Talk of The Villages Florida - View Single Post - Is anybody for the new proposed nationalized health care plan and why??
View Single Post
 
Old 07-24-2009, 08:00 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptownrob View Post
Yes, I support a radical re-thinking of health care in America:

Honesty: We do NOT have the best healthcare system in the world- not even close, if you look at morbidity rates, percentage of individuals (citizens or other) who cannot afford even basc care, etc.

Honesty: We have among the BEST specialized health care services in the world. People come here from all over the world not to treat a sprained ankle or sore throat, but for the highly specialized treatments in which we excel.

Honesty: According to the Pew Foundation, 55% of all health care dollars are expended by 5% of the population. These are commonly terminal illnesses and geriatric illnesses. Illegal immigrants are not an issue.

Factor: Our pharmaceutical companies run rampant with high-costs. This is not an issue of what the "free market" will bear, since these medicines are held by monopolies, and real competition, as in overseas versions of the same drugs are prohibited for import. Thank you lobbyists & Congress.

Factor: Health insurance may have been "competitive" for larger employers at one time, but like all else in the recent orgy of non-regulation, now there are only two or three companies where many may have been involved before.
Blue Cross, United Health and others have had to pay BILLIONS in penalities for market-area price-fixing- not exactly a competitive spirit, is it?

Factor: We, as a culture, especially older folks, have been indoctrinated by religious forces and the medical industry, to think that: 1. We are invulnerable to death; 2. All conditions are curable, and, 3. most importantly, "Pulling the Plug" in any situation is murder (see T. Schiavo). I have worked in hospitals where families, usually older members, refused to allow their spouse to die with diginity under any cirsumstance, even when the sufferer is in great pain. The health care costs involved with this mentality have over-whelmed our system.

Factor: As long as the hospital can get reimbursed, they can continue these end-stage marathons when the family so chooses. The costs of this are passed on in dangerously high insurance hikes, which can create situations where the self-employed (ME!) cannot obtain insurance.

Factor: Although tort liability is becoming the law in may states (including Florida), malpractice insurance rates continue to skyrocket, some doctors won't even carry it, and there's no coherent or cost-effective system to protect good doctors or malpracticed patients.

Factor: The so-called insurance for the self-insured is oftentimes a scam, as described vividly by Consumer Reports last year about "Assurant Healthcare." These companies do not cover "pre-existing" illnesses. Big Problem.
In fact, these companies also write these policies for six months at a time. If you get sick in March, when your "new" policy kicks in in June, you now have a non-covered "pre-existing" illness. Bigger Problem. Solution, Pay big bucks to a lawyer to fight individually for your health care. Who's got that kind of money? I could worsen or die before the case is settled. I may not fall into an extreme enough case that warrants a legal battle, etc.

Example: I have suffered from chronic kidney stones for more than 30 years. With my good company-offered insurance in the past, I have been able to have every test under the sun, every dietary possibility explored, and have had once-miraculous, now routine, lithotropsy 3 times. Several times I've also had to go to the emergency room for pain relief and extraction. Good Enough.

But now, although I'm through with testing, etc., if I get a chronic attack, I cannot even find insurance that will cover that. Forget the "2 year rule." Doesn't apply to individual purchasers.

Example: Catastrophic Insurance? Cost for self-employed me? $890.00 a month! And it isn't even tax deductible- And I pay 1 & 1/2 times your social security taxes as well. Solution? I cannot find decent insurance, and cannot afford catastrophic insurance. So I pray I stay healthy, I use Walgreen's prescription program, and I avoid going to any doctors for any reason.

Ladies & Gentlemen- There's your health crisis. Between the obscenely profitable insurance industry, high costs of virtually all medical services and the monopoly of the drug lobby laws, and the cost of malpractice insurance to practitioners, the old "go slow and ignore it" mentality is going to crush individuals AND the country.

Conclusion: If you notice the PBS Insurance chart, one very telling factor about health care is that on 1.2% of seniors don't have health insurance. Why? Medicare and Medicaid of course. But what if a coherent system could be put in place that cuts costs, makes efficient use of resources, limits tort issues, helps to prevent illnesses through preventative care, and the like. So WHAT if it's operated by the government!? Is the private sector really doing such a great job?

Spiraling costs and deficient health care have been issues since Harry Truman was president. Government employees and the military have benefitted from government-run health plans for centuries.

If you hear someone taunting with the words "socialism" or "loss of choice" or "boondoggle" you are listening to the people who would really rather spin a lie tham acknowledge that a major part of our government's responsibility to ensure that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to keep people alive.

For once, just once, please don't assume that the vitriole of radio talk hosts and politicians, interested more in creating a political Waterloo than in creating workable health care system, are interested in anything remotely discussing the common good for all Americans.
The problem with our health care system is that health care, as an industry, keeps growing while the rest of the economy has stalled. All of the "fixes" in the world won't change the fact that health care does not have foreign competition inthe domestic market, while virtually every other industry fights day to day (and often loses) to survive. Political "silver bullets" rarely kill anything, except our pocketbooks. So the thought that just because "the government" is going to do anything just doesn't mean anything will be better.

The CBO report on HR 3200 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf) is as non-biased as it gets, and it says the numbers are askew, especially the public-perceived cost effect that medical malpractice has on health care costs. No medical association has rebutted the numbers, leading to the belief that the CBO's assessment is correct.

When I had my own business, I too paid about $1,000/mo for family health care and the employer's contribution to Social Security. That goes with the turf when you are your own boss.

I agree with you that it is strange the drug companies can sell their products almost everywhere else in the world for significantly lower prices. It has the hefty aroma of price-fixing monopoly-style, yet no Attorney General for as long as I can remember has ever disclosed if this phenomena has ever been investigated as a "Sherman Act" violation. If Mr. Holder would care to pursue this issue, his popularity would increase.

Let us not kid ourselves on how long it will take to implement any new system nationally, regardless of what it looks like. No matter what the statute says, regulation-writing takes a significant amount of labor, public review and comment, revision and posting. Right now, there is no labor to do that. Acquiring the labor, by contract or federal employees or both, will take a few months based on preparing the personnel warrants, interviewing, screening, getting on -the-job, finding places for them to sit, getting office materials, and that's just to get the regulations written. The comes setting up the field offices to administer, hiring and training more folk (in the thousands!), new forms (that's a thrill to create!), and the list goes on. We are talking about YEARS before any new system trying to be fielded nationally can even work halfway right.

Congress and the Administration are trying to give the impression that they are heroes with the passage of legislation - unfunded legislation at that! Any statute is only step-one of one hundred. Yet, the public will see the confetti being thrown like a miracle has happened, and expect it all to be working in a week or so. Projection (mine): After any statute is passed 2 /12 years before regulations of substance (and only some of many) will be fielded; another year to two before the complaint process (adjudication of claims, set-up of administrative courts and special hearings, etc) works, and that will have docket backlogs spanning many months; for the first 5 years, the contractor-to-employee ratio will be 2:1 at best (and contractors won't have any authority to settle complaints). In the meantime, the costs to set up all of this (new agencies, logos, documents, facilities, people, training, IT system conversions and interfacing, court battles) will reign supreme. Compared to this, establishing the Department of Homeland Security was child's play!

I have to hand it to Canada. They had the good sense to make it work in one province first, and then other provinces came onboard one-at-a-time. We, in our arrogance, want to just blast forward nationally and hope for the best. Does that REALLY make sense?