89 replies to this topic

[Mariusz]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs




Mariusz

[nowayout]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I agree, it does not sound good at all.

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

[sUper GeNius]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I agree, it does not sound good at all.

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

Why not simply purchase health insurance? I've been paying for my own for than twenty years.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 11 February 2009 - 04:11 PM.

[forever freedom]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I agree, it does not sound good at all.

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

Why not simply purchase health insurance? I've ben paying for my own for than twenty years.

Exactly.

[nowayout]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I agree, it does not sound good at all.

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

Why not simply purchase health insurance? I've been paying for my own for than twenty years.

I have had health insurance for as long as I have been in the states. This is my experience with insurance. Imagine someone without!

Edited by andre, 11 February 2009 - 06:47 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

"In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."




More here:
http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I agree, it does not sound good at all.

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

Why not simply purchase health insurance? I've been paying for my own for than twenty years.

I have had health insurance for as long as I have been in the states. This is my experience with insurance. Imagine someone without!

Your experience has been counter to everything I have read or heard. In Europe and Canada, healthcare costs as a percentage of GNP are much lower than in the US. This is party because the government limits the amount reimbursed to the provider, but it's also due to the fact that procedures and medications are limited. Their is *less* healthcare delivered, it is rationed. All other things being equal, I'd rather receive more healthcare than less. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting something for "free" (of course, these is no free lunch.) I pay over $7,000 a year in premiums, and it keeps going up.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 11 February 2009 - 08:54 PM.

[FunkOdyssey]

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."

I think someone needs a little cancer to straighten out their perspective. Karma, work your magic.

[Mixter]

Already works that way with poor elderly in many EU countries, for example some aspects of German healthcare:

- Only those with the top 20% income are legally allowed to get a private insurance, the others HAVE to have the mandatory public healthcare.

- Introduced in 2009, it is now a _criminal_ offense not to have and pay mandatory public healthcare in Germany. But only if you're not in the top 30% income group.

- The public healthcare is expensive (15% of your income) and works quite fine on standard treatments, but only there -- the elderly and some chronically ill are basically doomed. Luckily, Germany has a lot of patient self-help groups and -institutions which lobby themselves, much to the anger of big pharma.

- Government is trying to establish a white-list for effective treatments and to deny all others. They're trying for over 5 years and can't because of various pharma lobbyies that try to decide what gets in there and what not, and the lobbies have conflicting wishes (not the official version, but many politicians admitted this).

- Expensive operations like hip surgery, for example, or innovative cancer treatments, are often not paid for over 70 year olds or people with a bad prognosis. They just aren't done, and doctors won't give an indication for them. Full stop. Those people will leave with increasing disability.

- Elderly and severely ill people can have care at home, but are usually pressured to move into hospital-like nursing homes. They're mixed with psychiatric patients there and usually put on calming psycho meds. Which makes them need more care, and a higher need for care gives the nursing home higher incomes and less trouble -> Profit!

So there you have some ideas of the future if you don't really try to change some things in the US now ;p

[nowayout]

For the record, I am in favor of universal health care, and I think the current U.S. system sucks. My personal experiences with access, quality, and speed of treatment were vastly better when living in Spain and Germany (and in South Africa, which does not have universal care) than they have been in the U.S. I am finding myself in the position of having to either make peace with a probable reduced life expectancy due to bad quality health care during the extended periods I spend in the U.S. or moving elsewhere and maybe living healthier and longer, but being separated from my friends and lover.

Your experience has been counter to everything I have read or heard. In Europe and Canada, healthcare costs as a percentage of GNP are much lower than in the US. This is party because the government limits the amount reimbursed to the provider, but it's also due to the fact that procedures and medications are limited. Their is *less* healthcare delivered, it is rationed. All other things being equal, I'd rather receive more healthcare than less. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting something for "free" (of course, these is no free lunch.) I pay over $7,000 a year in premiums, and it keeps going up.

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

It is admittedly my experience, but it is also the experience of others I know. I will just compare and contrast using a couple of examples.

In the U.S., I have on more than one occasion had to wait for up to two months to see a specialist for an acute problem. For example, a few years ago I had a very painful attack of what first my primary provider and a week later an emergency room doctor wrongly diagnosed as epidydimitis. They put me on Cipro and narcotics for the two months I had to wait to see the first available urologist. When I finally saw him, it took him about 10 seconds to diagnose the problem as a varicocele. It took me about three more months to recover from the side effects of the unnecessarily prescribed Cipro.

To contrast with this, as a 15-year old in South Africa, I had the same problem. It took our non-specialist family doctor there 10 seconds to diagnose a varicocele. I saw a urologist only two days later. He confirmed the diagnosis, and five days later I underwent surgery.

So the problem here was both an unreasonable waiting time in the U.S. compared to South Africa, and lack of quality of primary care and emergency care in the U.S. compared with South Africa.

I have a history of rheumatic fever, as a result of which I immediately have to take antibiotics whenever I have a sore throat. In South Africa, Germany, and Spain I have always been able to see a doctor and get the medicine on the same day with the greatest of ease, even in cases where I was a complete stranger to the system. In the U.S., on the other hand, on the many occasions that I have had a sore throat, it has taken me anything from two days to a week to be able to start treatment, due to lack of availability of appointments, phone tag with secretaries, etc. Again, a quality and access issue. These are simple, basic things that can in the end have significant effects on life expectacy. In the U.S., whenever I have a sore throat, I feel trapped and wish I were just about anywhere else.

I periodically get a bit of a yeast infection. A famous urologist in my state in the U.S. recommended (you are hearing me right) circumcision. In contrast, when I saw a simple family doctor for this problem in South Africa, he gave me a very simple cream that cleared it up, but also, and crucially, tested me there and then for diabetes, of which this can be a subtle but well-known sign. The U.S. urologist should have done this long ago, but didn't. Again, lack of quality.

Maybe the very rich in the U.S. are better off than people in these other countries. As for the rest of us, I think not...

Edited by andre, 11 February 2009 - 09:41 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

Probably because of the number of uninsured. They wait until they're really sick, go to emergency rooms where they cannot be turned away, by law.


Why do you think the rich come to the US from Canada for treatment?

You don't have to be really rich in the US to get good treatment, you have to have insurance. Those that are *really* poor qualify for Medicaid, and get the healthcare paid for them. Some say the care isn't as good because the government reimburses less than a private insurer would, but it's not too different from Europe or Canada. The government sets prices.

[FunkOdyssey]

I have decent insurance and my experiences with health care have been quite good with the exception of a couple incompetent doctors which I'm sure you could run into anywhere (there are always some bad eggs). I've used the heck out of my insurance and had tons of lab testing done, hospitalization for a kidney infection, a hernia repair surgery, MRI scans, various ultrasounds, seen a variety of specialists, and had $1000 per month of medication paid for all at very little cost to me and with great efficiency (short wait times).

I'm scared of upcoming modification to this system because it has served me very well as-is.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 11 February 2009 - 10:07 PM.

[Mind]

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

The vast majority of the problem boils down to lifestyle. Americans eat crap, stressed out, don't exercise, and are increasingly obese. It has little to do with the actual healthcare system.

Edited by Mind, 11 February 2009 - 10:39 PM.

[david ellis]

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

Probably because of the number of uninsured. They wait until they're really sick, go to emergency rooms where they cannot be turned away, by law.

Most of the poor people I know are terrified of the emergency room. Average minimum charge is $1500, last March for me, a kidney stone diagnosis, the bill was $10,000. It is a chance for the hospital to make big bucks. The biggest reason for bankruptcy is medical expenses. No surgery for me, but an expensive MRI machine tried and failed to find my stone for a long time. They spent a lot of money making sure that all I had was a kidney stone. Because if it is a kidney stone, the treatment will be wait and see if it passes by itself.

We both agree on this point that we have too many uninsured and as a result those sluggards get inadequate care and die early, screwing up our statistics. It is a big shame that this happens in the best country in the world.

It is funny for members of the party of Terri Schiavo's pain to give medical advice about covering people's needs. Poor woman was a vegetable and her husband wanted peace for her, relief from pain and discomfort. Senator Frist did an incorrect diagnosis from a TV. What a show for the party of freedom and keeping government out of our personal lives.

Daschle has a point, much of the cost of cancer treatments only extend life a to a few more months of misery. I am not talking about cures, cures are a good thing, but expensive therapies that have not proven beneficial, why should the country pay for them? It will still be a free country, if you want ineffective therapies, you can pay for them.

[nowayout]

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

Probably because of the number of uninsured. They wait until they're really sick, go to emergency rooms where they cannot be turned away, by law.

Are you proposing dismissing the contribution of the uninsured to life expectancy? Don't the ininsured matter?

Why do you think the rich come to the US from Canada for treatment?

Well, I actually don't think they do. Isn't this just a right-wing myth? I'm sure someone here and there will cross the border for health care, but don't a lot of U.S. Americans in fact go, or attempt to go, the opposite way for treatment, medication, etc.? I wouldn't be surprised if the net flow is the other way.

I actually have siblings who are Canadian. I have yet to hear them, or any other Canadian I know, complain about the Canadian health care system. Quite the opposite - I have heard them thank their lucky stars on more than one occasion for Canadian health care. They look upon the U.S. system with unmitigated horror.

[nowayout]

I'm scared of upcoming modification to this system because it has served me very well as-is.

I'm sure they will mess it up, since it will be based on the axiom, as much a given in this as in all previous administrations since Nixon, of keeping America safe for the big health care corporations.

However, as an example of how things could have been, let me tell you a story of Spain, which has single payer health care. A friend of mine's father, a laborer all his life and now a pensioner in semirural Spain, was diagnosed a couple of years ago with a tumor on his gallbladder and pancreas. He saw a specialist within days, a biopsy determined that it was cancer within a week, and he was scheduled for surgery the next week, despite a pessimistic prognosis. He was airlifted by helicopter to a world-class hospital for the surgery, and was housed there for a month after for intense observation before being sent home. Over the following months, the hospital would hire a taxi to take him, and just him, on the one-hour journey from his front door to the hospital, and then back again, for every single appointment to see doctors and/or have chemotherapy. He is doing very well now.

During all this, he did not have to pay a single cent, and he does not owe a single cent.

Try to get that out of private insurer in the U.S., never mind Medicare/aid. Apart from taxes, he has not paid any health insurer in his life. To add insult to injury to the U.S. health consumer, his taxes were not significantly higher, if at all, than what I pay in the U.S.

I am a citizen of the U.S. (among others) and have health insurance in the U.S. Despite this, I just have to hope that if and when something bad happens to my health, it will be when I am either in South Africa or Spain.

Edited by andre, 11 February 2009 - 11:28 PM.

[Anthony]

Well, on the plus side, the stimulus plan does allocate additional money to the NIH.

[niner]

The title of this thread is totally misleading, because the Obama Stimulus Plan has nothing to do with healthcare.

We have to reduce the cost of healthcare in America or it will destroy us. It is simply impossible to pay an unlimited amount of money for healthcare for everyone, so something has to get cut. I suggest that the first thing we cut is the health insurance industry. They should be replaced with a single payer plan. Don't worry though, it isn't going to happen.

[rwac]

The title of this thread is totally misleading, because the Obama Stimulus Plan has nothing to do with healthcare.

We have to reduce the cost of healthcare in America or it will destroy us. It is simply impossible to pay an unlimited amount of money for healthcare for everyone, so something has to get cut. I suggest that the first thing we cut is the health insurance industry. They should be replaced with a single payer plan. Don't worry though, it isn't going to happen.

Did you read the link ?
There's stuff in the stimulus that makes changes to the healthcare system.

[sUper GeNius]

The title of this thread is totally misleading, because the Obama Stimulus Plan has nothing to do with healthcare.

We have to reduce the cost of healthcare in America or it will destroy us. It is simply impossible to pay an unlimited amount of money for healthcare for everyone, so something has to get cut. I suggest that the first thing we cut is the health insurance industry. They should be replaced with a single payer plan. Don't worry though, it isn't going to happen.

I think it does have something to do with it, but the thread has taken a sharp turn. Congress managed to slip in the electronic health records thing into the bill. Can you imagine that? It's bad enough our social security numbers and credit card info gets hacked. Now our medical info gets hacked. Could be very embarrassing for some if that info ever got out. Hey, but the Demos know what's best for you...

The rest of the thread is interesting. A glimpse into Daschle's mind is a glimpse into Obama's mind and what he has in store for us.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 February 2009 - 01:57 AM.

[niner]

The title of this thread is totally misleading, because the Obama Stimulus Plan has nothing to do with healthcare.

We have to reduce the cost of healthcare in America or it will destroy us. It is simply impossible to pay an unlimited amount of money for healthcare for everyone, so something has to get cut. I suggest that the first thing we cut is the health insurance industry. They should be replaced with a single payer plan. Don't worry though, it isn't going to happen.

Did you read the link ?
There's stuff in the stimulus that makes changes to the healthcare system.

oops, my bad. I did not read the link, though I have now. One of the things it says is:

The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

This seems a little hard to believe... The article is an opinion piece, not usually the best place to get facts, but it bears some looking into. I was not aware of the healthcare stuff (other than the med IT part) in the bill. Thanks for the correction.

[eternaltraveler]

again. There is no need to rely on opinion peices.

http://thomas.loc.go.../z?c111:H.R. 1:

look on the printer friendly version of whatever bill version of the bill you want to look at and do a search..

I wonder what vanishingly small percentage of congressmen or senators that voted for or against this bill have actually read it.

[sUper GeNius]

Did you read this part? They're trying to ram this stuff down out throats before the baby boomers come of age. The baby boomers would basically tell the Daschelites to take their plan and shove it.


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt


We need a different way of controlling costs. This isn't Europe, we're a country of people who strongly value *individual* freedoms. We don't want to be told how much health care we can have.

It's like the lottery. Tax people outright, and they scream bloody murder. Let them go to the casinos where mathematically they cannot win, and they have no problem handing over money.

We need something clever, something that has as its result the control of healthcare costs, but at the same time allows choice. Do we really want one friggin bureaucrat letting out doctor know how's he performing? I guarantee Daschle and people like him will leave a backdoor, something that exempts them.

Welcome to France II.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 February 2009 - 01:54 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Well, why do you think life expectancy in the U.S. is so much lower than, say, Spain?

Probably because of the number of uninsured. They wait until they're really sick, go to emergency rooms where they cannot be turned away, by law.

Are you proposing dismissing the contribution of the uninsured to life expectancy? Don't the ininsured matter?

Why do you think the rich come to the US from Canada for treatment?

Well, I actually don't think they do. Isn't this just a right-wing myth? I'm sure someone here and there will cross the border for health care, but don't a lot of U.S. Americans in fact go, or attempt to go, the opposite way for treatment, medication, etc.? I wouldn't be surprised if the net flow is the other way.

I actually have siblings who are Canadian. I have yet to hear them, or any other Canadian I know, complain about the Canadian health care system. Quite the opposite - I have heard them thank their lucky stars on more than one occasion for Canadian health care. They look upon the U.S. system with unmitigated horror.

Are you proposing dismissing the contribution of the uninsured to life expectancy? Don't the ininsured matter?

Are you changing the topic as you go? The question was not the healthcare delivery system, it was the care itself. That's why you brought up your experiences. Please, if you're going to slip and slide on me, state that you are changing the topic at hand.

Now, about crossing the border. Americans go north to buy meds because they are less expensive in Canada, largely a result of government prices controls. Americans subsidize Canadian drug prices. Canadians come south to to get better care and more timely care. Just read the Daschle shit being presented here. He wants to control costs by using a much firmer grip on doctors, determining what care they can and cannot provide. That's what you have now in Canada. Why would Canadians come south? Because they have a different idea from the government as to what care they'd like to receive. Up until a recent court decision, Canadians couldn't even private pay for more care. It was illegal. There is no friggin way that'll fly here. Here we feel WE know what's best for us, not the gubberment. Well most of us. There are a few in Congress now who would LOVE to see us adopt a system like Germany of France. Of course, I'm sure for themselves they'd manage to retain the ability to get whatever care they wanted.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 February 2009 - 02:12 AM.

[niner]

Why would Canadians come south? Because they have a different idea from the government as to what care they'd like to receive. Up until a recent court decision, Canadians couldn't even private pay for more care. It was illegal. There is no friggin way that'll fly here. Here we feel WE know what's best for us, not the gubberment. Well most of us. There are a few in Congress now who would LOVE to see us adopt a system like Germany of France. Of course, I'm sure for themselves they'd manage to retain the ability to get whatever care they wanted.

I think FM is right; we are not going to get a system where you can't buy care if you want it. We have the best government money can buy, and the wealthy have paid for it, so you can be sure they will have options. I do not disagree with this; I don't want someone telling me what kind of healthcare I can and can't get if I pay for it. On the other hand, I don't want my tax dollars being spent on treatments that are both expensive and of little value. I don't have any problem with outcomes research; it's just stupid to throw money at treatments that don't work.

[niner]

The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

This seems a little hard to believe... The article is an opinion piece, not usually the best place to get facts, but it bears some looking into.

OK, now I understand what she's saying. Strictly from this bill, there is something like $4.5B going to the military. I haven't combed through the bill to determine exactly how much is going to "this bureaucracy", but a substantial amount of money is going toward outcomes research and related IT. I don't see what's significant about that being more than the stimulus bill gives to the military, which already gets everything it wants. That sounds like some kind of "Patriotism Purity Test". Well, it's an opinion piece, and misleading at that.

Don't forget, we already have rationing done by faceless bureaucrats. They're called insurance companies.

[jackinbox]

Could someone explain to me what value insurance companies add to the healthcare system?

[sUper GeNius]

Could someone explain to me what value insurance companies add to the healthcare system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

Just getting Niner's money's worth...

[sUper GeNius]

The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

This seems a little hard to believe... The article is an opinion piece, not usually the best place to get facts, but it bears some looking into.

OK, now I understand what she's saying. Strictly from this bill, there is something like $4.5B going to the military. I haven't combed through the bill to determine exactly how much is going to "this bureaucracy", but a substantial amount of money is going toward outcomes research and related IT. I don't see what's significant about that being more than the stimulus bill gives to the military, which already gets everything it wants. That sounds like some kind of "Patriotism Purity Test". Well, it's an opinion piece, and misleading at that.

Don't forget, we already have rationing done by faceless bureaucrats. They're called insurance companies.

I guess you could even say my supermarket rations. I'm limited to the three types of apples they have on the shelves.

If the Daschelites get their way, you'll have a hell of a lot more rationing. Do I need to post this again?

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

[niner]

Don't forget, we already have rationing done by faceless bureaucrats. They're called insurance companies.

I guess you could even say my supermarket rations. I'm limited to the three types of apples they have on the shelves.

If the Daschelites get their way, you'll have a hell of a lot more rationing. Do I need to post this again?

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

It sounds like you believe the opinion piece, which mixes passages from Daschle's book with items from the stimulus bill so as to maximize scariness. And wasn't Daschle ejected due to his tax problem? I don't know what his status is now, but it doesn't look like he's going to be in charge of healthcare reform.

Does your supermarket limit you to one apple per year? That's how often I can get a DEXA scan, if I want my insurance company to pay for it. Likewise with lots of other tests and procedures. Are you trying to claim that insurance companies don't ration?

Edited by niner, 12 February 2009 - 06:33 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

It used to be people would have health insurance for serious problems but pay for the minor things and routine checkups etc. out of pocket.

Once the HMOs and other similar organizations started to command a very large share of the population they started telling doctors and hospitals they were only going to start paying 80 cents on the dollar, and they better take it or leave it. Of course hospitals just raised their premiums by 25% to compensate, and thus the upward spiral in health costs began. All this works exactly like socialized medicine already, and it's entirely the fault of most people and employers for buying into this ponzi scheme to being with. It took the negotiation point away from the people actually involved. The doctor and the patient.

Now, I know Daschle's quote above was taken grossly out of context, but it does illustrate a point. That being that people think the solution is to limit health care for catastrophic illness because it's expensive and if we want our insurance to cover our routine stuff without costing our entire income that stuff should be limited... That's because people have completely forgotten what insurance is for. Insurance is for catastrophe; the unexpected. The idea that we should have insurance for things we expect and can plan for is entirely ludicrous.

I'm not telling people to go out and purchase some high deductible catastrophic medical insurance and drop the HMO either. Modern variants are completely broken. When you first sign up for major med insurance they assign you to a group of, say, 1000 people that sign up at about the same time as you. Initially your premiums are quite low, but then some small number of the thousand need to draw on their insurance. This raises the premium of everyone in the group. Everyone in the group who is healthy can then migrate to another new group and drop their premium by 10 bucks a month or something. The 10 people out of the 1000 that actually needed the major med insurance cannot leave because they are uninsurable anywhere else. So now the premiums aren't being paid by 990 well people and 10 sick people, they are being paid by sick people only, and they go up astronomically and quickly. Very quickly these sick people who bought major med insurance for a catastrophe who actually find themselves in a catastrophe cannot possibly afford the premiums as they amount to essentially their medical bills anyway, and they loose the insurance. Modern major medical insurance is a scam. This problem could easily be fixed if employers etc would just offer this kind of insurance instead of HMOs, and pay their workers the difference.

Top that off with wasting a large percentage of a Doctor's time with bureaucratic requirements of insurance companies, which if they don't have all their i's dotted and their t's crossed, they don't get paid.

Yes, this entire system is in the toilet, and though the solutions are fairly obvious, they also won't happen.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 12 February 2009 - 07:14 AM.