Healcare reform

redivider said:

the only real issue with american health care I have is it's ridiculous cost. It is waaay to expensive. Like someone said, the US ranks 19th. If you look at the nations that stand before it, they spend a lot less on health care, and get more quality.

The idea of having the government intervene to control those costs is a good thing, in my view. They say it will cost 1 trillion over the next 10 years, or something like that. But the current system will cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

There's also something to be done about malpractice lawsuits in this country. There seems to be a new batch of lawyers that make their living screwing over insurance companies and doctors. Malpractice will never go away, but there seems to be a problem with doctors taking on procedures they do not fully understand for the sake of profit.

I know for a fact that doctors sometimes receive only 1 weekend of training for "out patient" procedures. These procedures, are identified as "out patient" to make them seem less risky. These procedures carry all the risks of actual open-your-gut surgery, but doctors perform 5-6 per day, just to make a buck....

these types of practices are what drive costs up....

Click to expand...

I agree the cost is the problem. Too many ignore the fact that the quality of the care people get here is one of the best. As a matter of fact the WHO report graded the US as #1 in patient satisfaction. The same ones who ranked the US #37 in health care. The same ones who didn't account for non health deaths like homicides when figuring the average life expectancy.

We keep putting the cart before the horse. Treating the "disease" instead of treating the cause of the "disease".

One in three Americans is obese but no one wants to discuss that because that would mean Americans would have to be held to personal responsibility. Lord knows it's not our fault we are obese. Think of all the medical costs associated with obesity!!!!!

We hear talk of medical Claims being denied and all the scorn goes to the insurance companies. Anyone ever wonder how they get away with it?

"The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health plans in private industry to provide protection for individuals in these plans."

That sounds good. We need protection

"In general, ERISA does not cover group health plans established or maintained by governmental entities, churches for their employees, or plans which are maintained solely to comply with applicable workers compensation, unemployment, or disability laws."

So those not covered by this act look like they get the short end of the stick doesn't it? Until you read on.......

"Under the laws of most states, a wrongful denial of benefits can result in a jury verdict awarding the employee the denied benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Under ERISA, there is no right to a jury trial, and the most that an employee who has wrongly denied benefits can receive is the denied benefits. What has an insurance company or employee benefit trust fund got to lose from denying benefit claims? If they are sued, the most they can lose is the value of the benefits they denied in the first place. Where it used to be that an insurance company had to think hard and long before denying benefits because of the possibility of emotional distress and punitive damages, now, because of ERISA, denial is a no brainer. What is there to lose?"

Too much oversite or too little oversight? I think the problem is having the fox watch the hen house.
How about having Congress look out for us instead lookinmg out for their wallets.

Government makes it possible for these Companies to screw us all.

NoDrama said:

Government makes it possible for these Companies to screw us all.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear! But remember it's those companies who have bought our representatives right from under our noses.

As long as wealthy corporations are allowed to "lobby" in Washington and "donate' money to our legislators, those legislators will continue to do their bidding and largely ignore the will of the "little people" (that's us). So, it's kind of a give and take cycle when you think about it. I guess those 6 figure "contributions" have more clout than the actual salaries that we, as taxpayers, allow them. Instead of "putting your money where your mouth is" they are putting their mouths where the money is.

ViRedd said:

I went to a lecture a couple of nights ago where the topic was health care reform. The speakers were eight doctors and one representative from the insurance companies. Seven of the doctors were against the government takeover and one was for it. Interestingly, the seven doctors who were against the plan were all operating their own practices. The one who was for it was an employee of a health clinic catering to "the poor," and "those suffering from gender identity." Funny, isn't it, that the only one with no business experience, the one not responsible for producing a profit and keeping the doors open, was the only one in favor of government run health care? One of the things she stupidly said was ... once the government takes over health care, the paperwork load for doctors and hospitals will be drastically decreased. I suppose she has never explored the history of the federal income tax code.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, there are no plans for a "government takeover of health care". Health insurance does not, itself, provide any care or even a guarantee that one will receive care. A government run health insurance plan does not mean the government is going to take over the hospitals and clinics and doctors and nurses are going to become government employees.

Of course doctors with their own practices who are, as you said, trying to make a profit are going to disagree with any suggestion that they think will cut into those profits. Likewise are the nurses who work for those doctors afraid that decreased profits might cause them to lose their job. Someone who works for the insurance companies also fears loss of profits will result in losing their job. While I don't agree with the one nonprofit health care worker's predictions about the paperwork load - I do think that individual has the least to fear from a government-run insurance plan and therefore the least emotionally charged and least biased assessment of the situation.

doobnVA said:

As far as I'm aware, there are no plans for a "government takeover of health care". Health insurance does not, itself, provide any care or even a guarantee that one will receive care. A government run health insurance plan does not mean the government is going to take over the hospitals and clinics and doctors and nurses are going to become government employees.

Of course doctors with their own practices who are, as you said, trying to make a profit are going to disagree with any suggestion that they think will cut into those profits. Likewise are the nurses who work for those doctors afraid that decreased profits might cause them to lose their job. Someone who works for the insurance companies also fears loss of profits will result in losing their job. While I don't agree with the one nonprofit health care worker's predictions about the paperwork load - I do think that individual has the least to fear from a government-run insurance plan and therefore the least emotionally charged and least biased assessment of the situation.

Click to expand...

The seven doctors that were not in favor of the proposed plans put forth so far by the lobbyists who have the Democrats in their pockets, made several good points:

1. The increased paperwork load will add costs to their practices.

2. If we go with at least one of the proposed plans, there will be a $500,000,000,000 cut in Medicare payments. All of the doctors agreed that if this comes to pass, they will no longer see Medicare patients.

3. The private sector, in a profit motivated free market, has been the leading edge in life extending drug development and medical devises.

4. There will be FAR fewer young people with the incentive of going through twelve years of medical school, the long hours of internship and the great expense of setting up a practice. They pointed out that most graduates of medical school leave school with at least $250,000 in student loans that must be paid back.

5. There is nothing that government does more efficiently than the private sector. Why would we expect government to be efficient in directing medical procedures? The government admits to over 500 billion in waste and fraud in what they DO control, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid and VA medical.

Some of their proposals were:

1. Take out catastrophic medical insurance with a high deductable, say $2000 - 5000, in order to pay for major diseases one might contract. This insurance is cheap and can be afforded by most working people.

2. Tort reform. All of these doctors practice in California where their malpractice insurance is up to four times cheaper than other states. Even with that break, they are paying anywhere from $35,000 to $70,000 per year for their malpractice insurance.

As the doctor's said, they do a lot of unnecessary tests just to avoid lawsuits ... in other words, just to CYA.

3. Competition. Open up the market for the consumers. Make it so the citizens can buy medical insurance across state lines just like we do for auto insurance.

4. Institute medical savings accounts similar to IRA's and allow full tax deductions for the contributions to these accounts. When people are spending their own money for something, they spend less because they are more efficient with their own money as opposed to spending other people's money.

5. Even the poorest should have some kind of co-pay, even if its one dollar. This would give them the perception that they are making a personal sacrifice toward their own health care.

6. Start a national emphasis on reducing self induced health problems. Just as an example, Americans suck down an average of 58 gallons of High Fructose Corn Syrup every year. Each of the doctors lamented the problems that obesity causes and how it drives up the price/cost of medical care. They talked at length about the importance of proper nutrition and exercise.

There was a lot more ... but I didn't take notes, so that's about all I remember.

Open up the markets across state lines. This will significantly drop the price of insurance.

Get rid of the TORT lawyers feeding off the industry. They produce nothing but cost to everyone.

Both of these would make huge cost savings.

Neither will be considered by Obama. He's so smart...

Any government program that insists people participate and pay is inconsistent with freedom and choice.
It's "unhealthy" for an individual to be dictated to by government or a group of individuals using government to force THEIR agenda on others.

The issue should not be the merits for or against healthcare and how it could / should be administered. The issue is "freedom of choice" . I choose minimal government intervention in my life. I believe I own my life, that no government or no other individual or group of individuals own my life and my decisions.

So rattle on about all of the wonderful things "free healthcare" will do, and neglect the underlying problem it presents, it robs people of their liberty and choice. Anyone care to address or refute that?