House Democrat Health Plan

[PureX]

What puzzles me is that so may people don't even want to try, when we have no other alternatives, and we are in desperate need of reform. Why not at least let the government try to offer good health insurance for a reasonable cost? What have we got to lose? If they can't do it than no one will buy it, anyway. And if they can do it, then it will force the insurance companies to stop gouging us and start offering more credible plans of their own. So where is the down side?

 

[themadhair]

So where is the down side?

Whenever you find it be sure to let the reform opposition know.

 

[Zephyr]

Virtual frubals to tumbleweed for that informative post, as I am temporarily prohibited from fruballing him.

I got your back. It was a good post.

 

[jamaesi]

Have you contacted a disablity lawyer? Seriously, you should receive medicade. When you are 21 years old, your mother's income should not be a factor. I'm not a CPA, but I would think the medical bills would be deducted from her income.

I think preexisiting conditions need to be regulated. I have a preexisting condition myself. I have been battling cancer for over 30 years. I have had radiation theropy, chemotheropy and numerous operations over the years. I had to pay for most of this out of my pocket. It has taken me years of payments every month to acomplish this.

I have contacted lawyers. I have applied for Medicaid when I was 21. You're right, you aren't a CPA. Do you still believe the disabled are so well taken care of?

Preexisting conditions would be regulated with the health care reform.

What's your solution, Rick?

Here is my point - as sad as Jamaesi's story is - it's anecdotal. Just as you have no way of verifying anything I've told you about my own experience, just as you feel your fingers itching to respond, challenge, pick my story apart...if you are objective you will admit you could do the same with Jamaesi's story. Because you're only hearing one person's version - and to be totally honest, you have no idea what the whole truth is.

Jamaesi, I am very sorry that you are living with chronic pain. I am not unsympathetic to your plight.

I don't want your sympathy.

You're raising a huge fuss over this health care reform and the only reason I have been able to find is that you think the bill is too hard to read and you want it explained to you instead of doing some research yourself.

Oh, what would you like me to verify for you? Right now I just have this MRI from from when I was 17 already scanned in to my computer but any other scans, surgery reports, rejection notices, whatever, I would be happy to provide. Well, except for my first MRI, the hospital lost that. Since then I keep all my medical records in my possession. I'm an open book here. Hell, if you're in or around the Pittsburgh area feel free to come by and paw through them yourself. I can back up my "anecdotal" evidence if you wish, let me know!

I would love to hear more information about how awful the Norway health care system is, especially in light of the information Autodidact provided about it.

Oh, and, according to the British Social Attitudes in Jan 09...

The British public is more satisfied with the National Health Service than at any time since 1984. People with recent experiences of the NHS tend to be far more satisfied with it than those who have had no contact.

What puzzles me is that so may people don't even want to try, when we have no other alternatives, and we are in desperate need of reform. Why not at least let the government try to offer good health insurance for a reasonable cost? What have we got to lose? If they can't do it than no one will buy it, anyway. And if they can do it, then it will force the insurance companies to stop gouging us and start offering more credible plans of their own. So where is the down side?

I guess the downside is the lazy undeserving people like me will actually get help? Bootstraps, bootstraps, free markets!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here is my point - as sad as Jamaesi's story is - it's anecdotal. Just as you have no way of verifying anything I've told you about my own experience, just as you feel your fingers itching to respond, challenge, pick my story apart...if you are objective you will admit you could do the same with Jamaesi's story. Because you're only hearing one person's version - and to be totally honest, you have no idea what the whole truth is.

Your point about anecdotal evidence is fair enough, so let's look at statistically-meaningful data gathered by the most reputable source on the subject. According to a 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science:

"Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage."
​

You cannot ask for more accurate data, from a more reputable source, which is more damning of our system compared to all other wealthy nations where ZERO people die unnecessarily every year due to lack of coverage and they pay less for it, too. Evidence just doesn't get much more compelling than this.

For the record, no one is saying that there aren't people in this country who have great health insurance and great experiences. If we had no public schools, if our education system was ONLY private and 50 million couldn't afford an education for their kids, there would still be plenty of people in this country who would get an excellent (perhaps pricey) education. That's beside the point. Like free public education, we can have free public health insurance and people can keep their expensive private stuff if they want.

 

[Jackytar]

What we need, folks, is cost containment. Impossible to achieve, politically, as a sweeping reform. I have a pet theory that the administration is aware of this and is making an end run around the providers and insurers with incremental changes of which this bill is a first step.

For example - the Obama administration is promoting digital, universal charting as a cost container because it avoids duplicate tests. Maybe so but this is not where the real waste is. The real waste is in unnecessary procedures and treatments. The way to curtail this is by furthering the practice of evidence-based medicine. Here we look at the different treatment modalities with a keen eye to outcomes. The most expensive treatments are not always the best and can even be harmful. Amazingly enough, there is little emphasis on evidence based medicine in America today. Health care providers get paid for doing stuff, so why would there be. I believe (pet theory) that the push for computerized documentation is so we can start data-mining for this information. The cardiologist who stents every person that walks into his office regardless of actual benefit to the patient will be exposed fairly easily. To contain costs we would have to question that cardiologist's "judgement" and deny care in some instances. This is what "rationing" means. And the public option will start doing just that (again my pet theory) and either force the privates to do the same, close their doors, or cater to those willing to pay more for gold plated insurance.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

As an example of evidence-based medicine consider this...

In the US we cure many more prostate cancers than they do in England - by multiples. Sounds pretty damning to the NHS, yes? But wait. The mortality rate for prostate cancers is the same in both countries - about 25 per 100,000 men.

How can this be? Well, it turns out that most men who develop prostate cancer will die of something else never knowing they even had it. But in the US the financial incentive is to identify and treat as many prostate cancers as possible. We "cure" more because we find more. The treatment for prostate cancer is expensive, painful, potentially disabling (you can lose your mojo, for example) and largely unnecessary.

Jackytar

 

[Reverend Rick]

What's your solution, Rick?

No insurance for anyone. Outlaw health insurance period. I know, you think the good reverend has completely lost it now. It is a radical idea, just hear me out.

Insurance is suppose to be for folks to pool their risk and share the burden in the UNLIKELY event something bad happens to one of us.

The insurance model is a great idea until everyone has a claim. Here lies the problem. Everyone is going to get sick some time.

Think about it. We are not insuring against something that MIGHT happen, we are buying insurance for something that WILL happen.

Take MRI's for instance. Do you think a doctor could get people to pay over 3,000 for the test if it where not for insurance? They would have to sell the test for what the market could bare. Health insurance enables the medical profession to over charge for services.

People are so stupid. Why do we not rail against expensive tests? I will tell you why, because the insurance company pays the bill and not the individual.

Lets apply this principle to another industry and you suddenly see how stupid it sounds.

You have a plumbing problem in your house and you call the plumber. He comes out and gives you an estimate to unclog your toilet for 8,000 dollars. You get on the phone and call another plumber. Now, if all plumbers charged that much, you would have a problem. Is the problem the plumbers charge too much or we don't have plumbing insurance?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No insurance for anyone. Outlaw health insurance period. I know, you think the good reverend has completely lost it now. It is a radical idea, just hear me out.

Can you name one nation that this has used your radical solution, and has better overall health care than the US?

 

[yossarian22]

Are you applying this standard to yourself as well? Please tell me what opinions you have a different perspective on?

Off the top of my head

Global warming (this one still makes me cringe), the extent of welfare needed in the US, libertarianism, the effectiveness of the free market, how I view religion.

So at the end of the day, the only reason to debate with someone is to change your opponent's view point?

No. It is to determine the correct viewpoint, which may or may not be your opponents viewpoint.

as for the above, yes. Doctor's could still charge $3000 for an MRI. They could charge whatever they felt like for an MRI because health care is essentially inelastic. What are you going to do, not take the test, preventing you from being treated (and probably dieing)? Health care is not a commodity and it should be treated as a utility. We regulate the hell out of water, electricity and other services that have similar inelasticity, and I see no reason why we shouldnt do the same for health care.

 

[Smoke]

Can you name one nation that this has used your radical solution, and has better overall health care than the US?

Depends on what you mean by "better." Reverend Rick's plan is basically a return to the healthcare system the United States had a hundred years ago.

When the poor reached the end of their useful working lives, somewhere around 45 or 50, they coughed up their lungs in the garrett and got out of the way of the market. While this was not a good outcome for the poor, it was a rather good outcome for the wealthy and for the market, and isn't that really what matters?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Depends on what you mean by "better." Reverend Rick's plan is basically a return to the healthcare system the United States had a hundred years ago.

When the poor reached the end of their useful working lives, somewhere around 45 or 50, they coughed up their lungs in the garrett and got out of the way of the market. While this was not a good outcome for the poor, it was a rather good outcome for the wealthy and for the market, and isn't that really what matters?

Ah...Social Darwinism.

Repugnant.....

 

[Smoke]

Repugnant.....

It certainly is.

 

[Autodidact]

Your point about anecdotal evidence is fair enough, so let's look at statistically-meaningful data gathered by the most reputable source on the subject. According to a 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science:

"Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage."
​

You cannot ask for more accurate data, from a more reputable source, which is more damning of our system compared to all other wealthy nations where ZERO people die unnecessarily every year due to lack of coverage and they pay less for it, too. Evidence just doesn't get much more compelling than this.

For the record, no one is saying that there aren't people in this country who have great health insurance and great experiences. If we had no public schools, if our education system was ONLY private and 50 million couldn't afford an education for their kids, there would still be plenty of people in this country who would get an excellent (perhaps pricey) education. That's beside the point. Like free public education, we can have free public health insurance and people can keep their expensive private stuff if they want.

And, as I keep pointing out to Rick, killing those 18,000 people a year costs us twice as much as those other countries. Yes, it's expensive to kill people, but we invest a lot of money to make sure we do it.

That's the current system, the one Kathryn is reluctant to reform hastily.

 

[Kathryn]

I think it's STUPID to vote in a bill that no one has apparently read in it's entirity. Is there one person on this planet who claims (either honestly or dishonestly) to have read any of the four bills, and understood them?

I think that our fearless leaders have presented us with an incomprehensible mess that is open to too much interpretation and misunderstanding as it stands right now.

I also think it should be illegal for our representatives to vote on something they haven't read or don't understand.

If it's not understandable in it's present form, back to the drawing board.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Why are you so sure no one has read it? Where are you getting your information from?

 

[Kathryn]

I have also been following this very closely and I can 't find any evidence of anyone who says they HAVE read it (which was my question). Have you seen these bills? Have you read many pages of them? They are about as clear as mud.

It's like someone took about a kabillion words, threw them in a blender, and then taped them to pieces of paper. These bills are so poorly written it's unbelievable.

I have yet to hear one representative from our government say that they fully understand even one COMPONENT of any of the bills.

So much for transparency and clear language.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You do realize, Bills are written in "Law-Speak".

But for your peace of mind, here is the bill in PDF for you to peruse, and to forward to any of your Senators and Congressmen.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

 

[themadhair]

My country is voting on this in October:
EUR-Lex - Official Journal - 2007 - C 306

This is last years finance act for my country:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2008/a0308.pdf

Here is our health act from 2007 (bearing in mind we have 75 times less of a population):
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2007/a2307.pdf

With all these complicated pieces of legislation how does the Irish government function? I guess they have to resort to doing something other than meaningless and irrelevant BAWWWWing.

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's STUPID to vote in a bill that no one has apparently read in it's entirity. Is there one person on this planet who claims (either honestly or dishonestly) to have read any of the four bills, and understood them?

I think that our fearless leaders have presented us with an incomprehensible mess that is open to too much interpretation and misunderstanding as it stands right now.

I also think it should be illegal for our representatives to vote on something they haven't read or don't understand.

If it's not understandable in it's present form, back to the drawing board.

Maybe the Republicans haven't read it, I don't know. I know the Democratic leaders and commentators have read it. It's not that hard. It's not like reading is some secret skill that only the elite have. The thing is available on line! I don't understand what you're complaining about. Would you like a link to a Cliff's Notes version?

Bills are long. That's how legislation is.

If you haven't read it, how do you know it's incomprehensible? Someone's lying to you again, Kathryn, guess who.