House Democrat Health Plan

[Autodidact]

If you know anyone in Canada, Germany, Spain or Australia, ask them what they think of the controversy here. Then stand back while they laugh their heads off. They think we're idiots. Are we?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Sad to say, I think that you just made my point. We have a very strong streak of true believers in libertarianism--the belief that the government is the chief source of our problems. So we keep looking for solutions to problems that really require government involvement. Health care is one of them. We are losing out to international competitors who have moved beyond our antiquated belief that unregulated megabusinesses can do a better job than government at delivering health care to citizens. What they do a better job of is harvesting money from the middle class for the benefit of the super-wealthy.

 

[Sunstone]

The Baucus proposal is republican light. Forget it.

Baucus has delivered a bill for the insurance industry and one that betrays everyone else.

 

[themadhair]

If you know anyone in Canada, Germany, Spain or Australia, ask them what they think of the controversy here. Then stand back while they laugh their heads off. They think we're idiots. Are we?

I’m Irish and I find it hysterically funny that people are so determined to fight against reforms that would directly benefit them. Our country has a public option (called the VHI) which works superbly in keeping costs down for health insurance. When I read some of the absolute garbage arguments against the public option I struggle to stop laughing sometimes.

The bit that cracks me up is that the only beneficiaries of a heath bill lacking a public option are the insurance companies. Why so many Americans seem unable to realise this is both funny and a little sad.

 

[Kathryn]

As promised, I have provided some links for information about VA/Medicare/Medicaid problems - our government at work for your healthcare (pay close attention to the sources, which include that bastion of the left, Michael Moore):

VA downplayed complaints | MichaelMoore.com#
(note the date of this article - 2007. Remember that I said that complaints about government run healthcare institutions were common in the media during the previous administration, but suddenly now these same pundits are singing the praises of our government medical programs. NOTHING HAS CHANGED BUT THE SPIN!)

Hospital Officials Knew of Neglect - washingtonpost.com
Another article from 2007 discussing how poorly VA and military hospitals are run and how neglected and abused veterans are by that system. Washington Post.

VA WON'T TALK ABOUT COMPENSATION FOR INFECTED VETERANS -- VA has made no offer of any special compensation and won't comment about any potential benefit beyond continuing to provide medical care. - VA Watchdog dot Org - 07-03-2009#

Military Medical Malpractice Lawsuits | Military Medical Malpractice Legal Network

Forums-viewtopic-complaints about VA doctors : Veterans Today - News for U.S. Military Veterans Jobs, VA Benefits, Home Loans, Hospitals & Administration
(Just read these complaints by veterans for some spine chilling reality)
Consumer Directed Healthcare » A Proposal for Reforming the Veterans Administration Health Care System

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25brfs-veterans.html?scp=2&sq=veterans+affairs&st=nyt
New York Times, 2007

NATIONAL BRIEFING | WASHINGTON; Too Many Veterans' Disability Claims Take Too Long To Process, Audit Finds - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/13backlog.html?scp=11&sq=veterans+affairs&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/us/22vets.html?scp=26&sq=veterans+affairs&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/01vets.html?scp=81&sq=veterans+affairs&st=nyt

I have a lot more, but I have to go to work.

TO BE CONTINUED - The ongoing report on US government-run healthcare programs...

 

[Kathryn]

And by the way, I lived in Germany and experienced German healthcare first hand. It was HORRIBLE. Actually, so bad that it was unbelievable. In one case, the care my family received was so terrible that when I filed the complaint, the US Army blacklisted the doctor and facility.

(We lived in a German community without US military healthcare available, so we had to use the German facilities.)

 

[felldestroyed]

Sad to say, I think that you just made my point. We have a very strong streak of true believers in libertarianism--the belief that the government is the chief source of our problems. So we keep looking for solutions to problems that really require government involvement. Health care is one of them. We are losing out to international competitors who have moved beyond our antiquated belief that unregulated megabusinesses can do a better job than government at delivering health care to citizens. What they do a better job of is harvesting money from the middle class for the benefit of the super-wealthy.

I don't mean international competitors, I mean your doctors, hospitals, etc. They lack the incentive to lower their prices because insurance covers it; health insurance is NOT insurance, its pre-paid care, which is the problem. If people shopped around for doctors like they do for basically everything else, prices would go down because hospitals and doctors will compete with eachother. I hate to suggest that as I'm an anarchist, but if we're this far along in capitalism trying to do healthcare, it's the obvious start. You think Obama and rest of the government is doing this to help the lower class or whatever, you're going to be sadly mistaken. The state will always makes decisions to benefit themselves -- the rich -- this is just all very subtle. You're handing over control.

 

[themadhair]

Let’s actually at comparing the two Kathryn shall we? That is really what needs to be done to analyse this.

First let me consider cost:
Comparing Medicare And Private Insurers: Growth Rates In Spending Over Three Decades -- Boccuti and Moon 22 (2): 230 -- Health Affairs

Varying conclusions on spending growth rates often reflect differences in data sets, analytical techniques, and selected variables. In this paper we first present four measurement principles that are useful when comparing rates of growth for personal health care spending. Then we apply these approaches to health spending data produced annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), finding that, on average, Medicare has enjoyed a lower annual growth rate than private insurance has. Moreover, cumulative analysis shows that Medicare’s spending growth from 1970 through 2000 was lower than that of the private sector.

Next let me consider care:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w2.311v1.pdf

ABSTRACT:Many policymakers have called for the remodeling of Medicare to more closely resemble private insurance, which is often assumed to work better than public programs do. However, evidence from this 2001 survey demonstrates that Medicare beneficiaries are generally more satisfied with their health care than are persons under age sixty-five who are covered by private insurance. Medicare beneficiaries report fewer problems getting access to care, greater confidence about their access, and fewer instances of financial hardship as a result of medical bills. Making the program more like private insurance runs the risk of undermining a program that is working well from the perspective of beneficiaries.

Sometimes the difference is lives saved:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~cdobkin/Papers/Within_Hospital.pdf

The health insurance characteristics of the population changes sharply at age 65 as most people become eligible for Medicare. But do these changes matter for health? We address this question using data on over 400,000 hospital admissions for people who are admitted through the emergency department for “non-deferrable” conditions—diagnoses with the same daily admission rates on weekends and weekdays. Among this subset of patients there is no discernable rise in the number of admissions at age 65, suggesting that the severity of illness is similar for patients on either side of the Medicare threshold. The insurance characteristics of the two groups are very different, however, with a large jump at 65 in the fraction who have Medicare as their primary insurer, and a reduction in the fraction with no coverage. These changes are associated with small but statistically significant increases in hospital list charges and in the number of procedures performed in hospital. We estimate a nearly 1 percentage point drop in 7-day mortality for patients at age 65, implying that Medicare eligibility reduces the death rate of this severely ill patient group by 20 percent. The mortality gap persists for at least nine months following the initial hospital admission.

Of course, when you are seemingly so determined to crap on these services it can be quite easy to overlook the need to actually compare them to the private sector. Otherwise all you are doing is throwing chaff if you don’t.

 

[Kathryn]

In Germany, when you are admitted to a hospital, please don't expect a private or semi private room - or TV, or anything other than a sheet between you and the other 10 or more people on the ward. Don't expect a bit of privacy - no concept there of HIPPA laws. Just lay there and listen to everyone else around you snoring, farting, throwing up, you name it. Join in if you like.

By the way, the Germans are big fans of enemas. You'll get an enema for whatever ails you. Sore throat? Try an enema first. Broken toe? ENEMA! Nosebleed? E-NE-MA! "NO TESTS FOR YOU! Not till you've had an enema!"

I am not exxagerating this.

 

[Copernicus]

I am not exxagerating this.

You may not be, but your anecdotes may not reflect the experience that most Germans have with their system. I have never used German medical facilities, but I have used French and Spanish ones. I had positive experiences in all cases.

I once took my wife to an emergency room in a Spanish hospital outside of Seville. Not only did the doctors treat her immediately, but the hospital refused to be paid for the service, even though they were supposed to take our money. In France, a doctor who was treating me asked what doctors made for income in the US. When I told him, he couldn't stop laughing. Another time in Spain, I was treated and again my offer to pay was refused. We Americans are not entitled to free medical care when we visit European countries, but I have yet to pay a significant amount for any medical care I've received there. It seems that their medical professionals aren't quite as concerned about money as ours are.

But, hey, those are anecdotes, just like yours. The question is whether Europeans really would prefer to live under our system of health care. I have never conducted a scientific survey, but I have not yet encountered Europeans who think that we really have it better over here.

 

[Kathryn]

My husband has traveled all over the world - literally to over 55 countries - in his work in oil and gas. As a consequence, he has had to use medical facilities in many of these countries - since he was traveling for 6-8 months out of every year from about 1990 to 2006.

I would say that gives him a unique perspective that most people in the world, let alone in this forum, do not have.

He spent several years in the UK and many months in Norway. He had to use their medical systems while there on numerous occasions.

He also spent a lot of time in New Zealand, the Middle East, and China. He has received their medical care on several occasions, as well as the medical care in Portugal (just one time there, however).

Due to the nature of his work, he's injured himself several times overseas, and he has also gotten very, very sick a few times (travel to weird places can do that to you). In fact, he got pneumonia in China and literally nearly died. They didn't do anything for him except try to keep him comfortable - no meds, nothing.

He has told me repeatedly that none of the medical care he received in any of these places ever came close to the quality of care he's received in the US.

I know that these are only anecdotal stories that don't PROVE anything. But honestly, try to be objective about our perspective. We are two people who have traveled and lived all over the world. We both love to travel and don't approach any of these experiences or countries negatively. In fact, I love Germany and most of the countries in Europe that I've visited, and I have a lot of respect for many of their ways of doing things. (Don't ask my husband to ever return to West Africa though - that's one place he said he hates with a passion!)

My point is that we have actually LIVED in these places, BEEN there, USED these facilities and services that we're discussing here. We've experienced a broad range of healthcare systems. Our cumulative experiences do have some merit. Certainly at least as much as the musings of some Googling armchair quarterbacks. Dontcha think?

 

[Kathryn]

The question is whether Europeans really would prefer to live under our system of health care. I have never conducted a scientific survey, but I have not yet encountered Europeans who think that we really have it better over here.

My experience is that Europeans for the most part are fed a lot of negativity about the US, and most of them have not experienced our healthcare system, so they really don't have a lot of first hand experience to draw from.

When I was a military spouse, I knew a lot of foreign wives very well. Now keep in mind that these wives were experiencing US MILITARY healthcare - not the WORST in the world, but certainly not the best! Most of them were very positive about it. One of my friends was British. She told me some real horror stories about medical care in the UK, and considered US Army medical care to be far superior. I remember this distinctly because,frankly, it shocked me to hear her say that.

I knew many German wives of US soldiers. Without exception, they preferred the US military healthcare to their German system.

I have a friend from Norway. She has dual citizenship because her husband is American. She was home on vacation a few years ago and collapsed -come to find out, she had colon cancer. This was a true medical emergency. She spent several weeks in the hospital in Norway until they could stabilize her enough to fly her back to the states. She was absolutely frantic to get back to our medical system - she had much more confidence in the US system than in the Norwegian one. She told me that she had the option of major surgery there, which they wanted to do because her health was so fragile and the situation was so urgent, but she absolutely refused to begin treatment there - she insisted on getting back to the US because of the level of care.

I have some friends who are Belgian. They HATE the medical system there, and consider us to be on the path to destruction here when it comes to healthcare. They can't imagine that we would want to have public healthcare rather than what we have now.

But like you say, these are all just anecdotes. They don't prove a thing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Kathryn, I believe some folks without health insurance are so desperate that they are willing to accept just about anything.

The Democrats are so inept that they too have to pass anything to save face. They are in a once in a life time position to do just about anything. Too bad they cannot agree among themselves what to do. No way this is the Republicans fault.

 

[Mister_T]

In Germany, when you are admitted to a hospital, please don't expect a private or semi private room - or TV, or anything other than a sheet between you and the other 10 or more people on the ward. Don't expect a bit of privacy - no concept there of HIPPA laws. Just lay there and listen to everyone else around you snoring, farting, throwing up, you name it. Join in if you like.

While that certainly sounds like it involves a great deal of unpleasantness, people are not going there to have a private room or to watch cable TV (this is not the Hilton after all), they are there to be treated for medical ailments and/or have their life saved. As long as that's being accomplished (which apparently it is) then they're doing they're job and doing it well. Too bad we as a country cannot say the same thing. Me personally, I'd rather as a nation complain about lack of privacy and TV's then dead relatives and friends.

My experience is that Europeans for the most part are fed a lot of negativity about the US, and most of them have not experienced our healthcare system, so they really don't have a lot of first hand experience to draw from.

Negativity? You mean 40,00 people dying each year due to no health coverage and being ranked 37th in the world in healthcare when we're supposedly the cream of the crop as a nation? Yeah that might have something to do with the negative image the outside world has regarding our healthcare system, especially if such atrocities are not happening in their own country, and yet here we are supposedly the most richest and powerful nation on earth experiencing it first hand. In a place where tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year due to no coverage, do you really think foreigners are going to be coming over here in boatloads to experience this type of "care" first hand?

 

[Magic Man]

My experience is that Europeans for the most part are fed a lot of negativity about the US, and most of them have not experienced our healthcare system, so they really don't have a lot of first hand experience to draw from.

Yes, most of them probably haven't experienced our healthcare system firsthand. That's not really relevant, though. If you have good insurance, I wouldn't expect you to see anything wrong with our system. The problem is that amount of people without good insurance.

Anyway, the one European I know well who lives here moved from London about 6 months ago. We've talked a good bit about healthcare, and he loved the UK system. He hasn't had to use ours yet, but he also doesn't have insurance here yet since through our job, he can't get it until early next year, which is the next registration time.

As far as them "being fed" negativity, in general Europeans know a hell of a lot more about America than Americans know about Europe (and many times, more than Americans know about America).

 

[Zephyr]

Kathryn, I believe some folks without health insurance are so desperate that they are willing to accept just about anything.

Well, when any coverage is better that what you currently have...

Edit: I mean, we should obviously jump for the method that can provide the best coverage for the most people, but when your system leaves so many with absolutely nothing, there's nowhere to go but up.

 

[Copernicus]

He has told me repeatedly that none of the medical care he received in any of these places ever came close to the quality of care he's received in the US.

Kathryn, I have no doubt that that is true, but your husband probably has what I have--excellent health insurance. I can honestly say that I have had superb medical care in the US, which has included a couple of very serious major surgeries. But you are obviously trying to make your case through anecdotes, and the problem with the US health care system is that it simply does not cover all its citizens, and it costs twice as much. This is not really about trying to preserve superb health care for the wealthy and the fortunate. If that is the argument, then I will agree with you that the US wins, hands down. And I should probably just keep my mouth shut, because I, like you, am among the minority of Americans that has excellent health insurance (although its reliability and quality has been steadily declining over the past few years). And I will soon be kicked over to government insurance under Medicare. So why should I want to advocate for others who are less fortunate?

 

[themadhair]

So why should I want to advocate for others who are less fortunate?

Because the economic argument for a healthy populace is quite convincing?

 

[Kathryn]

I have never taken the position that we do not need healthcare reform. We DO need healthcare reform in this country. Starting with tort reform - which is not, to my knowledge, included in any of the options being presented in 2009.

There are a lot of erroneous numbers and ideas being thrown about in this debate. The first, of course, is that 47 million Americans don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. That's not true.

That figure includes illegal aliens, people who qualify for Medicaid or other low-cost state run options but may not be enrolled (like the health insurance plan in Texas for children of low income families), and people who CAN afford insurance but choose not to invest in it for their own personal reasons, which often include putting the money into savings instead, or buying a bigger house or a new car instead.

When you remove all the above people, the number of truly uninsured Americans drops to about 11 million.

Why not develop a government-subsidized plan for those people first - the people who are in the most need? Try the plan out on them, and if it works, expand it. What's wrong with that idea? No one has been able to tell me that yet.

Another erroneous idea is that the US ranks 37 and has more expensive healthcare because we do so poor a job of delivering healthcare. That idea is not only too simplistic, it is inaccurate, because the US is so unique in it's racial/ethnic/immigrant/population/size/etc makeup compared to most, if not all, European countries, Canada and Australia.

Take Norway for instance. Norway has a very small population compared to the US. They have a much lower rate of first and second generation immigrant population. Their population is largely homogenous - very similar genetics, lifestyles and habits, climate overall, etc. That makes their practice of medicine much more simplistic overall, which brings their overall costs per person down. Furthermore, they are not a worldwide center of healthcare and research. Research is a large part of the US budget for healthcare. We share the results of this research with the world. But the amount of research (and the cost of research) done in the US is HUGE compared with the costs and budgets for research in other countries per capita.

This same principle is true (in varying degrees but in all cases in European countries, more so than the US) of most, if not all, European countries. The immigrant and non-native populations in most European countries are mostly centered in larger metropolitan areas. Each country, covering a much smaller landmass than the US as a whole, has a more narrow field of climate, racial and ethnic groups, trends, economics, etc. All these factors influence health.

When we compare individual European countries to the US, it's like comparing, say, Minnesota to the whole US. You could say, "Compared to the US, Minnesota has a much lower rate of shark attacks! Therefore, Minnesota is a much safer place to swim than, say...Florida!"

If you are not from a border state, you may not be able to fully grasp the issue of immigration. I live in Texas. As of 2008, as a white person, I am officially a minority in my state (not that I am complaining - I love Texas). Our TAS and SAT scores are affected because huge swaths of our population barely speak English. Immigrant populations who are quite a bit poorer than the others in an area negatively impact statistics related to health, income, employment, education, etc. These figures don't often mirror the rest of the population and thus they are easily skewered and twisted. Averages get thrown out of whack when you don't take things like this into consideration. When you ace a test, doesn't it tick you off to be graded on the curve and have to pick up the slack from some guy who didn't study like you did, or who couldn't read the test to begin with?

I think we need to take a closer look at POCKETS of the population who need help, rather than presenting a one size fits all fix. I am not ashamed to say that I have good healthcare coverage, as does my husband and my entire family in fact. This coverage is part of my compensation package - in other words, it's part of my PAY. I earn this coverage and I like it. I do not want it jacked with. I have also paid into the Social Security basket for my entire adult life (that would be 30 years of work so far). I want to KNOW that my social security benefits THAT I HAVE EARNED are safe. Many, many hard working people in the US feel exactly the same way.

At the same time, I realize that I could lose my job and I would need healthcare coverage. I am not at all opposed to considering and possibly implementing a healthcare package that targets specific, at-risk groups - narrowly defined groups. I want to know WHO is being covered, and WHAT SERVICES my tax dollars will be funding. I want to know specifics about whether or not Medicare Advantage is going to be trimmed (ie, rationed care). This is included in most,if not all, of the plans presented so far. I want to know if the people who have been using those services, or will be using those services, will be covered and by WHO.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431212166204156.html

I want to know why, if it is possible to cut $123 billion from Medicare (as the Baucus plan suggests) WHY haven't we already done so? This is a government run healthcare plan, and it's got $123 BILLION dollars of waste in it that we can just cut, willy nilly? Or are we cutting HEALTHCARE SERVICES? Which is it?

So - though I have used personal anecdotes to supplement my position here, I don't believe those anecdotes are based in any sort of fantasy. We all draw from our own experiences as well as other sources when we are forming opinions and making decisions. I have lived in outside of the US for six years of my life, in Europe and in Asia. My husband has lived in about 12 countries and traveled to over 55. We literally know people pretty well from all over the world - they are our friends and we have regular contact with them. In addition to that, we read, research, and study these topics. So, though I use anecdotes, they are NOT my main source of information or the main reason for my decisions and opinions. They're a supplement.

Reading is interesting, but you can't beat real life for a learning experience.

 

[Mister_T]

There are a lot of erroneous numbers and ideas being thrown about in this debate. The first, of course, is that 47 million Americans don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. That's not true.

That figure includes illegal aliens, people who qualify for Medicaid or other low-cost state run options but may not be enrolled (like the health insurance plan in Texas for children of low income families), and people who CAN afford insurance but choose not to invest in it for their own personal reasons, which often include putting the money into savings instead, or buying a bigger house or a new car instead.

When you remove all the above people, the number of truly uninsured Americans drops to about 11 million.

More like erroneous math skills and statistics being portrayed as facts (like for example stating that 36 million people in that number of uninsured is "not really true"). I think we can debunk at least half of your "statistics" with this link: Dispelling Myths About Health Insurance

[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][SIZE=+1][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][FONT=ms sans serif, geneva, helvtica][SIZE=-1]
[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][SIZE=+1][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][FONT=ms sans serif, geneva, helvtica][SIZE=-1]Myth 1: Not many Americans are uninsured.

Not true. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that more than 41 million Americans do not have health insurance. That's one out of every seven Americans.

Myth 2: Most uninsured people are unemployed.

Not true. Nearly eight out of 10 uninsured people are in working families, but are either not offered health insurance benefits or cannot afford to pay their portion of the cost.

Myth 3: There are no serious health consequences when someone lacks health insurance.

Not true. Uninsured women with breast cancer and men with colon cancer are twice as likely to die from these diseases as insured people with the same health problems.

Myth 4: The uninsured can always get care if they really need it.

Not true. Unfortunately, uninsured people delay getting care, live with illnesses longer and even die younger than those with health insurance.
Myth 5: There is no economic risk to going without health insurance.

Not true. Not having health insurance is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy, because most families cannot afford to pay for medical care out of pocket.

Myth 6: The number of uninsured has not increased over the past decade.

Not true. The number of uninsured has increased by nearly 10 million over the past decade, and rose by 1.2 million between 2000 and 2001.

Myth 7: The number of uninsured Americans does not affect those who have health insurance.

Not true. No one is immune from the consequences of so many Americans not having health coverage. While many hospitals provide charity care to uninsured patients, studies show that insured patients often pay for this care indirectly through higher charges. Moreover, the large number of uninsured patients often overwhelms hospital emergency rooms and other health facilities.

Myth 8: The uninsured are mostly careless young people.

Not true. Three out of four uninsured adults are over the age of 25. In fact, middle-aged and older Americans are among the fastest growing group of Americans with no health insurance coverage. [/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Another erroneous idea is that the US ranks 37 and has more expensive healthcare because we do so poor a job of delivering healthcare. That idea is not only too simplistic, it is inaccurate, because the US is so unique in it's racial/ethnic/immigrant/population/size/etc makeup compared to most, if not all, European countries, Canada and Australia.

Sounds like an opinion (an erroneous one at that). Feel free to check it out yourself:
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Reading is interesting, but you can't beat real life for a learning experience.

Nope, you sure can't. Which is why people like my cousin dying and never coming back due to lack of coverage, serves as a not-so-nice (and inconvenient to some) reality check. Here's hoping you never have to learn the hard way like the rest of us.

But hey, who are we kidding; We all know these facts and personal stories being told, are just liberal spin and leftist-propaganda. :sarcastic