Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
As I listen to all the members of Congress and talking heads discuss the proposed healthcare reform proposals, a few questions cross my addled brain...
-- Some people and members of Congress are adamantly against any sort of "government option" healthcare plan. They say that people will lose all their rights for proper healthcare once the government gets involved. But a huge number of people are already in a government program--Medicare. And pretty much all the rest who have private insurance have already lost most of their "medical rights" to the insurance company administrators who have been deciding what medical or surgical cae will be paid for and what will not for years now. Can someone tell me what more can be "lost" if a program like Medicare is offered as an alternative to private insurance?
-- Only 11 states have any caps on medical malpractice awards. The statistics show that medical malpractice premiums are reduced by almost 20% in those states with caps. The AMA has tort reform including caps high on their priority list. If the constraint and reduction of healthcare costs are a primary objective of any healthcare reform, how come there has been so little talk of tort reform, when the cost reductions that would result are so significant and would be so immediate?
-- Lastly, now that there seems to be a groundswell of interest and support for healthcare reform, suddenly the pharmaceutical companies are coming up with ways that those with Medicare prescription coverage can have the "coverage doughnut hole" reduced or eliminated--to the tune of about $80 billion in savings to consumers. Those "savings" must come from reduced profits from the drug companies, of course. My question is "why now"? Have the drug companies taken all this time since the passage of the original Medicare prescription drug legislation to suddenly, out of the goodness of their hearts, decided to "give back" some of the profits they've been earning as the result of the new program? I wonder if they've actually volunteered $80 billion in savings, how much more could be available if someone were to negotiate a better deal for Medicare paticipants?
---------------------------------
As I watched and read all the dialog in Washington and in the media on this subject...I was just thinking.
|
In answer to your first question, I really don't know. Perhaps the belief that one gigantic provider (the government) would yield enough power as to be able to even more strictly dicate criteria of care and reinbursement of it. It may in fact be "worse" in some ways and better in others. I am not sure that in a collective way it could get a lot worse for the patients at this point.
I too have wondered about the glaring absence of disussion regarding tort reform as discussions of nearly every other aspect of health care are bandied about. As in most things follow the money...check this article out for some undeniable fact related insight,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_76915714/. When you controll money and the ones that make/interpret/enforce the laws you get really rich.
As to the pharma industry..again, follow the money. Just a little basic information in this article will point you int the right direction for answers.
http://www.actupny.org/treatment/PharmcoProfits.html. Their offer is a pittance and simple foresighted manuvering because they anticipate where the playing field is going, and they have the money to influence it as does the trial attorney's lobby/money.