Health care the way it should be

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Post Reply
goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Fri 07, 2009 1:31 pm

No government involvement!!!!

No telling you what you can and can't have.

Doctors and you decide your treatment. Go where you want, when you want. That keeps free market and competition alive.

Rates set by local rate setting commissions in negotiations with local providers.

The doctor gets paid just like the grocery store, a card is swiped.

We pay for it by "donating" a set and small percentage of our incomes, no exceptions, the health care system gets it off the top, no matter who you are. So Bill gates pays more, but still at the same rate. OK, its a tax, but it only goes to the health care payer. If they want to raise the rate, we better know the reason why, because they will not be able to unless we agree. For, of and by the people at its best.

Flame away.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Fri 07, 2009 1:35 pm

Sounds perfect, if you can get past the agents of darkness and greed...

My best bet is to live right, almost eat right, move around some, do preventative maintenance, and pray a lot... So far so good...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Fri 07, 2009 2:53 pm

Tell that to cancer

Noname
Transient
Transient
Posts: 530
Joined: Nov Sat 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Noname » Aug Fri 07, 2009 5:01 pm

GG:

Interesting idea. Kudos to you for formulating it. One question that, depending on how you answer it might suggest a problem, though.

goodguy wrote:No government involvement!!!! (So, who would run and regulate the "Local Rate Commision? Would it be a commission like the Turnpike Authority? I hope not. What power could their decisions wield? If they set new higher rates, would the citizens be able to negate the decision? If so, how?")

No telling you what you can and can't have. (Sounds Good to me.)

Doctors and you decide your treatment. (Sounds Good to me.)

Go where you want, when you want. (Sounds Good to me.)

That keeps free market and competition alive. (Sounds Good to me.)

Rates set by local rate setting commissions in negotiations with local providers. (I might be able to live with that. Could be good of not so good, depending on how "transparent, accountable, and replacable the members of that local commission are. And, depending on how those commission members are appointed/elected. )

The doctor gets paid just like the grocery store, a card is swiped. (Ok. Sounds like how co-payments are made, now...for regular doctor visits. Not for the ER or for major operations, though. What is your reason for the card swipe method? Is it just that it is simple and easy to payment, only? Or is there another reason you have in mind?)

We pay for it by "donating" a set and small percentage of our incomes, no exceptions, the health care system gets it off the top, no matter who you are. (This is where I have a big question. If, as you indicated, we can choose our doctor and what treatment/care we get and how much care we want to get...BUT, if we are paying a (pre)set % of our income toward healthcare, what is the incentive to NOT demand as much healthcare as we can fit into a 7 day week?

If, for example, the % were say 10% of our income that went to healthcare and I earn $20,000 per year, then I would pay $2000 for the program. I might, however, be a hypocondriac and insist on spending 7 days a week with the doctors of my choice and rack up costs against the program that far exceed the $2,000 I contributed.

If so, the program would be expected to pay the excess and possibly raise it's rates for the next term...like Medicare does now. Problem with this is that is has an illusion of private healthcare and patient control...when in reality, it is more like a medical buffet table where those who want to get the most they can, use as much medical services as they can get...knowing that the commission will simply keep re-stocking the medical buffet table's and pass the bill on to the group. If so, then it is not a means to control healthcare costs, but to encourage non-accountability for how much it costs.

Noname





So Bill gates pays more, but still at the same rate. OK, its a tax, but it only goes to the health care payer. If they want to raise the rate, we better know the reason why, because they will not be able to unless we agree. For, of and by the people at its best.

Flame away.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Fri 07, 2009 8:16 pm

gg,

Mr. Smithers of the CPA-USA tells us that we should take pain killers and call him when we are @ stage 4 cancer...

My only question is, can we score an autographed pix of Edward G. Robinson at the Soilent Green temporary homested.??.

Take the rest of my life savings, please!!


Squaw and Mugs wish you the best...

Image
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Fri 07, 2009 8:51 pm

Noname, I will respond later, probably tomorrow.

I have posted this in great detail many times before, but was always roundly criticized by closed minded(mugs) individuals who could not get past their own pre conceptions.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Fri 07, 2009 9:36 pm

individuals who could not get past their own pre conceptions
Or the boy scouts who empty the trash... How U gonna get around that one, Uberman??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Sat 08, 2009 10:18 am

So Mugs, you tryin to be helpful?

Noname:
So, who would run and regulate the "Local Rate Commission? Would it be a commission like the Turnpike Authority? I hope not. What power could their decisions wield? If they set new higher rates, would the citizens be able to negate the decision? If so, how?
My idea of rate setting and regulatory commissions is three tier:

One at the national level, not located in D.C.

One at each regional level, most likely, one per state.

One at each local level. Small population states might not have any. Large population cities might have dozens, who knows.

Each decision of the lower levels would need to be ratified at the higher levels. This is to be sure there is consistency across the country.

Each commission would consist of seven people each serving a staggered single term of seven years. The outgoing member is chairman. There would be three "professionals", a doctor, a lawyer, and a business man. The other four would be common citizens. To serve, one would apply by filling out a simple questionnaire which would be designed to set minimum standards of competency. Selection would be by drawing. The commission could vote to remove any given member for cause. A replacement would be named to fill out the remaining term. An individual could only serve a maximum of seven years.

This represents a change from my earlier proposal. Before, I had one of the members being a representative of government. But, the government would never cooperate in appointing a member, and we don't need them anyway.

The commissions would have a professional staff to process paperwork. The commission would meet once a month for the purpose of voting. The commission would be well paid, but their duties would not interfere with their day jobs. National commission members could live anywhere, and would be reimbursed for their travel expenses. Regional members would live within the region, and local members would live within the area they served.

Rates would be negotiated with health care providers. The goal would be to reach a fair and reasonable rate for a given service. If a health care provider wants more, it is up to him to collect it. Nominal copays would be expected. Backbilling would be allowed so long as it was disclosed up front so the patient would have the choice to go elsewhere.

All business of the health care program would be public and public record. The only thing that would be redacted is the patient's names. So, anyone could look up how much any given health care provider was paid. No payment would be made to any company. An individual must certify to the commission that the amount billed is true, correct, and otherwise legitimate. Defraud the system and you are out forever, liable for triple damages, and jail.

I believe this also addresses your comment: I might be able to live with that. Could be good of not so good, depending on how "transparent, accountable, and replacable the members of that local commission are. And, depending on how those commission members are appointed/elected.
Note, that the commissions do not decide what services are covered. That is covered in the initial standard that we are accustomed to today. Additions would be made based on public approval, or medical evidence that the new procedure is beneficial. An allowance would be made for experimental treatment as this is the only way the art of medicine advances. There are many elective procedures, like plastic surgery. An argument can be made both for and against. If by referendum, the public approves, it's in, if not, it's out.

Ok. Sounds like how co-payments are made, now...for regular doctor visits. Not for the ER or for major operations, though. What is your reason for the card swipe method? Is it just that it is simple and easy to payment, only? Or is there another reason you have in mind?

A co payment is decided by the health care provider. By today's standard, it is $20. Also by today's standard, there is no co pay for a visit to the ER if it results in admission or significant treatment, like a broken arm.

The card swipe is descriptive of the mechanism that is used to pay the health care providers. No paper forms, too expensive to process, and you have to pay someone to read them, and enter them into the computer. I actually do not want to issue cards, too expensive. Just let the doctor enter your social security number, his number, the treatment code, the date, and electronic signature of the patient, and press send. The funds are then automatically credited to his bank account within a business day. Simple as buying bread with a master card. No other reason.

This is where I have a big question. If, as you indicated, we can choose our doctor and what treatment/care we get and how much care we want to get...BUT, if we are paying a (pre)set % of our income toward healthcare, what is the incentive to NOT demand as much healthcare as we can fit into a 7 day week?

If, for example, the % were say 10% of our income that went to healthcare and I earn $20,000 per year, then I would pay $2000 for the program. I might, however, be a hypocondriac and insist on spending 7 days a week with the doctors of my choice and rack up costs against the program that far exceed the $2,000 I contributed.


If so, the program would be expected to pay the excess and possibly raise it's rates for the next term...like Medicare does now. Problem with this is that is has an illusion of private healthcare and patient control...when in reality, it is more like a medical buffet table where those who want to get the most they can, use as much medical services as they can get...knowing that the commission will simply keep re-stocking the medical buffet table's and pass the bill on to the group. If so, then it is not a means to control healthcare costs, but to encourage non-accountability for how much it costs.

Good point.

There are hypochondriacs in the world, that's the way it is. You cannot design a system to benefit all by designing it around someone who would take advantage. The key is that if a doctor decides you need it, then you get it. In addition, the patient still has individual expenses of copay's.


Let me point out something that you did not mention. EVERYBODY pays. Usually the subject that crops up is that everybody is covered, so illegal aliens are covered and that sticks in many craws. So how do we collect from them and from the poorer element of society, and particularly from those in the cash economy? Simple. Those of government payments like social security get a one time adjustment, then the percentage is deducted forever after, so they see no net loss. Members of the military, active and retired are also covered. No need to be restricted to VA facilities, they can go anywhere, just like the rest of us. The government contributes for them. The national commission will wring this out. There are other issues to be folded in like workers comp, and existing retirement benefits. In essence, the commission will get the money set aside for the, and will pay the bill. Huge burden of industries back. I digress.

Here is how we collect the money. Tax man, are you paying attention? We collect it at the bank! When a deposit is made, some is siphoned off into the commission account. The rest is yours. Remember, everyone pays, including the grocery store. So you want to pay cash do you? Well, the store is going to have to pay the rate on its sales, and if you pay cash, they will up charge you because they assume that you are part of the underground economy. Pay by credit card or check, and all is ok. I have just taxed the internet, and the underground economy. Hold your applause. Mugs will attack soon.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Sat 08, 2009 11:11 am

So Mugs, you tryin to be helpful?
Yes, as always... Are you gonna get around the matrix or just beef until you are ultimately consumed??

Image

"The legacy of the free who work outside of the box is empathy for those who are stuck within that box"
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Sat 08, 2009 12:19 pm

Mugs, you are the matrix. If you would stop belly acheing about how bad the establishment is and start doing something about it, we all would be better off.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Sat 08, 2009 2:02 pm

I'm all set, thanks...

Just sounding the alarm now and again on things that are not good or toxic for Americans...

Life is good, so qwitcha bellyaching and do something besides beefing... Let us know what...

Life after matrix is A-OK...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

bobkat
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6902
Joined: May Mon 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: just above Vinebrook

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by bobkat » Aug Sat 08, 2009 10:13 pm

What I can't believe that so many people who are against health reform. They don't know that medicare is a government program (social program). If it wasn't for LBJ most older people wouldn't have any health coverage. Another thing that shows most people don't understand. They say they like what they have and they don't want any change. Well if these people would understand that if we don't have reform. Their employer might have to change their coverage as cost keep going up.
We are lucky that we live in Massachusetts when it comes to health care. Also please would most people stop interchanging health care and health insurance. They are two complete different things.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Sun 09, 2009 7:37 am

What I can't believe that so many people who are against health reform.
There is plenty to 'reform', not dump for yet another failed government program...
They don't know that medicare is a government program (social program).
Almost broke like many government programs... We need another??
If it wasn't for LBJ most older people wouldn't have any health coverage
Or 62,000 Patriots in their premature graves... No thanks, my commercial health care beats your 'program'...
. Another thing that shows most people don't understand. They say they like what they have and they don't want any change. Well if these people would understand that if we don't have reform.
Their employer might have to change their coverage as cost keep going up.
We are lucky that we live in Massachusetts when it comes to health care.
Balderdash, Your state religion will eradicate private health care insurance, then what??
Oh sure, lucky to live in massachusetts, or pay a fine if you don't carry insurance, but the illegals are free to go to the E/R and drive without licenses.
Also please would most people stop interchanging health care and health insurance. They are two complete different things.
Your state controlled pogrom will kill both...
You would be hailed as a patriot in france, but you are free to leave US alone...
Take your stinking government religion outside, please...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Noname
Transient
Transient
Posts: 530
Joined: Nov Sat 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Noname » Aug Sun 09, 2009 9:31 am

GG,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with the part of your comment where you wrote:

“You cannot design a system to benefit all by designing it around someone who would take advantage. The key is that if a doctor decides you need it, then you get it. In addition, the patient still has individual expenses of copay's.'

Still, I am reminded that, even with the approach you laid out, there is a financial incentive for the doctor to say you need each treatment. (they get paid for each treatment they provide.) So they are not likely to discourage treatments that also put more money in their wallets....and therefore they being the co-decisionmaker with the patient as to what treatments are provided would do little to reduce unnecessary medical care costs.

And, as for the Co-pay, I still have to believe, even with a single-payer system, there will be a % of the population who claim they cannot afford even the co-payment. And I am not even talking about the Illegal aliens. I hadn't thought about them being included, too.

One of the main problems I have with the single payer approach, aside from the added bureaucracy and potential Big-Brother rate-setting control you are advocating, is that the cost aggregation of everyone's medical care expenses into one “expense pot' and then negotiating and setting a rates for treatments accordingly offers virtually zero personal accountability for ensuring whatever current and future treatments received are adequate, satisfactory, and reasonably affordable for the patient.

Another risk is that, by having a commission that effectively would replace private insurance companies and market-based competition with geographically dispersed "Central (aka: rate) Planning commissions"- and whose committee members and motives are not yet known would set the rates for each type of treatment, it is conceivable they might target those treatments that routinely are needed more by a particular group of people'¦say gays, the elderly, homeless, illegal's, drug addicts, cancer patients, pregnant non-married woman, etc'¦ and peg very low fees for those classes of service'¦.

The result would be to further dis-incentivizing those treatments for the doctors and care givers in order to covertly under-serve the medical needs of any of those or other patient groups, for political, or other reasons. I am thinking such actions would feed nicely into the interests of the SSI Trust Funds desire to reduce it's payments ...possibly by speeding up the demize of those elligible to collect.

Alternatively, they might find it to be quite lucrative to make various Chicago-style backroom deals with lobbiests, doctors, hospitals, pharma, etc...to jack up the rlegal rates for various treatments, (Medicine's version of the $500 hammer) knowing full well that ll costs for the treatments will ultimately be paid for by the patient, via copayment and mandated tax for the single-payer healthcare. I know. Graft in a single payer system would be inconcievable. :wink:

Here's a simple alternative I prefer:

No government involvement!!!!

No telling you what you can and can't have.

Doctors and you decide your treatment. Go where you want, when you want. That keeps free market and competition alive.

Rates NOT set by local rate setting commissions in negotiations with local providers. I'd be content with some independant group publishing regular reports that track the average rates/prices charged both regionally and nation-wide...to be used only as a benchmark when comparing what rates your service provider is quoting or charging you. After all, that info is already available. insurance companies collect it, now. But providing that info in a easy-to-read format for consumers it could be used by them when comparing the cost of various plans, doctors, and treatments in order for them to choose which one best fits their needs and budget.

Patient shops around for private health insurance and buys the policy they believe is best for them. If a patient chooses to self-pay, then their care should be appropriate to their financial abilities. Doctors providing them treatments that exceed their financial abilities will be wise use an internally-generated sliding fee scale (based on their typical patient financial demographics) that enables them to partially absorb the cost of necessary treatments for those patients of theirs who realistically cannot pay the entire amount'¦even with a payment plan. And the amount of treatment offered to those would be determined by the doctor and patient.

Copayments and competition-based industry-calculated insurance reimbursements would determine what the doctors get paid for each treatment they provide. Patient can opt to cover any remaining balance the doctor convinces them is needed'¦.or the patient can hire another doctor or healthcare plan that covers more or all of those overages.

Non-Governmental groups & charities would hopefully see this as an renewed calling to offer both direct and indirect assistance toward covering as many of those treatments that are not affordable for the patient and their family.

The doctor gets paid just like the grocery store, a card is swiped.


Noname

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Mon 10, 2009 11:45 pm

I will respond soon

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9718
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by JIMD » Aug Tue 11, 2009 2:46 pm

I don't want the gov'ment up my ass, looking at my eyes, taking my blood or palpating anything. I have always had very good heath care/insurance but I've also worked my ass off for it and I'm fortunate the company I'm employed with strives to provide the best plan for ressonable cost. Well worth the scratch-ola when needed.


I already had Gov'ment run heath care and it sucked. (US Navy) if your newly enlisted your're [expletive] on their shoes. Same thing will happen when gov'ment gets the whole anchalata, if your connected you go to the front of the line, for anything. If your not then it sucks to be you.

I like my BC/BS plan, I have the card and it works fine for my wife and I all the time, no problems ever. In fact any problems my HR VP goes to bat for you and will tear'm a new one when warrented. Good results always

Big mistake going with a gov'ment plan, you will be sorry if it happens

Obama Lied..... People will Die
Good Dog

pat
Founder
Founder
Posts: 6016
Joined: Apr Thu 06, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by pat » Aug Tue 11, 2009 4:59 pm

I've been avoiding these discussions for some time, and I should have my head examined for getting involved now (but my insurance doesn't cover that).

I don't understand this general hatred of "the government". There are specific members of the government that have done some bad things, and the higher you go, the better chance for discovering bad things.

But "the government" is made up of people like you and me. Is there some school that government employees all go to to become inept? Saying that a government employee will do an inferior job to an employee in the private sector seems awfully prejudicial to me.

The biggest difference between a government employee and a corporate employee is that the corporate employee's primary loyalty is to the corporation and the profits of the corporation and its investors.

Can someone tell me why government employees are automatically bad at their jobs?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Tue 11, 2009 6:20 pm

Can someone tell me why government employees are automatically bad at their jobs?
Try to fire a tenured teacher, government union hack, or wait until the next election to replace an elected dud...

The commercial model rewards OUTPUT, CARE, BOTTOM LINE, GOOD OF THE TEAM...

I don't think that the government types are 'automatically' bad, but they are just not encouraged to do a good job...

CARE is lost in the impersonal 'machine' such as the post office, medicare, fannie may, senate, house, public schools, DMV, etc...

Commercial companies produce something, employ the best people that they can find, and fires them if enept...

Too much 'NO HEAVY LIFTING' @ hackorama... The BEST benefits though, and early retirement, if one can stand it for eternity...

I like the challenge and the self sharpening effect of the private sector...
No output, no pay...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
Phil
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9943
Joined: Jun Sun 11, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: phil.shannon
Location: Earth

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Phil » Aug Tue 11, 2009 10:43 pm

pat wrote: Can someone tell me why government employees are automatically bad at their jobs?
A better question is: Why do you trust politicians and thier investors/friends more than you trust the health care industry? Why would anyone trust politicians and hacks to "fix" a health care system?

Image

President Obama said it perfectly today when he said this:
"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

That comment provoked laughter from the audience.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Image

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Tue 11, 2009 11:58 pm

jimd, pat, spec, phil, get thehell out of my thread. Take your government health care bashing to another thread and I will be happy to join you on that subject there. The subject of this thread is to design a plan for how health care ought to be, not bash anything the government or private industry does or wants to do. Be gone from here.

User avatar
Phil
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9943
Joined: Jun Sun 11, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: phil.shannon
Location: Earth

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Phil » Aug Wed 12, 2009 6:19 am

The point is that the government should stay out of the health care business to save it. Obama should just take his list of goals and push a law through, like that insurance companies cannot refuse to enroll people for previous health issues etc. No public option, no single payer. Never.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Image

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9718
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by JIMD » Aug Wed 12, 2009 7:10 am

"jimd, pat, spec, phil, get thehell out of my thread. Take your government health care bashing to another thread and I will be happy to join you on that subject there. The subject of this thread is to design a plan for how health care ought to be, not bash anything the government or private industry does or wants to do. Be gone from here."

I stated how it should be, just leave me alone with what I have and what the vast majority of Americans have, good health care and good insurance.
Good Dog

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Wed 12, 2009 7:37 am

Since I wasn't invited to leave this thread I will offer an abbreviated overview of contrast...

Do you want the same democratic hacks who botched Vietnam supplying you with 'death panels'??
How's the Afghanistan theatre coming along??

How did you do under the donks then, gg???


ie: botox nan bitches about the profit of the insurance companies and then orders up a half a billion in aircraft...
No, the spoilers don't make profits nor do they produce a superior product, but they do make ugly deficits and provide bureaucratic non-performing lazyness... Like 'what' product??

To paraphase a president, UPS and FED-X are doing fine, it's US Postal that is drowning...
Last edited by specialties on Aug Wed 12, 2009 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

pat
Founder
Founder
Posts: 6016
Joined: Apr Thu 06, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by pat » Aug Wed 12, 2009 7:42 am

Phil wrote:A better question is: Why do you trust politicians and thier investors/friends more than you trust the health care industry? Why would anyone trust politicians and hacks to "fix" a health care system?
No, it's not a better question. It's a diversion from my original question. However, I'll answer it.

There is a lot of confusion about terminology.

"The Health Care System"

There are many facets to this, but my primary beef is with the insurance end of things. The mandates set down by the insurance industry guide the practices of health care professionals like doctors and hospital administration. Recently, Sue made an appointment with her doctor for something. The visit took no time at all - the doctor just needed to verify Sue's symptoms before prescribing treatment. As the doctor was getting ready to leave, Sue asked about some other ailment she's having. The doctor told her that she wasn't allowed to talk about a separate issue, and Sue would have to make another appointment to talk about that. Is that the doctor's fault? Hardly.

Ok - all that said...
Why do you trust politicians and thier investors/friends more than you trust the health care industry?
Because I've been getting screwed by the health care industry for decades. If you have the choice of two cars - one that absolutely doesn't work and one that might work, which do you choose? When private HMOs first came into existence, we were told how the private sector would do a much better job at it, and competition would keep the costs down. I have to buy my own health insurance, and in the past nine years, my premiums have QUADRUPLED. We've had to switch to a bare-bones plan, because our health insurance became one quarter of our gross income.

So many people are against health care reform, because they're happy with what they've got. They get group health care through their employer, their premiums are manageable, and their co-payments are reasonable. But does it occur to you that the payments by your employer is made out of the same money that pay your wages? If they didn't have to pay most of your health care, perhaps this would equate to another $15k/year in your salary. When you get hired by an employer, you look at the package he's giving you - $50k salary, 2 weeks vacation, 10 days sick leave, group health insurance, etc. However, the employer looks behind the scenes and decides that 48 weeks of your work is worth $100k. That money is spread over your salary, health insurance, etc., etc. If your health insurance cost $10k less, they could justify giving you a higher salary.

My point is... Just because you're not paying them directly doesn't mean that the health insurance companies aren't over-charging you for your health care.

And one more time...
Why do you trust politicians and thier investors/friends more than you trust the health care industry?
Because most of the time when you hear evil about politicians, it's usually sex-related. When I hear about these things, I have to shake my head and wonder what were they thinking. But ask the people who invested their money with Bernie Madoff if they'd rather have entrusted it to a committee of Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. John Edwards, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Sen. Larry Craig and President Bill Clinton.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Wed 12, 2009 7:50 am

Because most of the time when you hear evil about politicians, it's usually sex-related.
Where is the sex in tax cheats, fannie mae, USPS, medicare, FED, public schools, senate, house, presidency, welfare, community organizing??

Maybe sex serves to sublimate their passions of a job not well done...

Can you point to a government health run model that would work for you??

I can guess who told Sue about the one issue one visit at a time gaf...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12122
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by specialties » Aug Wed 12, 2009 12:42 pm

Image
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Noname
Transient
Transient
Posts: 530
Joined: Nov Sat 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Noname » Aug Wed 12, 2009 9:35 pm

time to "inject" a bit of Levity about the subject..... :lol:

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf


Noname

User avatar
Kurt Schluter
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4770
Joined: Apr Fri 07, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Kurt Schluter » Aug Thu 13, 2009 7:13 am

The Medicare-Isn't-Government Meme, Part 2

Why Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are complaining about possible spending cuts.

By Timothy Noah

Exactly one week ago I pledged to "keep a running inventory of instances in which people who should know better," like supply-side economist Arthur Laffer and former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., encourage the public to believe that Medicare is not a government program. Today's Wall Street Journal contains a choice example of this popular delusion from outside a high school in Portsmouth, N.H., where President Obama was holding a town-hall meeting on health care.

Inside the school gymnasium, the president said,

Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years. I don't know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen, the thing I'd be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven't done anything to make sure that we're getting a good bang for our buck when it comes to health care.

He also said:

I've been getting a lot of letters, pro and con, for health care reform, and one of the letters I received recently, a woman was very exercised about what she had heard about my plan. She says, "I don't want government-run health care. I don't want you meddling in the private marketplace. And keep your hands off my Medicare." [Laughter.] True story.

And so I do think it's important for particularly seniors who currently receive Medicare to understand that if we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role-not the dominant role, but a role-in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance. [Applause.]

Outside the school, the Journal's Jonathan Weisman interviewed Diane Campbell of Kingston, N.H. Campbell's mother has an autoimmune disease that "is treated with expensive transfusions of gamma globulin, paid for by Medicare." Campbell's sister, the story notes, "was born with no arms and one leg, and is also covered by Medicare, the government-run, health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled."

In a more logical world, one might expect Campbell's worldview to incorporate the reality that her family relies on a government program to provide essential health care. Campbell might have quarrels with the generosity of Medicare benefits or with how the Medicare program is run. She might legitimately worry that in extending health care to others, the government could divert resources currently available to her mother and her sister through Medicare.

But whatever critique she provided, presumably it would come from a perspective that was consciously left-of-center, because Campbell's bottom line appears to be that the government should continue to extend, or even expand, medical benefits to her family. In our political culture, those who seek to promote the continuation or enlargement of social welfare programs are called liberals, leftists, or (more euphemistically) progressives. Those who seek to restrict or curtail such programs are called conservatives, libertarians, or (more harshly) right-wingers.

Now take a look at the placards that Campbell was waving (that's her in pink).

The two signs are identical, except that one contains a crucifix while the other contains a peace sign. They read: HEY AMERICA, YOU WANT CHANGE. HITLER DID TOO!! A drawing depicts Obama giving the Sieg Heil salute in front of a Nazi swastika. Lest you confuse Campbell's signs with Christian-tinged leftist agitprop, the word SOCIALISM appears under the rendering of Obama as storm trooper. "Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism-that's what's going to happen," Campbell told the Journal.

Perhaps I misread Campbell. Perhaps she's a devotee of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which argues that contemporary liberalism descends from Hitler and Mussolini, Goldberg's trump card being that Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. If that is Campbell's motivation, then I must have missed the chapter where Goldberg argued that liberalism's statist roots compel contemporary conservatives to oppose any and all cuts in, or forgo expansions of, government benefits.

More likely, Campbell is a devotee of Rush Limbaugh, self-proclaimed "intellectual engine of the conservative movement" (a status that Republican politicians have learned the hard way not to challenge). Conservatism's philosopher-king observed on Aug. 6:

f you go and take a look at this, you will find that the Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo. I'm going to show you people watching on the Dittocam this, and there you are. The middle frame is the Obama health care logo. At the bottom is an official Nazi logo, eagle and everything, spread wings, or bird with spread wings. '¦ Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook.

(Quite apart from this assertion's inanity, Limbaugh's long career in radio appears to have dulled his powers of visual observation. Click here and scroll down to observe the imagined similarity.)

Limbaugh continued:

Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. '¦ He was called the Messiah. He said the people spoke through him. Do you know what the very first law that Hitler ordained was? The very first law was a law declaring how to cook lobsters. They were to be boiled. That was deemed to be the least painful. The law was sent around to all the restaurants. Now, does this sound like something any conservative president has ever done or does it sound like the things that liberals are doing all over this country?

Limbaugh doesn't advocate expanding Medicare benefits. But he has beefed that Democrats have long made a practice of attacking Republicans for advocating cuts in Medicaid and Medicare and yet aren't taking enough heat for (potentially) doing the same. Quoting a New York Post column by Rich Lowry in which Lowry said that "almost every other day, Obama finds another $100 billion to cut out of Medicare and Medicaid," Limbaugh complained on June 16:

[A]nd nobody is upset about it! Can you remember a time when a government official started talking about cutting Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and nobody beefed? Never! Obama is getting away with it each and every day.

If Campbell isn't a Limbaugh listener, perhaps she watches Glenn Beck on Fox News. Unlike Limbaugh, Beck doesn't profess to be a great conservative thinker or even a consistent one. Still, it was odd to see him berate David Certner, federal affairs director of the American Association of Retired Persons, for countenancing potential cuts in Medicare spending. Beck's underlying point was that health care reform is noxious and evil, and that Certner is wrong to favor it. Rather than state, however, that all manifestations of government-funded health care, Medicare included, constitute unjustifiable state intervention in the free market, Beck argued that Medicare spending is sacred and must not be diverted to fund health care for the general population. Let's go to the tape:

ir, you at the AARP, who are supposed to be representing people like my parents, and people like me eventually, you should be ashamed of yourself. You really should be ashamed of yourself. '¦ I've gone to your Web site, sir, and I've seen: "We've cancelled our AARP membership after 11 years." "Is it true that health care would keep me from getting stents and bypasses if I'm over 59?"

This is Claude Pepperish demagogy. It wasn't right when Pepper, a liberal Democratic congressman from Florida, indulged in it. But at least it made ideological sense: Pepper supported government social welfare programs like Medicare. Limbaugh and Beck oppose them. Somebody please tell Diane Campbell.

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2224938/


Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Make America Great Again!
Trump/Pence 2016

User avatar
Kurt Schluter
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4770
Joined: Apr Fri 07, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Kurt Schluter » Aug Thu 13, 2009 7:26 am

Canadians Back 'Public Solutions' to Improve Care, Poll Finds
by André Picard

An overwhelming 86 per cent of Canadians favour “public solutions' for bolstering medicare, according to a new poll.

The survey, commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition, is being released Wednesday as a pre-emptive strike.
That is because the Canadian Medical Association, at its coming general council meeting, plans to stage a high-profile discussion about transforming medicare, and it will release its own poll on support for privately delivered care.

Michael McBane, national co-ordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition, said he has no doubt that poll will show strong support for “privatization schemes' but the “language used in the CMA survey was so vague and misleading that its results cannot possible be interpreted as support for more for-profit medicine.'

He said that the outgoing CMA president, Robert Ouellet, operates private medical imaging clinics and is promoting a personal agenda that is out of step with Canadian values.

“Canadians have told us they want to keep our health-care system public and to improve it with made-in-Canada solutions. They also have told us they flat-out reject Dr. Ouellet's proposal to provide us with American-style two-tier medicine,' he said.

In fact, Dr. Ouellet has explicitly rejected a U.S.-style system. In a recent speech launching a new campaign entitled Time To Transform Healthcare, he said: “The U.S. is a very poor performer. Why look to a system that ranks below ours for lessons?'

Rather, Dr. Ouellet has actively promoted European-style health care, with a mix of private and publicly delivered care. He is particularly keen on “activity-based funding,' in which hospitals would receive funding based on the number of patients they treat and their efficiency. Currently, hospitals receive block funding.

The new poll, conducted by Nanos Research, surveyed 1,001 Canadians between April 25 and May 03. The results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Those polled were asked the following question: “Thinking about the future of Canada's public health-care system, would you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose public solutions to make our public health care stronger?'

A total of 86.2 per cent of respondents said they support or somewhat support public solutions, while 8.2 per cent said they oppose or somewhat oppose the approach. The balance, 5.7 per cent, said they were unsure.

“With more than eight in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health-care system,' said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

A recent report by Health Canada, entitled Healthy Canadians - A Federal Report on Comparable Health Indicators 2008, found that 85.2 per cent of Canadians were “very satisfied' or “somewhat satisfied' with health-care services overall. That level was unchanged from 2005, the last time the survey was conducted.

© 2009 Globe and Mail
Make America Great Again!
Trump/Pence 2016

User avatar
Kurt Schluter
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4770
Joined: Apr Fri 07, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Kurt Schluter » Aug Thu 13, 2009 8:36 pm

If US health Care's So Good, Why Do Other People Live Longer?
by Carrie Peyton Dahlberg

Ask around for the healthiest country in the world, and the United States won't come close to topping the list.

People live longer in just about every industrialized nation, from Canada to our north, throughout much of Europe, and around the Pacific in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

New mothers and their babies also face a rockier start here, with U.S. infant and maternal death rates double some of our industrialized peers.

As debate swirls in Washington and at town halls nationwide over health care reform, there is also a more fundamental question - what about health?

Could policymakers change our medical system in ways that would make America a healthier country?

Insuring everyone should help - but less than people might think, according to doctors and public health experts who've studied the issue. Putting more resources into primary care should also make a dent, they say.

Neither one, though, is likely to send America to the top ranks of its global peers.

"If you want to see dramatic changes in health, you're not going to get there even by doubling the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system," said Dr. Richard Kravitz, a University of California, Davis, professor of medicine whose research interests include quality of care.

"When you need it, you really need it '¦ but in general, the benefits of medical care to populations are a little bit overrated," he said.

When taken all together, the other factors that play a bigger role include education, income, toxins in the environment, crime, violence, family structure, stress, obesity, nutritious food and exercise.

Across large populations, he said, numerous studies suggest that medical care contributes only modestly to overall health, perhaps somewhere between 10 percent and 25 percent.

Health care for all would provide a "very large" improvement for some deprived populations, Kravitz said, but "a surtax on high fructose corn syrup would probably be more effective '¦ than anything we could do for the health care system, just because of obesity."

Researchers who have delved into the effects of medical care on the health of large groups overall have made some surprising and sometimes conflicting discoveries.

An experiment in the 1980s that extended different levels of insurance to otherwise uninsured people found that more coverage fostered more use of the medical system but not necessarily healthier people, said Dr. Peter Muennig, a professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

A 2006 study that compared white people in England with whites in the United States, in an effort to keep different ethnicities from complicating the findings, reached conclusions Muennig found startling. Even the richest white Americans, who are pretty much universally insured, had more diabetes, more high blood pressure, more heart disease and more cancer than the richest white Britons. On most measures they were a little less healthy than middle income Britons.

This points to a vast range of things health care cannot do, from providing mass transit that makes it likelier people will walk more, to providing the kind of education that correlates strongly with better health.

"Education is the fundamental ingredient for what you need to survive in any ecological niche," Muennig said. People with less education are likely to have jobs that are lower paying, higher stress and possibly more dangerous. They're likelier to live in unsafe housing and eat cheap, calorie-dense food. They're less likely to be offered job-related health insurance. Except for the insurance, he said, health care reforms cannot fix that.

Those who examine health across many nations puzzle over other oddities.

In international health care measures, America's ranking improves when life expectancy is measured for people age 65 and older. While still not at the top of the health heap, Americans who make it to age 65 have remaining life expectancies closer to 65-year-olds in other developed countries, and men stack up a little better than women against their peers worldwide.

That might mean that American medicine treats older people more effectively. Or it could mean that Medicare, universal coverage available at age 65, may be keeping older people healthier. Or it could be something called the "survivor effect," suggesting those who have lived past earlier perils are more robust.

While the factors that optimize health are complex, doctors say there are things federal policymakers could do to make America a little healthier.

Among them are strengthening primary care, finding ways to encourage better diet and exercise, and effectively reforming how health care is financed, said Dr. James G. Kahn, a professor of health policy and epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco.

People do better in nations that encourage them to have a regular primary care provider, Kahn said, perhaps partly because regular, front-line care helps bolster healthy habits.

"Even in the United States, in locations with a higher concentration of primary care providers, people have somewhat better outcomes and also lower costs," he said.

Rewarding and encouraging primary care might also offset an American tendency to do too much, driven by a system that pays for each procedure performed by a doctor, hospital or testing lab, Kahn added.

"We do too many surgeries," he said. "Rates of cardiac surgery are lower in Canada, yet they have better outcomes."

There is hope, too, for "accountable care" groups that would move away from fee for service payments but be held accountable for keeping all their patients as healthy as possible, said Stephen Shortell, dean of the school of public health at UC Berkeley.

Shortell is also pleased that the health legislation being discussed in Washington includes billions for disease prevention and health promotion.

"You can't ignore the health care system, but the big payoff is in lifestyle factors and disease prevention," he said. "A dollar spent on those activities saves $5 in health care costs."

© 2009 McClatchy Newspapers
Make America Great Again!
Trump/Pence 2016

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Bridges » Aug Thu 13, 2009 9:11 pm

Palin is such slime. She repeats false charges, even when she KNOWS they are false:
ABC News 8/13/2009 wrote:ABC News' Teddy Davis reports:
Sarah Palin is standing by her discredited charge that House Democrats are proposing to create "death panels". The former Alaska governor's statement, which she posted to Facebook on Wednesday evening, came one day after President Obama implicitly took issue with her stance during a Tuesday town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.

Referring to Section 1233 of the House Democratic health care bill, Palin writes: "With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients."

The truth, however, is that the end of life counseling contained in the House Democratic bill would be voluntary.

As the Associated Press has reported, the House bill would permit Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The doctor-patient discussions would cover living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
In short - it's all the stuff that any competent estate lawyer would advise you to do...and most of us do anyway. :?
Palin first leveled her "death panel" charge in a Friday message on Facebook.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil,' Palin wrote last week.

Palin's "death panel" claim has been debunked not only by ABC's Jake Tapper but also by FactCheck.org and Politifact.com.
This is such garbage - how can she spew this with a straight face? :shock:
A Palin spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Figures - bash and run. :roll:
Last edited by Bridges on Aug Fri 14, 2009 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

goodguy
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 7374
Joined: Jun Thu 20, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by goodguy » Aug Thu 13, 2009 11:10 pm

Just haven't had the time, I know I owe a response. Be back soon, I hope.

Kurt, out with you. This is not the place for bashing or supporting any existing system. Only for working out the way it should be.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by MCasper » Aug Fri 14, 2009 7:23 am

Bridges wrote:Palin is such slime. She repeats false charges, even when she KNOWS they are false:...

... This is such garbage - how can she spew this with a straight face? :shock: :roll:
You, as usual, pick a source that agrees with your political POV and even then you selectively quote it.

Let's look at some other facts and some opinions of people without a political axe to grind ...

First from Palin's response - ... yes she responded to BHO's denial...
... Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life' consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn't sound “purely voluntary.'

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.' [5]
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03043.html


Charles "Chuck" Lane is an American journalist and editor who is a staff writer for The Washington Post. His articles are concerned chiefly with the activities and cases of the Supreme Court of the United States[1] and judicial system. He was the lead editor of The New Republic from 1997 to 1999. In 2008 he published The Day Freedom Died, about the Colfax massacre of 1873 in Louisiana and its political repercussions during Reconstruction, including the resulting Supreme Court case, United States v. Cruikshank.

For Palin's whole response ... http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=ap ... ref=search
Image

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by MCasper » Aug Fri 14, 2009 7:46 am

Now, leaving Palin out of this, let's look just at the worry of a "death Panel"

It just couldn't happen ... right? Not in America ... right? The very liberals who love government run health care would be in charge and they love people so much they would never let someone die whan a medical treatment could extend their life ... right?

Well, on these points there is no need to guess, the evidence is clear and recent and devestating...
Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions

Image
Barbara Wagner

Story Updated: Nov 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM PDT
By Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff Video

SPRINGFIELD, Ore. - Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.

An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

But one critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.

"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Image

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. But he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.

Health plan hasn't evolved?

The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.

Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.

"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."

Patients like Wagner can appeal a decision if they are denied coverage. Wagner appealed twice but lost both times.

However, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. But doctors told us, that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.
So here, we have a "panel" looking at a PERSON who has been prescibed treatment by a doctor ... perfectly acceptable in the current FREE market system, yet the PANEL decides that it is too expensive and instead recomends this women's DEATH for the greater good. It even offers to pay for said DEATH if she wants to expidite her sacrifice for bringing down health care costs for the rest of productive society.

How outrageous it is for someone to look at this CLEAR example of a state PANEL choosing DEATH over treatment for its citizen and then worrying about a Federal Death Panel?


Its so hard to debate people who are so willingly ignorant or pathologically dishonest.
Image

User avatar
Roadking
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1348
Joined: Aug Wed 02, 2006 7:50 am
Location: Halifax

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Roadking » Aug Fri 14, 2009 7:54 am

Well, that language has been dropped from the bill so I guess there is nothing to worry about now...

Bill

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by MCasper » Aug Fri 14, 2009 8:03 am



For those who care to learn about this issue, it might be instructive to read the thoughts of the brother of BHO's Chief of Staff and a KEY advisor to the POTUS on this issue...





While Emanuel does not use the term "death panel," Palin put that term in quotation marks to signify the concept of medical decisions based on the perceived societal worth of an individual, not literally a "death panel." And in so doing, Palin was true to Dr. Emanuel's concept of a system which

considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable....
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.
Put together the concepts of prognosis and age, and Dr. Emanuel's proposal reasonably could be construed as advocating the withholding of some level of medical treatment (probably not basic care, but likely expensive advanced care) to a baby born with Down Syndrome. You may not like this implication, but it is Dr. Emanuel's implication not Palin's.


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2 ... panel.html
Image

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by MCasper » Aug Fri 14, 2009 8:09 am

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother, tapped for White House health care policy advisor spot.
By Lynn Sweeton February 14, 2009

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02 ... broth.html
In a New York Post opinion article, Ezekiel Emanuel was described as a "Deadly Doctor,"[9] which has been quoted from on the floor of the House of Representative by Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.[10] The article accused Dr. Emanuel of advocating healthcare rationing by age and disability. In an article on Time.com, he rebuts, "My quotes were just being taken out of context."[11]

Ezekiel Emanuel wrote an article for The Hastings Center Report in 1996, in which he suggested that public deliberative forums should decide which health services should be socially guaranteed, and that those services "that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations" might be considered by this deliberative body as "basic", while "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed". He goes on to give examples illustrating these two concepts: "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia", while "guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason".[12]

In 2009, he co-wrote another article on a similar topic, "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" in the journal The Lancet.[13]

Where does Palin get this stuff from? Here you go.
Image

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by MCasper » Aug Fri 14, 2009 8:34 am

Roadking wrote:Well, that language has been dropped from the bill so I guess there is nothing to worry about now...

Bill
I really don't know you well enough to be sure you are being sarcastic here? Do you actually believe that?
Image

User avatar
Phil
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9943
Joined: Jun Sun 11, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: phil.shannon
Location: Earth

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Phil » Aug Fri 14, 2009 10:12 am

Roadking wrote:Well, that language has been dropped from the bill so I guess there is nothing to worry about now...

Bill
So there is no such thing as a death panel and Palin made this all up. Even though she cited all of the facts. It's a non issue yet "that language has been dropped from the bill"? If it was never an issue, why was it dropped LOL. Palin actually responded again this morning with more facts. She wants to know why Ezekial is trying to distance himself from his own writings now. She wants to know why he is an advisor to the President. All legit questions that many Americans want to know.

Now look how the left wingers are demonizing soccer moms, regular citizens, and grandparents. Keep it classy, Dems LOL
August 13, 2009
Obama's Nazi Straw man: An Old Alinsky Trick
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

When I saw this video interview of Bill Burton, White House Deputy Press Secretary, I could not help but be reminded of one of old Saul Alinsky's favorite fake-em-out tricks of the revolutionary trade. Burton is reinforcing Pelosi's earlier claim that people were carrying Swastikas at town halls, but goes even further and claims that folks are actually "dressing up like Hitler."

You got to give ole Saul a little credit. He was one wily deceiver, right after his hero, Deceiver in Spades, Lucifer.

Saul Alinsky, crusader for the downtrodden, darling of the Auxiliary Archbishop of Chicago, was just an underachieving nobody with neither guts nor moral code, who flummoxed a whole lot of willing-to-be-deceived power seekers. Saul Alinsky didn't invent a single new thing. His whole methodology, so widely-hailed by whole generations of leftists, could have been devised by any 12 year-old gang-style bully with half a brain and an ounce of charisma.

It's quite disheartening, now, to see the top echelons of the Democratic Party using Alinsky tactics in an attempt to freeze political dialogue, most especially when that dialogue is about the most intimate service we Americans procure for ourselves and our families: our medical care.

Nevertheless, they've decided to go at this whole hog, even if it means stripping off their dignity and parading their political bloomers right out in the public square.


When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president's own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone's book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt's Let Them Call Me Rebel:

"...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration's Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, 'The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."


Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start. His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

Hardly qualifies as 'Constitutional Law' if you ask me.

Covering for oneself by accusing the other fellow has been the left's most successful deception for decades now. It took on its best traction lately, as leftists within Moveon.org and others have used this Nazi smear tactic for the past eight years against George W. Bush. They've seen how well it's worked and just can't stop themselves now.

Here's a little hint from me on the Nazi card. If a few folks actually do start showing up at town halls, opposing the MediCoup*, even dressed like Hitler and carrying a Swastika poster, I'll lay good hard cash on a bet that they've been sent by this Alinskyite President or his minions to deceive, just as Saul did with getting students to dress like the KKK at that rally back in the 70s.

And any newsman worth an ounce of table salt ought to be able to pin the tail right on that Alinsky donkey.

*MediCoup is a term coined by writer, James Lewis, right here on American Thinker.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and a newly syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Image

User avatar
Phil
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9943
Joined: Jun Sun 11, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: phil.shannon
Location: Earth

Re: Health care the way it should be

Post by Phil » Aug Fri 14, 2009 11:46 am

Image
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Image

Post Reply