may sound odd, but I think chapter one of the health case reform debate should have begun with sweeping campaign reform legislation.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-21-2009).]

Bill, thanks for the invitation to contribute: Here goes:

* As an employer, I'm faced with a cost of over $600.00 per month each to cover my people. That is a formidable amount, but I feel that it is my responsibility to provide this coverage. It's the quality of care that really bothers me.

* As far as Doc is concerned (my father-in-law), physician's extend "professional courtesy" to each other. That used to mean that they didn't charge each other . Now, they simply take whatever insurance is in place for payment. In the 15 years I have served as caretaker, the hospital and doctors bills have been almost non-existant. As a VA nursing home resident, he pays $3500.00 per month, since he doesn't have a pressing financial need for assistance. That's a bargain. Again, it's the level of care that's the concern.

My concerns about the medical situation in this country began when I first started hearing about HMO's. It was obvious that the insurance industry would soon control the delivery of healthcare, and I knew that would be a disaster.

In fact, anytime a business concentrates more on marketing, pricing, insurance....anything more than the product, they're on a sippery slope, as far as I'm concerned. Costs would go up, since the insurance companies would have to get their cut. And service would deteriorate, since the savings promised employers would have to come from reduced costs.

* I have been with Doc for hours sitting in a doctors office watching scores of pharmacy reps walk thru the door to make presentations
ahead of us.

* I had a blood pressure issue, and waited 7 hours to be seen in an emergency room. There were few people there. It was a week-end.

* After seeing what happens in nursing homes, I am an active supporter of a group that lobbies for nursing home reform. Again, staffing, food quality....everything is often cut to the bone, and major funds are spent on lobbying for legislation favorable to the "for profit" companies who run them.

* The training/quality of the workers delivering healthcare is on a downward trend. I have dealt with healthcare deliverers who couldn't speak a complete literate sentence. Jobs formerly done by RN's are now done by LPN's or nursing students doing clinicals.


*24 hours after Doc was admitted to the hospital, no-one knew anything about him other than he was dehydrated...nothing about a serious heart problem. Nothing about Alzheimer's. They were secheduling physical theraphy for a fellow who hasn't been out of a wheelchair for 5 years. The records sent from the VA were "lost in the shuffle"-not the first time that happened.

* I warned the nursing staff that the buzzer had gone off on the IV system used to administer liquids. An assistant turned off the buzzer and said a nurse would have to change the bag. I tried four times to get the nurse's attention. Over an hour later, the site of the IV closed, and major swelling/damage happened.

The only thing done right and on time was delivery of the $20,000.00 plus bill for service.

I am disgusted with the terrible level of service and competance across the board. If I ran my business the way medical related organizations are run, I'd be out of business in a short time. The hospital I'm referring to above touts itself as being one of the top ones in the country. If that's true, we're in BIG trouble.

I grew up as an "Army brat", and thought that the healthcare deliuvery system was far superior to what's available today.

There's the question of how to improve the system from an affordability standpoint and how to make it universally available. What I'm more concerned to fixing the product; bringing competency and compassion back into play and making adequate care the primary goal, which it clearly is not today.

On the nursing home side, I'm in the middle of a fight against the organized "for profit" lobbiests who are trying to eliminate a 5-star rating system which was initiated recently to allow people to compare service at different homes.

Generally, most nursing homes are money-makers where care of residents ranks dead last. Lots of people here play at Assisted Living places and nursing homes and get a lot of satisfaction bringing a little joy to the residents. I don't because of the issues mentioned above.

Making affordable healthcare available is a
serious issue. The bigger one for me is the need for a major cultural change. A return to the day when healthcare people developed real compassion for patients, put them first
and actually did what was needed for patients; not just letting insurance companies control everything.

The entire system is broken and the fix involves much more than just making the currently available services available to everyone.

What a mess!


Russ




[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 09-21-2009).]

Here is a realworld example of one of the things that can be done to better the current system:




--Mac

So you were in suspended animation for the past 8 years and just woke up?

Didn't catch all that "ChimpyMcBushitler" crap being bandied about?

Missed the many hangings in effigy of Pres. Bush, did you?

Guess you didn't notice that Hollywood actually made a movie in which they assasinated Pres. Bush, then.

And as for your assessment of what Black men are and are not allowed to believe, you have decided that we all must conform to some monolithic? Hey, that's stereotyping in and of itself, man. One of the signs of true racial prejudice.

Perhaps you should start by "looking at the man in the mirror"...


--Mac

Mac, you've got your opinions and I've got mine. Yours is valid for you and mine is valid for me. We both need to do what we think is right based on our own experiences. So far, we have steered clear of arguments on this thread and I intend to continue that trend. No point in starting a 'back and forth'; I won't respond. I've already stated my point of view on the matter. If you feel comfortable in the 'new' Republican party, more power to you. I'm sure you'll be most welcome at the next Palin rally or Tea party.

chas

I do not intend to get into an angry back-and-forth either.

However, you make assumptions yet again.

I am a black conservative who also has a somewhat liberal bend on certain subjects. I don't view these things as monolithic nor unilateral.

As such, I am not happy with what EITHER political party has been doing.

Recall that Bush and McCain, among others, tried to ram that Immigration Reform Act down our throats...

It seems that almost everything the miscreants "inside the beltway" manage to come up with is headed down the path of no return.


--Mac

Russ-Can you talk about the process and your experiences with providing HI for your staff?

------------------
Bill in Dayton

An interesting response from Dr. Carrol related to Tort reform:

Another question I�m getting more and more:

Why don�t you support tort reform? The cost of malpractice is the true unspoken cost of health care. Why can�t [President] Obama admit that trial lawyers are the reason health care costs are so high in this country!!!!!

OK. Never let it be said the cost of malpractice is an �unspoken cost�. Everyone knows it�s a big issue. I think so, the AMA thinks so, and I bet even the administration thinks so. My center has done work on this issue and we have a study specifically focusing on negligent claims that we hope to publish soon.

That said, good estimates � MANY studies � have been done to look at the costs of defensive medicine. Estimates range from the tens of billions of dollars to about $200 billion. For the sake of argument, let�s say $100 billion is a good estimate. We can lose sight of the fact that $100 billion is a LOT of money. That�s an enormous sum. It�s just dwarfed by the more than $2 trillion we�re spending on health care every year.

And here�s the more important thing. Malpractice reform will not contain health care costs. Even if I�m low-balling it, and it costs$200 billion, that�s less than 10% of spending if we got rid of it entirely. Health care costs would still go up at an insane rate, people would still be uninsured, more would be underinsured, and nothing would change for the future.

We need to fix the malpractice system. We do. Even President Obama said so to the AMA. And we should pursue it. But it�s not the same issue as health care reform, and we shouldn�t confuse the two, or neither will get the focus it deserves.
________________________________________

His point is that while it can be a small part of the big picture, its just a small part...

Here is a link for another related piece on tort reform...
http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/23/malpractice-reform-a-primer/


------------------
Bill in Dayton

Bill, I formed this company in 1988. Since we had only three employees, i went to my general line agent who takes care of my property and liability insurance. He sold me Anthem Blue Cross for my people. At the time, the cost was about $200.00 each per month. Oveer time, my out-of pockethas increased to about $600.00 per person. We're all older, with a few problems.


Haven't really shopped around much. There are limited optins for a group this small.

Russ

Interesting...

Some small businesses have gotten start quotes from their agents then after the individual assessments happened, those quotes shot way up. That's IF their people could get covered based on pre-existing conditions.

The only criteria Insurance Co's can use under the proposed reforms are age, smoker or non smoker and geographical location. EVERYONE will be accepted...

Sounds like in your case, the public option would be great. Your small enough that your people will be allowed to pick a plan that best suits them from the exchange. No more one size fits all plans.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-24-2009).]

Tort reform, lobbying reform, health care reform, financial institute reform... What do all of these have in common?

Yep... the people MOST able to effect them are the people that benefit the LEAST from their being passed. The wolves are in charge of the henhouse.

By jove, I think Diki GETS it!

Like I said before, perhaps the first thing that should've been done for health care reform was campaign reform.



------------------
Bill in Dayton