House Democrat Health Plan

[Autodidact]

We already have Medicaid - why not clean that up first, overhaul it and expand THAT coverage to more of those who truly cannot afford private insurance? Why not start with that and tort reform?

I would definitely support a healthcare reform act that focused on those two issues, regardless of party sponsorship. But I don't see that one anywhere on the horizon.

Actually, that would be the public option the Democrats are proposing. And actually, Medicaid has a lower administrative cost than any private insurance plan in America; dramatically lower. So it's not really Medicaid that needs cleaning up.

 

[Mister_T]

Think about it T,

There is not a surplus of medical care. There is a finite amount of hospital beds or slots in the appointment books to get a test or to see a doctor.

On any given day, some folks are served while others wait. Even when everyone has a medical insurance card in their hand, this fact will not change.

EVERY SINGLE DAY, PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY AND HAVE TO WAIT FOR MEDICAL CARE! EVERY NEED CAN NOT BE MET ON ANY SINGLE DAY NO MATTER WHAT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WE HAVE.

What we are really talking about here is people that are currently being served will be denied care and some one less fortunate will take their place in line.

No matter what system we have, someone is going to get the smelly end of the stick.

My cousin was turned away for 2 weeks (3 if you count the 5 days after he died) because he had no insurance; Nobody wanted to give him a life saving MRI that woud have only taken a couple of hours because he had no insurance coverage. I have insurance (crappy insurance at that) and I can get an MRI no problem. Point is my cousin would more than likely still be alive if he had some type of coverage. The people who are getting the smelly end of the stick are people like my cousin who couldn't afford healthcare and/or are ot "eligible" for healthcare. 40,000 people die a year due to no coverage, not people who are being covered and turned away.

It's not right and it needs to stop.

 

[Mister_T]

I just can't believe that things can't be run better - and I assure you I don't think the government can do a better job at it. Their stellar examples (Medicare, Medicaid, and VA) don't give me a lot of confidence.

You know, I keep hearing that all of these government programs are run horribly and it puzzles me because my uncle (the father of my deceased cousin) is covered by the VA and has had absolutley no problems with it: He's had 2 bypass surgies (little to no waiting) and is going to therapy and rehab 2-3 times a week and doesn't pay a dime for it. My grandparents are on Medicare and have no problems getting covered. My grandfather got in a car wreck last month and suffered a broken collar bone and was seen right away and paid next to nothing. He gets seen regularly by his physician and has n problems doing so, nor does he have problems with coverage.

Can you can see why I am puzzled? Perhaps you could provide me with some example of how VA and Medicare are horribly run programs?

 

[Autodidact]

You know, I keep hearing that all of these government programs are run horribly and it puzzles me because my uncle (the father of my deceased cousin) is covered by the VA and has had absolutley no problems with it: He's had 2 bypass surgies (little to no waiting) and is going to therapy and rehab 2-3 times a week and doesn't pay a dime for it. My grandparents are on Medicare and have no problems getting covered. My grandfather got in a car wreck last month and suffered a broken collar bone and was seen right away and paid next to nothing. He gets seen regularly by his physician and has n problems doing so, nor does he have problems with coverage.

Can you can see why I am puzzled? Perhaps you could provide me with some example of how VA and Medicare are horribly run programs?

Yes, actually people on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and of course the Congressional health plan like them quite well. My youngest is on Medicaid and I have yet to have a problem. She goes to the same pediatrician, same hospital, has gotten excellent developmental evaluations there that really helped her. Oh, it costs you, the taxpayer, a fraction of what private health insurance costs. What's the problem?

 

[themadhair]

40,000 people die a year due to no coverage, not people who are being covered and turned away.

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

 

[Mister_T]

Yes, actually people on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and of course the Congressional health plan like them quite well. My youngest is on Medicaid and I have yet to have a problem. She goes to the same pediatrician, same hospital, has gotten excellent developmental evaluations there that really helped her. Oh, it costs you, the taxpayer, a fraction of what private health insurance costs. What's the problem?

Spot on and thank you for further expanding my point.

Why we don't have these services readily available for all our citizens, is baffling to me.

 

[Mister_T]

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

Unfortunately, I'm unable to view the link. What is it I should be looking at?

 

[themadhair]

Unfortunately, I'm unable to view the link. What is it I should be looking at?

It is the study that provides the empirical basis for your claim that 40,000 US citizens die due to being uninsured.

 

[Copernicus]

Why we don't have these services readily available for all our citizens, is baffling to me.

I wish it baffled me, but it does not. We live in a country that has a very strong streak of true believers in libertarianism--the view that government is the source of most social problems. On top of that, we have a fully legal system for bribing politicians who run the country (and the Supreme Court, by all accounts, is just about to make it worse). Those who currently control most of the wealth in the country want things to stay the way they are. Why change what works for them?

 

[felldestroyed]

I wish it baffled me, but it does not. We live in a country that has a very strong streak of true believers in libertarianism--the view that government is the source of most social problems. On top of that, we have a fully legal system for bribing politicians who run the country (and the Supreme Court, by all accounts, is just about to make it worse). Those who currently control most of the wealth in the country want things to stay the way they are. Why change what works for them?

Government IS the source of social problems. The problem we've been having with healthcare is the result of government. If the U.S. really wants to be a capitalist society, the answer to our healthcare reform should start with an increase in price competition and not government involvement.

 

[Zephyr]

Government IS the source of social problems. The problem we've been having with healthcare is the result of government. If the U.S. really wants to be a capitalist society, the answer to our healthcare reform should start with an increase in price competition and not government involvement.

Why would we want to be a capitalist society though?

 

[felldestroyed]

Why would we want to be a capitalist society though?

I'm just as against capitalism as you (presumably), but for the sake of this specific argument, that's my two cents on the short term. We can't realistically shift political systems to solve health care this moment.

 

[Kathryn]

Let me get what you're saying here. There are not enough doctors to go around, so it's better that we save them for a few than make them available to the many? Is that really your position? Let me guess; you're one of the few who gets a doctor, and you're worried that if everyone has what you have, it will somehow impact you negatively, is that right?

I know this was for the Rev, but let me jump in here.

Yes, if everyone gets a piece of what I have, I will have less - which in the case of healthcare, would have a negative effect on me.

I know that doesn't sound all lovey dovey and altruistic, but it's just the plain truth. If you work hard to earn the money to buy your groceries for a week - not extravagant groceries, just the bare essentials - and along comes a group of people who suddenly - without owing YOU any sort of explanation - have a right to your own rather meager groceries, which you depend on to LIVE - and then by golly, they just come right on in and take those groceries right out of your pantry - isn't that a negative impact on you?

The thing is - there is a shortage of healthcare workers and doctors in this country. We can't flood the system with 47 million more people - or even 25 million more people - without strengthening the infrastructure FIRST.

I wouldn't mind sharing a surplus, but if sharing healthcare providers means that even though I'm paying for my own health insurance with my own hard earned money, suddenly MY access to a healthcare provider is restricted because demand outstrips supply - and my cancer goes undetected till it's too late - there you have it, a negative impact directly on me.

Now, you can go off on a spiel about how selfish that sounds and why would my life be worth any more than anyone else's - but if that's the route you take, may I suggest that you find some homeless guy on the street, let him move in with you, feed him and clothe him and give him your car while you're at it, never demanding any sort of pay or return on your investment - because it's the same philosophy and application.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe most people in here are too young to remember this, but I certainly remember it.

It wasn't all that long ago - in fact, gee, it was when the Republicans were in office, I believe...anyway, it wasn't so long ago that people were up in ARMS about VA healthcare - how horrible it was, how our vets were mistreated by DA MAN, documentaries about terrible VA bureaucrats, veterans dying in rat infested crumbling VA dormitory-style hospitals...what a travesty, tsk tsk tsk...

The same people (starting with the media) were bitterly complaining about Medicare and Medicaid - how ineffective these systems were, how no one could get decent care, how the elderly were at the mercy of the state, the miles of red tape, oh, the horrors, the bureaucracy...(which, by the way, I am inclined to believe is close to the truth)...

Now, suddenly, why - in the past 10 months to be exact - these towering, clumsy, top-heavy, notoriously wasteful and poorly run institutions are suddenly being held up as paragons of healthcare virtue.

This seems odd to me. I rather suspect a spin job. Maybe TWO spin jobs in fact.

If Medicare and Medicaid are such models of efficiency, why is the current healthcare plan built in part around CUTTING the waste, AND the services, that these two entities offer?

THROW THE OLD PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS - THEY'RE UNNECESSARY FEEDERS!

 

[Autodidact]

I know this was for the Rev, but let me jump in here.

Yes, if everyone gets a piece of what I have, I will have less - which in the case of healthcare, would have a negative effect on me.

I know that doesn't sound all lovey dovey and altruistic, but it's just the plain truth. If you work hard to earn the money to buy your groceries for a week - not extravagant groceries, just the bare essentials - and along comes a group of people who suddenly - without owing YOU any sort of explanation - have a right to your own rather meager groceries, which you depend on to LIVE - and then by golly, they just come right on in and take those groceries right out of your pantry - isn't that a negative impact on you?

The thing is - there is a shortage of healthcare workers and doctors in this country. We can't flood the system with 47 million more people - or even 25 million more people - without strengthening the infrastructure FIRST.

I wouldn't mind sharing a surplus, but if sharing healthcare providers means that even though I'm paying for my own health insurance with my own hard earned money, suddenly MY access to a healthcare provider is restricted because demand outstrips supply - and my cancer goes undetected till it's too late - there you have it, a negative impact directly on me.

Now, you can go off on a spiel about how selfish that sounds and why would my life be worth any more than anyone else's - but if that's the route you take, may I suggest that you find some homeless guy on the street, let him move in with you, feed him and clothe him and give him your car while you're at it, never demanding any sort of pay or return on your investment - because it's the same philosophy and application.

May I suggest that you let me make my own arguments? Because, you know, when you get to make up the other side's arguments, they're much easier to defeat, but then it's only because you cheated.

I'm not a socialist. The free market system is the best generator of wealth, and we need to keep it, including incentives to work.

Follow the math here. The U.S. spends at least twice as much per capita as any country on earth for our health care. When Canada, Germany, Spain, Israel, etc. etc. spend $5 to cover all their people, we spend $10 to cover 70%, undercover another like 40% or something, and charge the rest of us exorbitantly. Because it costs more NOT to cover people than to cover them. It's counter-intuitive, but it's true. If we take the $5 we pay the insurance company to turn people away, and instead spend it on doctors and nurses, there is no shortage of health care.

Furthermore, health insurance isn't like food or housing. It's like fire-fighting and education, both of which we socialize, because it benefits all of us to have an educated society and not have fires raging out of control. It benefits me if you're healthy, because then you can work and pay taxes, and it benefits you if the homeless guy can get his condition treated so he can stop being homeless and pay taxes, so you can pay less.

It turns out that Jesus was right. We're all in this together.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe most people in here are too young to remember this, but I certainly remember it.

It wasn't all that long ago - in fact, gee, it was when the Republicans were in office, I believe...anyway, it wasn't so long ago that people were up in ARMS about VA healthcare - how horrible it was, how our vets were mistreated by DA MAN, documentaries about terrible VA bureaucrats, veterans dying in rat infested crumbling VA dormitory-style hospitals...what a travesty, tsk tsk tsk...

You remember wrong. It wasn't the VA, which runs one of the best health systems in the country. It was our military hospitals. So, should we de-socialize the military?

The same people (starting with the media) were bitterly complaining about Medicare and Medicaid - how ineffective these systems were, how no one could get decent care, how the elderly were at the mercy of the state, the miles of red tape, oh, the horrors, the bureaucracy...(which, by the way, I am inclined to believe is close to the truth)...

This never happened. You're just making it up. The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is that we don't all have it. They are both much more efficient and have lower administrative costs than private health insurance. Those are the facts.

Now, suddenly, why - in the past 10 months to be exact - these towering, clumsy, top-heavy, notoriously wasteful and poorly run institutions are suddenly being held up as paragons of healthcare virtue.

They're not wasteful. That is the opposite of the case. They're the most efficient health care delivery systems in the country.

This seems odd to me. I rather suspect a spin job. Maybe TWO spin jobs in fact.

Someone's doing a spin job, but it's not proponents of health insurance reform.

If Medicare and Medicaid are such models of efficiency, why is the current healthcare plan built in part around CUTTING the waste, AND the services, that these two entities offer?

It isn't.

THROW THE OLD PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS - THEY'RE UNNECESSARY FEEDERS!

What are you hallucinating about?

 

[Kathryn]

No, Auto - it was the VA hospitals that were under attack. Military hospitals were ALSO under attack, but it was definitely the VA hospitals. Amazing that you can't remember that.

You also can't remember any negative press about Medicare and Medicaid? That's also amazing to me. I'll get you some links, but it won't be tonight because my husband will be home soon and I'd rather spend time with him. But I WILL get that information for you, to refresh your memory.

And you don't know that the proposed healthcare package (Baucus package) will be funded in part by cuts and a cleanup of Medicare and Medicaid? Your news sources aren't telling you that? Well, that's not amazing - I can certainly believe that. But I'll be happy to provide sources for that as well - tomorrow.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a husband to attend to.

Peace out!

 

[Autodidact]

No, Auto - it was the VA hospitals that were under attack. Military hospitals were ALSO under attack, but it was definitely the VA hospitals. Amazing that you can't remember that.

You also can't remember any negative press about Medicare and Medicaid? That's also amazing to me. I'll get you some links, but it won't be tonight because my husband will be home soon and I'd rather spend time with him. But I WILL get that information for you, to refresh your memory.

And you don't know that the proposed healthcare package (Baucus package) will be funded in part by cuts and a cleanup of Medicare and Medicaid? Your news sources aren't telling you that? Well, that's not amazing - I can certainly believe that. But I'll be happy to provide sources for that as well - tomorrow.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a husband to attend to.

Peace out!

The Baucus proposal is republican light. Forget it.

The facts:

here's a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better." Here's another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.
It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.

Washington Monthly

Medicare outperforms private sector plans in terms of patients' satisfaction with quality of care, access to care, and overall insurance ratings.

from here.

Administrative costs are lower under Medicare than for private health insurance,

from here

We don't have to speculate, guess, or use proxies to figure this out. Almost 40 countries have gone before us, with a variety of systems, all of them better than ours. Any question you have about cost or quantity can be answered. The best health care system in the world is...(wait for it)...France. Then Italy, followed by San Marino and on down the list till we get to #37, the U.S. That's right, we spend at least twice as much as 36 other countries that have better systems than ours. Take one guess what those 36 countries have in common. That's right, universal health care.

Yes, it costs more to be worse, but it's worth it because...um, it's worth it to...well, so homeless people don't sleep on your couch, apparently.

 

[T-Dawg]

My friend claims that socialized healthcare won't work in the US because the population is much higher here and there's way more hopitals.

Is it even possible that a nation's population will affect their ability to distribute healthcare with an otherwise wonderful system, or is this just BS?

 

[Autodidact]

Why would the size of the population have any effect?