Does anyone on this board REALLY want the Government to run healthcare?

[kcjenkins]

My link

[Chowdahead]

My mother works at a local hospital and on her ward is a young woman in her mid-20s who has Stage 3 ovarian cancer and will probably be dead in few weeks.

If the cancer would have been detected sooner, she would probably still be treatable. However, she had no health insurance. She couldn't afford to go to the doctor. No annual physicals. Nothing. Until one day she ended up in the ER. A pap smear came back abnormal. She was told that she should follow up with her primary care doctor. She didn't have one, and she couldn't afford more tests at the time.

Now she's waiting to die in a hospital bed, barely able to move. The state and federal governments will probably have to spend hundreds of thousands, if not more, on her before her life ends.

If she had had affordable access to healthcare, she would probably have the chance to enjoy alot more of her life. Despite working 25 hours a week, her job didn't offer a healthplan. Sure, she could have called Blue Cross and purchased an individual plan, but the payments are at least $400.00 a month and the deductible is around $10,000. I didn't make this up. My mother just told me this story last weekend.

So yeah, I REALLY want the Government to run healthcare, despite the fact that a pretty sticker got placed on a bunch of appliances without proof.

[OldJack]

I hope Obamacare is repealed. Yes, we need a better health care for citizens of this country, but not the law that was just signed.

[kcjenkins]

I'm very sorry for that young woman, but be honest. The number of women in their mid-20s who have ovarian cancer [or any cancer] is extremely small, so even if she had had health insurance, it's very likely she would not have been detected soon enough, nor gotten treatment soon enough. And under the new rules, that will still be the case, in all likelihood. You know that as well as I do. The incidence of ovarian cancer rises with age. Half of all cases are detected in women older than 65, and most are diagnosed after age 60. The American Cancer Society recommends annual pelvic exams for all women over age 40 to increase the chances of early detection. Do you seriously expect us to believe that government run healthcare will spend money on testing women in their 20s for this?

[BulldogTom]

Chowderhead,

With all respect to you, your story (and I believe every word of it) illustrates that people will make poor choices in their life. When the pap came back abnormal, that woman should have gone to a doctor to get more tests. If she really was so poor that she could not afford the tests, I am sure she would have qualified for government assistance. Her death will not be the result of not having a national health insurance mandate in place, but a result of her poor choices regarding her personal healthcare.

I am not defending the current system. There are some good things in the bill that was just passed. I love that there will be no lifetime caps, no pre existing condition clauses, and some portability to the insurance system.

But when you pass a bill that exempts political allies (the unions) from the same rules as everyone else, when some states get different rules than others, and when Big Pharma can pay 8 billion to get guarantees of multiple billions in profits in the future, this new law reeks.

There is no way that the government can fix poverty. It is an individual effort that gets you out of that condition. Government can lend a hand, but it cannot take you out of poverty. Government's entrance into healthcare is part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place. Medicare is now the primary insurance for 25% of the population. The rules are so complex and the payments system so broken that my doctor limits the amount of medicare patients he will see. Why, because it is charity work in his eyes. If he gets paid, it is less than what he gets from any other insurance company. And those costs get passed on to the rest of us.

This new law is going to break an already bad payer system. But maybe that is the goal after all. When it gets so bad that no one can stand it, Obama will get his single payer government run system.

OK - off my soapbox now.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[BulldogTom]

KC - you know better. Equating energy star with healthcare is a big stretch. We know the govt screws everything up, but even I can't make that leap, as much as I dispise govt beaurocracy.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[ILLMAS]

Ah @#@#$!! clicking on your link downloaded a security tool on my pc, those annoying antivirus program that pop out, your computer might be infected buy this program ...... So be careful

[kcjenkins]

Strange, I've had no problem with it at all. Perhaps you need a better popup blocker?

[Catherine]

And the other side of it is this: we have a very good family friend who was diagnosed with Stage 4 kidney cancer. This is, like ovarian cancer, one with almost no distinct symptoms until very late. They found it when he went in for a shoulder injury -- there was a weird spot on his shoulder X-ray.

In Britain, Stage 4 kidney cancer patients are told to put their papers in order and say goodbye to their families.

In this country, he underwent a very difficult experimental treatment course, mostly NOT covered by insurance. Today, four years later, he is status "NED" -- No Evidence of Disease. And has become a world expert on electronic patient records, to boot.

How did they pay? They held fundraisers. Their church held fundraisers. And even filing bankruptcy (had they been pushed that far) would have been FINE with them considering their alternatives at the time.

So NO, I do NOT want the government involved in ANY way with health care.

[Gail in Virginia]

Yes, I am one of the silent minority that supports something being done about health care in this country. Do I think that the bill that just passed is THE answer? No, but at least now the question is being asked. I hope that passing this legislation will result in a better discussion of the issues, but so far everything that I have seen is just passionate statements of partisan politics. The poorest people in this country, who don't (or won't) work at all are covered by Medicaid. But the people who are struggling just above poverty in jobs where insurance is not a benefit are the ones who will benefit from the subsidies in this bill. I would much rather help those who are at least trying to support themselves to be able to make it on what they earn than continue to bypass them when it comes to assistance for their health care. I just wish that facts could be reported without using loaded terms like "death panel" for a system to provide end of life counseling, and telling all my small employers that they will be forced to pay for health insurance for all of their employees (all 3 of them) when this bill only applies to employers who have 50 or more employees. This doesn't have to be the first step to socialized medicine, but if people in both parties aren't willing to work together, it might wind up being that.

[BulldogTom]

Why don't you run for congress so we can have reasoned debates like this? And with your tax experience, perhaps you can work on a tax re-write at the same time.

I can accept what you just said. I don't think most americans would disagree with helping out the working poor with subsidies for their insurance. How about a tax credit for providing your own health Insurance. Sliding scale like EIC? Or how about allowing a larger deduction for out of pocket health care rather than the 7.5% haircut. These two items would probably bring as many people into the system as what they are doing now.

BTW, I omitted my favorite piece of the new law, a dispute resolution proceedure for fighting with your health insurer. That is way overdue. Right now, your only choice is to sue and then go to arbitration. It will be nice to have a single place to go to get some intervention (yes, I am saying I will appreciate this government board).

Tom

Lodi, CA

[kcjenkins]

Tom and Gail, I don't totally disagree with you on this. I think there are a number of things that could and should be done to improve our system. BUT THIS BILL IS NOT IT. And Gail, just remember, COBRA started out only covering employers with 50 or more employees, it's already down to 20. And it covered 6 months, now that is up to 18. It's a big extra cost on business, and getting bigger by leaps and bounds. Maybe this bill will change that, but somehow I doubt it. More likely it will just be added to it.

[Catherine]

<snip>

BTW, I omitted my favorite piece of the new law, a dispute resolution proceedure for fighting with your health insurer. That is way overdue. Right now, your only choice is to sue and then go to arbitration. It will be nice to have a single place to go to get some intervention (yes, I am saying I will appreciate this government board).

Tom

Lodi, CA

Yes, way overdue. But once the government is the ONLY health insurer, good luck getting ANY dispute resolved in your favor. It'll be like getting an OIC approved -- at BEST.

[taxxcpa]

Free health care and every other cradle-to-the-grave program would be fine if we didn't have to pay for it. If you stop and think about it, the average Joe SixPack lives a more luxurious life than the Royal families did a few hundred years ago. If society were so productive that no one had to work unless they chose to, then anyone who felt like it could live high on the hog on welfare with a new car, large home, smaller second home, frequent vacations and FREE HEALTH CARE.

Unfortunately, we are jumping the gun if we try to have all that now and spend trillions on useless wars at the same time.

[Catherine]

Not to mention 139 Trillion in unfunded social security and medicare obligations AS OF TODAY. And those numbers are just going up.

We won't be able to afford anything if we destroy the economy and financial system. Greece is near collapse from years of deficit spending and unfunded obligations, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland are close behind. England is shaky. France and Germany will be severely affected by a Greek collapse -- and we're heading full tilt down that SAME unsustainable path.

We have to give up the notion of free anything -- or start planting medicinal herbs in our gardens. Willow bark tea for the end-of-tax-season headache, anyone? Foxglove for the palpitations? ;)

[kcjenkins]

You said it very well, Cat. The truth is that we've already promised so much we are in trouble, without adding a single new program. And when an attempt was made to at least debate fixing SS and Medicare, those in control in the House, where such bills must start, would not even allow it to be debated three years ago. Now, this latest bill takes half a TRILLION dollars out of SS? Do you think the average voter has any idea how much money that is?

Some people, [most people?] think that a Trillion is just a bit bigger than a Billion, which is a bit bigger than a Million.

A million seconds is 13 days.

A billion seconds is 31 YEARS.

A trillion seconds is 31,688 Years !!!!!

And we have 139 Trillion in Unfunded obligations to SS NOW, so we're going to spend more on expanding government handouts?

[Mike D]

It appears to me that you enjoy raising these controversial issues in order to keep yourself amused?

By the way for your information I am a proponent of universal healthcare in the USA. For the record, I presently enjoy excellent health coverage as a condition of my employment throughout my lifetime, so I am not just another hypocrite.

A few statistics I have read may enlighten you.

Health care costs in the US have increased by 650% since 1974 when Nixon signed the previous bill into law. That’s approximately 18% per year. Where do you anticipate they will be in the next 20 or so years if nothing is undertaken?

I personally would rather have the government run our health care system than the present insurance, drug manufacturers and other for profit entities that earn in excess of 20% profits each year and spend the equivalent of $1 million for each and every member in congress to lobby their support to keep themselves ensconced.

Not to mention the fact of people like ourselves with excellent insurance being denied care and losing their lives due to the hyperbole that these wonderful entities espouse.

Finally, if you think that the national health insurance programs that presently exist in other free countries such as the UK, France and Canada are not working I would suggest you see what will occur should you eliminate their benefits. I predict nothing short of a revolution.

I could go on like you forever!

You need to get a life.

Mike Dubin CPA

[Jack from Ohio]

I have two different clients with two different family doctors that are taking steps to get out of medicine now that the bill has passed.

When there are not enough providers of a service, and the demand continues to increase, then someone decides who gets the treatment and who does not.

Find and talk to anyone that lives in Canada. Ask them about their personal experiences with health care.

From a personal friend in Montreal....

6 week wait for a regular female exam and pap smear.

Found an irregularity....

6 more weeks wait for an appointment with the specialist.

2 weeks to get the necessary CAT scan to locate the problem

2 more weeks to get a follow up visit with specialist.

Fortunately, the medications she finally received took care of the problem.

EVERYONE in the US has access to necessary health care.

I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN MY HEALTHCARE. IT WILL BE RUN IN THE SAME MANNER IT RUNS ALL OTHER FISCAL PROGRAMS.

Please give me one single solitary piece of evidence that this program will be run properly and correctly??

Please give me one single solitary example of any fiscal program run by the government that is run properly, correctly and has not had cost overruns in the multiples.

Just my rant!

One FRUSTRATED angry AMERICAN with a large carbon footprint that is campaigning hard to get everyone to the polls this year!!

[kcjenkins]

Well, yes, Mike, up to a point, I do post this sort of thing to get a debate started. I think that discussing the pros and cons is a way of learning, clarifying ideas, and inspiring us to be more informed. And because a lot of this stuff they are doing in DC makes me mad. But no one has to read it, or take part, unless they want to. And it gives you a chance to convince me to see your side of it, after all.

I have to say, tho, that I;ve discussed this with friends from England, and from Canada, and their input helped make me not want it. Yes, it's free, but it's a lot less quality. They do have some fine doctors, and hospitals, but a lot less of them than we do, per capita. And less prevention because of the long waits for specialized treatment.

I'm not against fixing problems, although I disagree with you about the profit level of the insurance companies. Drug company profits go largely into developing new drugs, and the US is the single largest source of new drugs for the entire world, thanks to that. One reason for the large increase in health care costs is simply that we have developed so many new drugs and therapies, that enable us to live not only longer, but better during that extra time. I think that is a good trade off, myself.

What bothers me about this bill is that it does not fix much, it just taxes more so that more people can get subsidized and it sets up another huge bureaucracy as well. Are you aware that the British healthcare system is one of the largest employers in the world?

ENGLAND may once have been a nation of shopkeepers, but it is becoming a country of healthcare workers, with one in every twenty-three of the working population being employed by the NHS. A total of 1,282,900 people in England have jobs with the NHS: 2 per cent of the 30 million people of working age.

Only the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways are believed to employ more people — with 2.3 million and 1.5 million staff respectively — but both workforces represent a far smaller proportion of those national populations. The figures come a day after a report into cancer services by the National Audit Office, the parliamentary watchdog, revealed that a shortage of diagnostic specialists was partly to blame for England’s poor cancer survival rates.

[Lion EA]

My internist group is going to concierge medicine with a monthly retainer from all clients they accept and will no longer accept any insurance reimbursements or government monies. Their monthly fee is way over my head. They are following the lead of several other medical groups in this county. I have started calling around, but so far haven't found an internist who will accept new patients. Fewer doctors and longer waits or higher fees. So it begins!

[Chowdahead]

I have two different clients with two different family doctors that are taking steps to get out of medicine now that the bill has passed.

When there are not enough providers of a service, and the demand continues to increase, then someone decides who gets the treatment and who does not.

Your logic confuses me. So your saying that since more people will actually see doctors, and there are too few doctors, then current doctors you know are bailing out. So they would prefer that a significant percentage of the population not see doctors so the status quo can continue?

How about the U.S. actually start investing more in making doctors out of more of its citizens?

[Catherine]

Your logic confuses me. So your saying that since more people will actually see doctors, and there are too few doctors, then current doctors you know are bailing out. So they would prefer that a significant percentage of the population not see doctors so the status quo can continue?

How about the U.S. actually start investing more in making doctors out of more of its citizens?

And why on earth would -anyone- volunteer for four years of college, four years of medical school, a year of internship, three years or residency, plus the additional 3 - 7 years to specialize -- even without the hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans -- in order to work in a field where the government tells you who you will see, how you will treat them, how much you can charge, where you will work, and how much of that charge you can keep for yourself?

If you're crazy enough to think -that- is a good deal, I'm not sure I would want you treating me!

Are there reforms needed? There sure are!!! But applying the same "fixes" that have lessened health care outcomes in most of the rest of the world is not the way to go.

Our couple-years-old health care law in Massachusetts (that the national law was largely based upon) is bankrupting us. You don't see it because the Federal government has been heavily subsidizing the way-more-than-expected costs. Those subsidies will end, and we'll be on the edge of collapse just like California. And the entire country will follow if this monstrosity is enacted rather than repealed.

We've been living the future -- specialists are closing up shop and leaving the state (or medicine, entirely). Doctors aren't taking new patients because they're up to the limits of how many they can cover, and wait times for appointments are longer (so ER's are still over-used since you can't GET a doctor's appointment; they're booked with people who were sick two weeks ago). Health insurance costs are skyrocketing WAY above national averages (and the whole idea was to spread coverage through a bigger risk pool and lower costs). More and more people are requiring the state-subsidized insurance and the costs are crippling the state, taking revenue from other areas (like road, bridge and dam repairs). And the state's biggest insurer just posted its' biggest state LOSS ever -- so much for funding out of "high profit margins".

[Gail in Virginia]

And why on earth would -anyone- volunteer for four years of college, four years of medical school, a year of internship, three years or residency, plus the additional 3 - 7 years to specialize -- even without the hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans -- in order to work in a field where the government tells you who you will see, how you will treat them, how much you can charge, where you will work, and how much of that charge you can keep for yourself?

My problem with this argument is that I really don't see much difference between the "government" telling you what doctor you can see, what procedures the doctor can perform for you, and how much the doctor will have to accept in payment and my insurance company telling them the same things. And if the insurance is employer-provided, then under ERISA I have almost no recourse if they choose to delay or deny treatment. Even if not employer provided it can be difficult to change an insurance company's decision. At least with this new law there are procedures for arbitration.

Massachusetts is not the only state losing specialists and doctors. I believe West Virginia is having the same problem because their malpractice premiums have become so high. I am not familiar enough with Massachusetts' plan to know if there are any significant differences, nor do I know how the GAO arrived at its figures for the cost and revenue impacts of this bill. Many of the provisions do not take place until 2014, so I am sure that there will be changes made before that date. But instead of taking sides and calling names, can't our elected "leaders" work together to make this better instead of the current attitude that Obama=bad, no matter what the proposal? I would love to see an election where ideas are criticized based on their merits rather than using loaded terms to try to make everything the opposition, whoever they may be, sound like it came from the devil himself.

We currently have the situation where Republicans are calling the mandating of insurance for everyone an unconstitutional invasion of the individual's or the state's rights. And yet prior proposals from Republicans contained the same requirement. The whole manner of discourse is enough to make you want to move to a deserted island with no government at all.

[Booger]

Costa Rica, anyone?

Senor Booger

[kcjenkins]

From James Taranto's column:

The Montreal Gazette reports from a "thinkers' conference" held by Canada's opposition Liberal Party:

In a morning session on health care the conference was told that Canadians and their governments must face up to some hard facts and have "an adult conversation" about the future of the country's health care system.

The advice came from David Dodge, the past governor of the Bank of Canada and former deputy finance minister who said medicare costs will inevitably rise in coming years at a greater rate than government revenues and the country's gross domestic product, and require some unpalatable choices to be made.

Choices he suggested include new taxes specifically dedicated for health care or a steady reduction in the scope and quality of services provided by the public health system that would require people to either pay for private care themselves or suffer ever greater wait times for service in the public system.

"These are stark and unpalatable choices that we face with respect to health care, but there is no magic solution," he said. "We absolutely must have an adult debate about how we deal with this. Finding solutions in this area is extraordinarily difficult, but it is imperative."

No magic solution? Dude, haven't you heard of Barack Obama? He just signed a law that will reduce the deficit by giving totally awesome health care to all Americans! Why don't they just pass a similar law up north? What's the matter with Canada?