A Couple Questions Regarding Healthcare Reform

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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/mi_m1282/is_16_53/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.

[Guest]

Scroll down to fourth article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Love this comment:

Of course we won't all be in the 'same boat' will we? They have already added an exemption for Congress and federal employees (see section 3116). If the Affordable Health Choices Act isn't good enough for them why should we believe it will be good enough for the rest of us?

[Guest]

Scroll down to fourth article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Love this comment:

Of course we won't all be in the 'same boat' will we? They have already added an exemption for Congress and federal employees (see section 3116). If the Affordable Health Choices Act isn't good enough for them why should we believe it will be good enough for the rest of us?

Well stated.

[Guest]

Serenity, you included the same link twice. But if the drift of the second article, regarding pharma companies, is the same as the one about the trial lawyers, there sure doesn't seem to be much hope for meaningful tort reform or constraints that would interfere with the drug companies making exhorbitant profits.

I recall seeing a 60 Minutes show on the way the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Part D) was passed by the House. The story was maddening. The actual bill was written by the largest pharmaceutical lobbying firm PhRMA and only introduced to the members of Congress on the morning on which the bill would be considered for a vote. None of the members of the House ever read the final bill. When the vote was called, unlike normal House procedures which gave members 15 minutes to register their vote, the vote was held open for three hours. During that time, both members of the House and representatives of PhRMA pressured the few members needed to achieve passage of the legislation to change their votes. With the money that was at risk by the drug companies, buying those last few needed votes was like shooting ducks in a barrel.

What was even more infuriating was the listing of what the 10-12 people who were instrumental in getting the bill passed were doing two years later. The key people included two Congressmen and several senior House staffers. Each and every one of them had left politics for highly lucrative jobs, either with lobbying firms themselves or with drug companies within a couple of years after the bill was passed. The key House member, Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA), who steered the bill thru the House resigned from the House less than a year later and now has a job with PhRMA paying about $2 million a year.

If you want to read and see the 60 Minutes show, navigate to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml...but prepare to really get your dander up.

[Guest]

Thanx VK, fixed the link.

[Guest]

Keedy, the criticism you linked from PowerlineBlog suggests that the poll was purposely conducted to slant the results. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The poll was conducted over a recent four-day period and included 895 adults, a statistically valid sample size. The participants were selected to match the population concentrations in the U.S--more from urban areas, less from suburban and exurban locations. The actual participants were selected by a computer selecting from among the several thousand three-digit telephone exchanges in the country in a way that represented the U.S. population distribution. The individual survey participants were selected by the computer selecting random four-digit phone numbers within each of the selected exchanges. That approach was designed to include both listed as well as unlisted phone numbers. The survey also required a split between make and female respondents, and survey takers were required to get either the oldest adult male or female at each of the prescribed phone numbers. The survey was then conducted among participants chosen in that manner.

If you'd like to read the complete list of survey questions and responses, navigate to http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=1 The poll results also indicate how the most recent poll compares to those conducted in earlier periods to assess any change in attitude among Americans.

I'm no survey expert, but both the method for selecting respondents as well as the questions in the survey appear to be designed to get answers to the fundamental questions regarding the desire of the electorate for change in the healthcare system.

[Guest]

So, you don't believe that polls are slanted? What about the exemptions like congress and federal employees? Why would we want a health care solution that congress and federal employees don't want?

I say we enact a plan that is just like the one congress has.

The point of the article was comparing the times with the other more reputable poll.

[Guest]

To your point, how can they in any way shape or form determine one plan for them and something else for we the people.

They have the money to supplement more if what they provide is not adequate to meet their wants.

Another alternative is for them to provide an option for a lump sum equal to the per person amount that the bill would be worth. As has been stated elsewhere....a trillion dollar cost for an additional 15-20,000,000 folks????

Still no discussion here or any ehre else regarding what the effect of ANY proposal will have on the benefits those of us over 65 currently have. You know they will not allow a plan that keeps us whole while providing lesser coverage for the newbies.
What is disturbing is there is no discussion for evaluation of who gets or keeps what coverage , that is most concerning.

No discussion of the wrongful abuse of the system by hospitals and physicians.
No discussion regarding the pharmaceutical companies protected patents dis-allowing lower cost equivilent drugs.

WHY NOT?

btk

[Guest]

Keedy, the criticism you linked from PowerlineBlog suggests that the poll was purposely conducted to slant the results. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The poll was conducted over a recent four-day period and included 895 adults, a statistically valid sample size. The participants were selected to match the population concentrations in the U.S--more from urban areas, less from suburban and exurban locations. The actual participants were selected by a computer selecting from among the several thousand three-digit telephone exchanges in the country in a way that represented the U.S. population distribution. The individual survey participants were selected by the computer selecting random four-digit phone numbers within each of the selected exchanges. That approach was designed to include both listed as well as unlisted phone numbers. The survey also required a split between make and female respondents, and survey takers were required to get either the oldest adult male or female at each of the prescribed phone numbers. The survey was then conducted among participants chosen in that manner.

If you'd like to read the complete list of survey questions and responses, navigate to http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=1 The poll results also indicate how the most recent poll compares to those conducted in earlier periods to assess any change in attitude among Americans.

I'm no survey expert, but both the method for selecting respondents as well as the questions in the survey appear to be designed to get answers to the fundamental questions regarding the desire of the electorate for change in the healthcare system.

Maybe this link can explain the lack of reliability of polls:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/21/the-nytcbs-poll-is-junk-and-bad-news-for-obamacare/