Seriousness US Health Care Plan

Spoon Man · 03-24-2010, 03:59 PM

We are here to politely discuss our points of view on the current US health care plan. Anyone who can do so politely is welcome to put in their $.02 and of course citing sources of information is welcome and encouraged in this discussion.

This is a political discussion (Key word here) any and all personal attack (that is attacking any person or persons who believe differently or the same as yourself) will not be tolerated. If you cannot avoid that this is not the place for you. Any posts that includes such attacks will be flagged for removal. Once again, if you cannot avoid calling someone's beliefs or someone themselves names close your browser as you are not welcome in this thread. I have spoken with a moderator about opening this topic, and was given permission if we stay on topic, that being said if you are asked to get back on topic, drop the current discussion. Any moderators that can spare the time to watch this thread would be greatly appreciated.

I'll get started here with my views.
I believe that the health care plan that was voted on was completely ridiculous. For one, it was ridiculously long. Few people actually read what was in it, and no one really knows right now. I seriously doubt that the people who voted for it knew what exactly they were voting for, and their constituencies seemed to be against it as well.
Secondly, I disagree that it is the governments job to provide health care to the people. Now, I have been on the receiving end of Medicare and Social Security and do appreciate the fact that I had those services, but they could have easily been provided by a private organization for DFaCS and I would have likely received a higher level of care if this were the case. Yes, some people can't afford private services, I myself am currently without insurance, but its my choice and no one should be taxed for choosing opt out of a potentially life saving service. Its our choice to be stupid, and we risk ourselves and we will reap the consequence naturally.
Thirdly, we are spending money that we do not have as it is, we do not need to add more to our debt, we need to be trying to pay it off. A country should be run somewhat like a business, if a business were to be in the situation we are now it would start cutting costs instead of adding more to the expense budget.

happy_terd · 03-24-2010, 04:01 PM

I do not care as much about the health care bill being a good or bad thing as I do about the American people who hired/elected this corrupt congress being represented fairly. It is about the will of the people being met. They work for us and not vice versa.

If the majority of America wants to make it a law that everyone must wear chaps then those jerks better make it a law. To hell with what THEY think is best for our country.

It is still "we the people" right? Or are those days over?

Nakor · 03-24-2010, 04:31 PM

Are foreign thoughts on the matter welcome?

From my (a Canadian) perspective, I do think it's important to have a health care system in place under the government. Effectively designed and run, such a system can actually save money over the long run, and more importantly, I think it's important to care for all our people. If higher taxes here in Canada mean that any of my fellow citizens can get the help they need for a medical emergency without fear of the costs and so forth, I am more than happy to pay that. This doesn't mean I believe in socialism to its extreme, mind you. There are a lot of social programs in Canada I disagree with. But I find health to be far too important not to have such a program in place. So really it isn't about whether or not the government should run things, it's about exactly how much they should run -- what is important enough that it should be under their control, and what is not so vital that it needs not such control.

Now then. To narrow my opinion down to specifically what happened in America I'm a bit more torn on it. I do think it's a good thing for the states that some form of health care passed, but I don't think passing this particular bill was a great idea. It will serve as a good start, yes, but surely it could have been improved such that at least a small majority (or at least a majority of those people who wanted health care at all) would have seen it more favourably. It's not impossible for this to have happened; polling from various sources showed that the majority of Americans wanted health care reform, but the majority of those who did want reform did not want this particular bill. Moreover, as the opening poster pointed out, the bill is incredibly long, not concise at all, filled with fluff from the negotiating process that was never really cleaned up and hammered out into something legible and clear.

Regarding the method by which it passed (reconciliation) however, it's an existing political process, and I hesitate to call it underhanded or unfair as some have, especially when the republicans used it just as readily during their times in government. If people are so opposed to it, then the argument should not be against how health care passed so much as it should be in favour of changing these rules for future generations. As long as it exists, parties will use it and feel right in doing so. (To be honest, the method by which the filibuster works down there always seemed rather odd and perhaps too powerful to me; if reconciliation were to change, so too must filibuster. But this is straying from the topic at hand.)

Now, I am aware that as someone who is not an American, my opinion holds no real sway as far as democratic process goes. Moreover, this is just opinion and conjecture; I do not mean that anyone should think like me, nor do I intend to say that the US should conform to a foreigner's thoughts on the world. I am aware that having lived where there is a health care system gives me a different perspective on this, but I think that might be a useful one to those exploring all sides of the issue.

I intend only to lay these thoughts out there, and those who really are affected by this (Americans) may use or disregard my thoughts as they will. I hope they are useful, of course.

Spoon Man · 03-24-2010, 06:30 PM

Nakor, as I understand it the filibuster was around to prevent such things as what happened with this particular health care bill. If majority of senators or representatives (but less than 2/3) were acting in a manner that was not of the will of their constituents then someone could choose to delay the vote on said bill so long that it could no longer be voted on. Obviously this didn't quite work out, but I believe that was the original intent.

And of course your opinions are welcome and appreciated here. You are definitely correct in stating that the Republicans have used the reconciliation process in the past, and they were also called unfair and underhanded. It seems we have a lot of double standards in place in US politics.

Can I ask how the health care plan would save money, and whose money it would save?

Nakor · 03-24-2010, 07:44 PM

This one? I have no idea. It's so convoluted I can't tell one way or the other lol. I mean a good health care plan can do so. I have no idea if this one can or not.

As for how, the US actually already spends a lot more per capita on health care under the old system than many countries with universal health care pay under theirs'. One large part of the reason is the government often ends up footing the bill for anyone who can't pay for themselves ('uncompensated care' which is usually paid for by various levels of government), but isn't taking in any income to counteract that; in short, having uninsured people in the country can get expensive. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. (Both countries have seen these costs rise a fair bit since then, as a note.) The high price is because emergency visits are pretty much never denied, and when a patient can't afford to pay for them, it's the government that foots the bill.

It's actually easier to think of it from this perspective though. If Person A has health care, they pay $57 per month (going by the cost of BC MSP, the equivalent of 'public option' here in BC), and when suddenly they need a $5,000 (or whatever) emergency operation, it's covered. In the long haul, it generally saves them money. Well, the government is in the position of covering anyone who can't (or won't) cover or pay for themselves, only instead of footing the lower $x per month, they're currently footing the $5,000 cost when someone can't pay for their own emergency procedure. So in effect, it's almost akin to the government buying health insurance against people they would have been responsible for anyway.

That's obviously a rather roundabout metaphor and not 100% accurate, but hopefully it makes sense of why the government would consider a system where health insurance is mandatory and then offer to subsidize coverage to those who cannot afford it themselves. That subsidization costs far less than the bill that comes to the government's door when an emergency procedure goes unpaid for.

Short version: Mandating insurance and paying for the people who can't afford it costs a lot less than paying for uncompensated care occurring due to a lack of insurance (as long as the health care plan is done right, that is, which I agree is in question).

On the up side, the plan is going to take effect very slowly, so there's lots of time for them to fix it. Perhaps now that there's something in place the conservatives and liberals can mesh ideas; there's been a lot of head-butting amongst politicians and it's not really doing either side a lot of good.

Bilbo1967 · 03-24-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoon Man

We are here to politely discuss our points of view on the current US health care plan. Anyone who can do so politely is welcome to put in their $.02 and of course citing sources of information is welcome and encouraged in this discussion.

Secondly, I disagree that it is the governments job to provide health care to the people. Now, I have been on the receiving end of Medicare and Social Security and do appreciate the fact that I had those services, but they could have easily been provided by a private organization for DFaCS and I would have likely received a higher level of care if this were the case. Yes, some people can't afford private services, I myself am currently without insurance, but its my choice and no one should be taxed for choosing opt out of a potentially life saving service. Its our choice to be stupid, and we risk ourselves and we will reap the consequence naturally.

It may be your choice, but is it really the choice of everybody who doesn't hold insurance not to do so? I doubt it. I would guess that a significant number, if not the majority, of people who do not hold health insurance do not because they can't afford it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoon Man

Thirdly, we are spending money that we do not have as it is, we do not need to add more to our debt, we need to be trying to pay it off. A country should be run somewhat like a business, if a business were to be in the situation we are now it would start cutting costs instead of adding more to the expense budget.

If a country were more like a business, then the unprofitable areas of that business (i.e. the unemployed, the ill, the old etc..) would be allowed to die off. Do you want to live in a society like that? I personally would hope that society has more humanity.

Elfwreck · 03-24-2010, 08:07 PM

My thoughts:

1) Governments that believe they should provide police protection and firefighters should provide health care with the same rationale: it helps society by helping individuals. It taxes the community as a whole to provide an overall level of security of quality of life.

Exact details of what should & shouldn't be covered, like exact details of what constitutes a crime, should be negotiated by the people, with the advice of medical experts. Should *not* be decided by health care providers (or worse, insurance companies), any more than police departments should decide what crimes they will enforce, or firefighters should decide what neighborhoods or types of buildings they will protect.

2) The bill as passed will have some very ugly long-term effects. By excluding the option of abortion funding from it, and forcing insurance companies to carry that as an extra rider, many of them won't bother. And removing abortions from available medical services, whether by law or economic means, is going to cause:

attempted home abortions with *hideous* side effects,
abandoned infants,
infants dead through neglect or abuse,
a rise in shaken-baby syndrome,
a rise in fetal alcohol syndrome,
a rise in the number of college-age women demanding tubal ligations. (No idea whether they'll get them or not, or what other effects that'll have.)

This could almost all be avoided by increasing fertility awareness and widespread distribution of various birth control methods. That's not going to happen.

3) My husband may actually be willing to visit a doctor for the first time in a couple of decades, now that we're not worried he'll be denied care for "pre-existing conditions" if my job ever changes.

Nakor · 03-25-2010, 02:52 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the pre-existing conditions part of the health care bill hasn't gone into effect yet, right? It only goes into effect for children at first, and then for everyone by 2014.

As for abortions, I can understand why the government would willingly take the position of not paying for/subsidizing them. While I am pro-choice, at the same time it is an optional operation. MSP here in British Columbia doesn't cover abortion, and that doesn't seem to be the source of any major problems. If memory serves, the healthcare reform bill doesn't exclude abortions after rape or incest or where the woman's life is in danger.

happy_terd · 03-25-2010, 03:11 AM

edit: Never mind.

--------

EowynCarter · 03-25-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

3) My husband may actually be willing to visit a doctor for the first time in a couple of decades, now that we're not worried he'll be denied care for "pre-existing conditions" if my job ever changes.

And seams to be the main point here. Decision to get some some health care should not be dependent on money.
I remember someone on another board mentioning her husband was sick, back home, and that he would have to eat by himself because the insurance would not pay for perfusion, and they couldn't afford it. Kind of sad.
And yes, i'm glad that all the exam i'm passing are fully paid for. Allows to do everything needed.

Greg Anos · 03-25-2010, 09:18 AM

There are three choices for allocation healthcare resources.

Ration by price.

Ration by access.

Attempt to stretch access by underpaying providers.

Results of each.

Ration by price. Poor people dies from lack of access. System still provides incentives (greed) to cause people to become providers...

Ration by access. People lower in the pecking order die from lack of timely access. System may or may not provide incentives for people to become providers....

Attempt to stretch access by underpaying providers. Entire system collapses as providers respond to negative incentives by doing something else...

Pick....Door #1 , Door #2, or Door #3.

Spoon Man · 03-25-2010, 11:31 AM

I thnk that neither of those three need to be the chosen option. Why can health care not be run like disaster relief? Private companies donate for tax exemptions and advertisement purposes, similarly private practices could provide free care and recieve a tax break and then also use the avertising ploy of stating that their customers are helping to pay for this free care. Now, I am not incredibly knoledgeable when it comes to tax laws and such, but I will do some reading into it when i get back to my computer and I will respond to everyone. My K1 (which I am now posting on) is just too slow for all this.

pshrynk · 03-25-2010, 12:52 PM

As a physician, i am heartened to see that there is a first step toward universal coverage of health care. I cannot tell you how much time is spent on trying to find a way for patients to get meds. I also know that if someone is not covered, they avoid care and then end up in the psych unit (for those with psychiatric disorders) and running up an immense bill. As I have said elsewhere, the cost to me is an increase of taxes to the tune of about 9% (eventually). I will gladly pay it now, in order to get my patients the care they need.

As to the method of passage? It was ugly. But as a political junkie, I have to say that every piece of legeslation ever made is ugly in its conception.

Elfwreck · 03-25-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nakor

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the pre-existing conditions part of the health care bill hasn't gone into effect yet, right? It only goes into effect for children at first, and then for everyone by 2014.

Yes. But it *will* be available. I'm not worried about a potential couple of years' gap in health coverage (he's survived the last couple of decades without it); I was worried about setting up a precedent in which he got coverage for a few months, the economy did another nose-dive and half my department gets laid off, and then we'd be unable to get coverage for him at all.

Quote:

As for abortions, I can understand why the government would willingly take the position of not paying for/subsidizing them. While I am pro-choice, at the same time it is an optional operation. MSP here in British Columbia doesn't cover abortion, and that doesn't seem to be the source of any major problems. If memory serves, the healthcare reform bill doesn't exclude abortions after rape or incest or where the woman's life is in danger.

The biggest problem with not including it is that most insurance companies are likely to drop it entirely rather than creating a controversial extra rider; some states are likely to remove access entirely--and hospitals are likely to stop providing it because it won't be covered and therefor won't be worth the resources to keep it available.

Right now, the US has seven states with less than five abortion providers in the state, and and 14 more with less than 10. (And those multiple providers tend to be clustered in the large cities, not spread out evenly.) Wyoming, the 10th largest state with almost 98,000 square miles (250,000+ sq km), has 2 abortion providers. In cases of rape or life-endangerment, emergency abortion services are pretty much nonexistent.

If this gap were being covered by increased birth control awareness & availability, it wouldn't be a problem--but it's not; we've got plenty of people who believe the only proper birth control is total abstinence, and that teens should be scared into not having sex by telling them lies about birth control failure rates. (It works about as well as you'd imagine--the states with the "abstinence only" sex-ed plans have the highest teen pregnancy rates.)

rmm200 · 03-25-2010, 01:40 PM

Our current system stinks. Take me for example - I just took my 17 year old son in for a routine office visit at Bend Medical Center. He got two immunizations while there. We have family coverage through Assurant Health. They denied all charges, the office visit cost went for $98 to $241 since it was "uninsured", and the immunizations were $319.00. My out-of-pocket expense for this routine office visit was $560, on top of the $540 I pay a month for insurance. Think how much it would have been for a real problem.

Robert

03-24-2010, 08:07 PM	#7
Elfwreck Grand Sorcerer Posts: 5,185 Karma: 25133758 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)	My thoughts: 1) Governments that believe they should provide police protection and firefighters should provide health care with the same rationale: it helps society by helping individuals. It taxes the community as a whole to provide an overall level of security of quality of life. Exact details of what should & shouldn't be covered, like exact details of what constitutes a crime, should be negotiated by the people, with the advice of medical experts. Should not be decided by health care providers (or worse, insurance companies), any more than police departments should decide what crimes they will enforce, or firefighters should decide what neighborhoods or types of buildings they will protect. 2) The bill as passed will have some very ugly long-term effects. By excluding the option of abortion funding from it, and forcing insurance companies to carry that as an extra rider, many of them won't bother. And removing abortions from available medical services, whether by law or economic means, is going to cause: attempted home abortions with hideous side effects, abandoned infants, infants dead through neglect or abuse, a rise in shaken-baby syndrome, a rise in fetal alcohol syndrome, a rise in the number of college-age women demanding tubal ligations. (No idea whether they'll get them or not, or what other effects that'll have.) This could almost all be avoided by increasing fertility awareness and widespread distribution of various birth control methods. That's not going to happen. 3) My husband may actually be willing to visit a doctor for the first time in a couple of decades, now that we're not worried he'll be denied care for "pre-existing conditions" if my job ever changes.

03-25-2010, 03:11 AM	#9
happy_terd Banned Posts: 13,045 Karma: 10105011 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Finally made it to Walmart. Device: PRS 420	edit: Never mind. -------- Last edited by happy_terd; 03-25-2010 at 04:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Health Care Bill	GyGeek	Upload Help	4	04-28-2010 10:42 PM
Government Congress, U.S.: H.R. 3962 Health Care Reform Act. v1. 22 Mar 2010	GyGeek	ePub Books	1	03-23-2010 09:00 AM
During the health care proceedings, a sitting senator was seen reading a Kindle.	Ocean	News	6	09-23-2009 10:39 PM
Seriously thoughtful American Health Care	formerroadie	Lounge	177	09-10-2009 07:17 PM
Government-run Health Care	GlennD	Lounge	17	07-04-2009 08:35 AM

03-24-2010, 03:59 PM	#1
Spoon Man Groupie Posts: 188 Karma: 3002 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Device: Kindle 1	US Health Care Plan We are here to politely discuss our points of view on the current US health care plan. Anyone who can do so politely is welcome to put in their $.02 and of course citing sources of information is welcome and encouraged in this discussion. This is a political discussion (Key word here) any and all personal attack (that is attacking any person or persons who believe differently or the same as yourself) will not be tolerated. If you cannot avoid that this is not the place for you. Any posts that includes such attacks will be flagged for removal. Once again, if you cannot avoid calling someone's beliefs or someone themselves names close your browser as you are not welcome in this thread. I have spoken with a moderator about opening this topic, and was given permission if we stay on topic, that being said if you are asked to get back on topic, drop the current discussion. Any moderators that can spare the time to watch this thread would be greatly appreciated. I'll get started here with my views. I believe that the health care plan that was voted on was completely ridiculous. For one, it was ridiculously long. Few people actually read what was in it, and no one really knows right now. I seriously doubt that the people who voted for it knew what exactly they were voting for, and their constituencies seemed to be against it as well. Secondly, I disagree that it is the governments job to provide health care to the people. Now, I have been on the receiving end of Medicare and Social Security and do appreciate the fact that I had those services, but they could have easily been provided by a private organization for DFaCS and I would have likely received a higher level of care if this were the case. Yes, some people can't afford private services, I myself am currently without insurance, but its my choice and no one should be taxed for choosing opt out of a potentially life saving service. Its our choice to be stupid, and we risk ourselves and we will reap the consequence naturally. Thirdly, we are spending money that we do not have as it is, we do not need to add more to our debt, we need to be trying to pay it off. A country should be run somewhat like a business, if a business were to be in the situation we are now it would start cutting costs instead of adding more to the expense budget.

03-24-2010, 04:01 PM	#2
happy_terd Banned Posts: 13,045 Karma: 10105011 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Finally made it to Walmart. Device: PRS 420	I do not care as much about the health care bill being a good or bad thing as I do about the American people who hired/elected this corrupt congress being represented fairly. It is about the will of the people being met. They work for us and not vice versa. If the majority of America wants to make it a law that everyone must wear chaps then those jerks better make it a law. To hell with what THEY think is best for our country. It is still "we the people" right? Or are those days over? Last edited by happy_terd; 03-24-2010 at 04:05 PM.

03-24-2010, 04:31 PM	#3
Nakor Addict Posts: 214 Karma: 511602 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: BC, Canada Device: Aluratek Libre	Are foreign thoughts on the matter welcome? From my (a Canadian) perspective, I do think it's important to have a health care system in place under the government. Effectively designed and run, such a system can actually save money over the long run, and more importantly, I think it's important to care for all our people. If higher taxes here in Canada mean that any of my fellow citizens can get the help they need for a medical emergency without fear of the costs and so forth, I am more than happy to pay that. This doesn't mean I believe in socialism to its extreme, mind you. There are a lot of social programs in Canada I disagree with. But I find health to be far too important not to have such a program in place. So really it isn't about whether or not the government should run things, it's about exactly how much they should run -- what is important enough that it should be under their control, and what is not so vital that it needs not such control. Now then. To narrow my opinion down to specifically what happened in America I'm a bit more torn on it. I do think it's a good thing for the states that some form of health care passed, but I don't think passing this particular bill was a great idea. It will serve as a good start, yes, but surely it could have been improved such that at least a small majority (or at least a majority of those people who wanted health care at all) would have seen it more favourably. It's not impossible for this to have happened; polling from various sources showed that the majority of Americans wanted health care reform, but the majority of those who did want reform did not want this particular bill. Moreover, as the opening poster pointed out, the bill is incredibly long, not concise at all, filled with fluff from the negotiating process that was never really cleaned up and hammered out into something legible and clear. Regarding the method by which it passed (reconciliation) however, it's an existing political process, and I hesitate to call it underhanded or unfair as some have, especially when the republicans used it just as readily during their times in government. If people are so opposed to it, then the argument should not be against how health care passed so much as it should be in favour of changing these rules for future generations. As long as it exists, parties will use it and feel right in doing so. (To be honest, the method by which the filibuster works down there always seemed rather odd and perhaps too powerful to me; if reconciliation were to change, so too must filibuster. But this is straying from the topic at hand.) Now, I am aware that as someone who is not an American, my opinion holds no real sway as far as democratic process goes. Moreover, this is just opinion and conjecture; I do not mean that anyone should think like me, nor do I intend to say that the US should conform to a foreigner's thoughts on the world. I am aware that having lived where there is a health care system gives me a different perspective on this, but I think that might be a useful one to those exploring all sides of the issue. I intend only to lay these thoughts out there, and those who really are affected by this (Americans) may use or disregard my thoughts as they will. I hope they are useful, of course.

03-24-2010, 06:30 PM	#4
Spoon Man Groupie Posts: 188 Karma: 3002 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Device: Kindle 1	Nakor, as I understand it the filibuster was around to prevent such things as what happened with this particular health care bill. If majority of senators or representatives (but less than 2/3) were acting in a manner that was not of the will of their constituents then someone could choose to delay the vote on said bill so long that it could no longer be voted on. Obviously this didn't quite work out, but I believe that was the original intent. And of course your opinions are welcome and appreciated here. You are definitely correct in stating that the Republicans have used the reconciliation process in the past, and they were also called unfair and underhanded. It seems we have a lot of double standards in place in US politics. Can I ask how the health care plan would save money, and whose money it would save?

03-24-2010, 07:44 PM	#5
Nakor Addict Posts: 214 Karma: 511602 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: BC, Canada Device: Aluratek Libre	This one? I have no idea. It's so convoluted I can't tell one way or the other lol. I mean a good health care plan can do so. I have no idea if this one can or not. As for how, the US actually already spends a lot more per capita on health care under the old system than many countries with universal health care pay under theirs'. One large part of the reason is the government often ends up footing the bill for anyone who can't pay for themselves ('uncompensated care' which is usually paid for by various levels of government), but isn't taking in any income to counteract that; in short, having uninsured people in the country can get expensive. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. (Both countries have seen these costs rise a fair bit since then, as a note.) The high price is because emergency visits are pretty much never denied, and when a patient can't afford to pay for them, it's the government that foots the bill. It's actually easier to think of it from this perspective though. If Person A has health care, they pay $57 per month (going by the cost of BC MSP, the equivalent of 'public option' here in BC), and when suddenly they need a $5,000 (or whatever) emergency operation, it's covered. In the long haul, it generally saves them money. Well, the government is in the position of covering anyone who can't (or won't) cover or pay for themselves, only instead of footing the lower $x per month, they're currently footing the $5,000 cost when someone can't pay for their own emergency procedure. So in effect, it's almost akin to the government buying health insurance against people they would have been responsible for anyway. That's obviously a rather roundabout metaphor and not 100% accurate, but hopefully it makes sense of why the government would consider a system where health insurance is mandatory and then offer to subsidize coverage to those who cannot afford it themselves. That subsidization costs far less than the bill that comes to the government's door when an emergency procedure goes unpaid for. Short version: Mandating insurance and paying for the people who can't afford it costs a lot less than paying for uncompensated care occurring due to a lack of insurance (as long as the health care plan is done right, that is, which I agree is in question). On the up side, the plan is going to take effect very slowly, so there's lots of time for them to fix it. Perhaps now that there's something in place the conservatives and liberals can mesh ideas; there's been a lot of head-butting amongst politicians and it's not really doing either side a lot of good.

03-25-2010, 02:52 AM	#8
Nakor Addict Posts: 214 Karma: 511602 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: BC, Canada Device: Aluratek Libre	Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the pre-existing conditions part of the health care bill hasn't gone into effect yet, right? It only goes into effect for children at first, and then for everyone by 2014. As for abortions, I can understand why the government would willingly take the position of not paying for/subsidizing them. While I am pro-choice, at the same time it is an optional operation. MSP here in British Columbia doesn't cover abortion, and that doesn't seem to be the source of any major problems. If memory serves, the healthcare reform bill doesn't exclude abortions after rape or incest or where the woman's life is in danger.

03-25-2010, 09:18 AM	#11
Greg Anos Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,248 Karma: 35000000 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Pocketbook	There are three choices for allocation healthcare resources. Ration by price. Ration by access. Attempt to stretch access by underpaying providers. Results of each. Ration by price. Poor people dies from lack of access. System still provides incentives (greed) to cause people to become providers... Ration by access. People lower in the pecking order die from lack of timely access. System may or may not provide incentives for people to become providers.... Attempt to stretch access by underpaying providers. Entire system collapses as providers respond to negative incentives by doing something else... Pick....Door #1 , Door #2, or Door #3.

03-25-2010, 11:31 AM	#12
Spoon Man Groupie Posts: 188 Karma: 3002 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Device: Kindle 1	I thnk that neither of those three need to be the chosen option. Why can health care not be run like disaster relief? Private companies donate for tax exemptions and advertisement purposes, similarly private practices could provide free care and recieve a tax break and then also use the avertising ploy of stating that their customers are helping to pay for this free care. Now, I am not incredibly knoledgeable when it comes to tax laws and such, but I will do some reading into it when i get back to my computer and I will respond to everyone. My K1 (which I am now posting on) is just too slow for all this.

03-25-2010, 12:52 PM	#13
pshrynk Beepbeep n beebeep, yeah! Posts: 11,726 Karma: 8255450 Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin, aka America's IceBox Device: iThingie, KmkII, I miss Zelda!	As a physician, i am heartened to see that there is a first step toward universal coverage of health care. I cannot tell you how much time is spent on trying to find a way for patients to get meds. I also know that if someone is not covered, they avoid care and then end up in the psych unit (for those with psychiatric disorders) and running up an immense bill. As I have said elsewhere, the cost to me is an increase of taxes to the tune of about 9% (eventually). I will gladly pay it now, in order to get my patients the care they need. As to the method of passage? It was ugly. But as a political junkie, I have to say that every piece of legeslation ever made is ugly in its conception.

03-25-2010, 01:40 PM	#15
rmm200 Groupie Posts: 195 Karma: 414 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Bend, OR Device: Sony PRS-600	Our current system stinks. Take me for example - I just took my 17 year old son in for a routine office visit at Bend Medical Center. He got two immunizations while there. We have family coverage through Assurant Health. They denied all charges, the office visit cost went for $98 to $241 since it was "uninsured", and the immunizations were $319.00. My out-of-pocket expense for this routine office visit was $560, on top of the $540 I pay a month for insurance. Think how much it would have been for a real problem. Robert

Advert

Advert