An Opinion On Healthcare To Be Considered

[Guest]

I know that lots of participants on this forum will automatically reject the thesis of the following article. I did, as well, when I read the headline. But the author has thought the problem out pretty throughly and makes his argument convincingly. I would recommend that readers take a few moments to read this article, if for no other reason than to understand a different point-of-view.

The article was published in the Sunday, July 19 edition of The New York Times Magazine. It is entitled, Why We Must Ration Healthcare, and was authored by Peter Singer. Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”

Two of the points that the author made in the article jumped off the page for me...

"The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035."

"On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, 'Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.' ....as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did poll Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, asking if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more per person on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."

The complete article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=rationing&st=cse&scp=1

It's worthwhile reading so that we might better understand the opposing positions being cited by our elected representatives. On one hand, the unsustainable increases in the cost of healthcare will consume so much of our GDP, that in only a couple of decades, having less and less to re-invest in our economy because of healthcare costs, the U.S. will be reduced to a second-rate economic power. By itself, this fact seems to call out for major healthcare reform, particularly reducing the cost of healthcare in this country. On the other hand, some politicians forewarn that "the government will take over" or that "healthcare will be rationed". Yet in several other countries that have single-payer systems, their residents are more satisfied with their healthcare system than we are with ours here in the U.S.

Something seems to be amiss in this scenario. It's clear that we have to make some major changes in healthcare. The only question is what will they be? But for those who simply reject the idea of change, it leaves me wondering whether there are special interests at work who are encouraging our legislators to take positions more in their favor than acting responsibly for the country. Is that possible?

[Guest]

I know that lots of participants on this forum will automatically reject the thesis of the following article. I did, as well, when I read the headline. But the author has thought the problem out pretty throughly and makes his argument convincingly. I would recommend that readers take a few moments to read this article, if for no other reason than to understand a different point-of-view.

The article was published in the Sunday, July 19 edition of The New York Times Magazine. It is entitled, Why We Must Ration Healthcare, and was authored by Peter Singer. Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”

Two of the points that the author made in the article jumped off the page for me...

"The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035."

"On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, 'Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.' ....as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did poll Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, asking if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more per person on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."

The complete article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=rationing&st=cse&scp=1

It's worthwhile reading so that we might better understand the opposing positions being cited by our elected representatives. On one hand, the unsustainable increases in the cost of healthcare will consume so much of our GDP, that in only a couple of decades, having less and less to re-invest in it's economy because of healthcare costs, the U.S. will be reduced to a second-rate economic power. By itself, this fact seems to call out for major healthcare reform, particularly reducing the cost of healthcare in this country. On the other hand, some politicians forewarn that "the government will take over" or that "healthcare will be rationed". Yet in several other countries that have single-payer systems, their residents are more satisfied with their healthcare system than we are here in the U.S.

Something seems to be amiss in this scenario. It's clear that we have to make some major changes in healthcare. The only question is what will they be? But for those who simply reject the idea of change, it leaves me wondering whether there are special interests at work who are encouraging our legislators to take positions more in their favor than acting responsibly for the country. Is that possible?

There was a time when then thought of denying (excuse me, rationing) health care to any population due to is it worth it to us[?] as utterly reprehensible. After 35 years of legal abortion, a couple states going pro-euthanasia and Dr. Kevorkian attaining cult-figure status, we are indeed seeming to embrace the idea of letting the elderly die because they are too expensive to maintain, especially when we can take all these moneys for financial insitituion bailouts, auto company bailouts, new IPods, et al.

Whatever percentage of the GDP medical services may be, it is immaterial. If the rate is increasing, it is because as a society we have sacrificed our domestic manufacturing capability and much of the information services business to satisfying "foreign policy." That'[s why our economy is in the toilet and unemployment is rising. The GDP:Medical ratio will continue to get broader as long as the GDP base industries cannot fairly compete in the domestic marketplace with foreign goods/services providers.

It does not take a skilled mathematician or economist to realize that trying to put the brakes on health care costs will not make the economy better. As long as the other GDP base industries continue to decline, the percentage gap will continue to widen.

Despite all the craziness, what the medical industry demonstrates is that an industry can grow in the US marketplace if there is no foreign competition to deal with. There is no "Shanghai Hospital Ocala" selling cut-rate medical services or "Medical Laboratories of Mumbai, Tampa Office" providing discount urine tests and chest xrays.

When we finally get wise and start placing tariffs on foreign goods to at least the same degree they do to ours, then our economy can rebound and jobs reappear. Until then, the idea of denying (excuse me again, rationing) health care based on "should s/he live or die, what's worth it to me?" is barbaric and immoral.

UPDATE: The British and other national health care systems area prime examples of what "rationing" provides. For an interesting list of those-country newspaper articles of instances of the quality of this type of service, please see http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain

[Guest]

Canadian polls, huh? How long have the Canadians and English have socialized medicine? I bet that most of the people they polled ...it is the only system they know. When all you know is what you got...how the heck can they compare?

[Guest]

CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid) is already looking at "value based purchasing" which will look at outcomes for medical services provided by physicians to decide reimbursement. This will change payments which currently are based on quantity to quality outcome reimbursement. The devil will be in the details as the Physician may well provide all the 'best practice" diagnosis and treatments, but patients may still have a bad "outcome" (blood sugar levels and cholesterol still sky high) because the patient chooseto not take their meds or refuse to make lifestyle changes that adversely affect their health. If they are deemed bad outcomes, will there be no reimbursement for their care?

Who will take care of those patients?

Does their behavior mean they really don't want to be cared for?

[Guest]

Elderly Hardest Hit

"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
I'm sure the people in power won't be affected.

[Guest]

"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs
I'm sure the people in power won't be affected.

I don't care whether you voted for BHO or not, whether Republican or Democrat, black, yellow, brown, etc (as long as your not illegal!!!)
and you are over 65 you will be affected in a way you are not going to like.

I don't know why this is not more concerning to those in that age group. Don't read just the link after the quote. Do some home work....understand the potential that WILL affect you and your loved ones. Don't rely too heavily on AARP propaganda as their agenda is jaded by the politics....I guess most everything is.

Those who voted for change ought to be in nirvana by now!!!! Think your nest egg is watered down now? Just wait!!

btk

[Guest]

illegals health insurance.http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A3-1

[Guest]

illegals health insurance.http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html?s=al&promo_code=83A3-1

From this link....

"On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama."

"Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.

"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."


Lets see...all things aside.....a bill that will give free medical care to illegal immigrints and reduce my medicaire coverage.......hmmmmm.....

[Guest]

...How long have the Canadians and English have socialized medicine? I bet that most of the people they polled ...it is the only system they know. When all you know is what you got...how the heck can they compare?And vice versa possibly?

[Guest]

I wish I could find the link containing the video of this very educated English lady who had vast experience in Enland, Canada and USA Medical systems. Hands down, she said tha USA is the best system.

[Guest]

Last week, Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sent shockwaves through Washington when he told Congress that the Democrats’ plans would make health care more costly. Throughout this debate, President Obama has spoken of the need to “bend the cost curve” or drive health care costs down. During a congressional hearing, however, Mr. Elmendorf testified that the Democrats’ plans would have the opposite effect, saying that under their proposals, “The curve is being raised” and costs would “significantly expand.” That’s because the Democrats’ plan adds a new layer of taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy on top of the current system. If that’s not bad enough, the Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare and takes away choices for millions of seniors. What does all of this mean? Higher costs for the medicine and treatments you need.

Not only will the Democrats’ government-run health care plan raise your costs, but it also will raise costs for our nation’s employers – particularly small businesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts821

[Guest]

Does not support Obama's Health Care Plan.

http://rightwingnews.com/#post16229

Click on "What will Doctors do?"

[Guest]

I wish I could find the link containing the video of this very educated English lady who had vast experience in Enland, Canada and USA Medical systems. Hands down, she said tha USA is the best system.OK, Keedy, maybe we could find one U.S. citizen who would say they were unhappy with the U.S. healthcare system--maybe someone whose coverage was denied because of a pre-existing condition. Then we'd have a tie in our informal poll, one person thinking it's better and another worse.

I think maybe I'll rely on a polling organization with the well-established reputation for the quality and accuracy of their polls, like The Gallup Organization.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, a poll in this case is worthless unless you poll people that were exposed to more then one system.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, a poll in this case is worthless unless you poll people that were exposed to more then one system.There may be some statisticians reading here that might disagree with you. I've never made my living polling, but I have studied the subject for about half of a semester during one of the six courses in statistics and operations research that I took in grad school.

There are polls that can be designed to compare one item with another. There are others that are designed to measure satisfaction or dissatisfaction with something. As an example, the annual poll of Villages residents, designed to measure their satisfaction with various elements of this place where we live doesn't require that we live in another retirement community so that we can compare the two. The poll is designed to measure what we like and don't like about living here, even if this is the only retirement community where we've ever resided.

I won't attempt to provide a long list of other polls designed similar to the international healthcare poll conducted by The Gallup Organization. although I could.

There's little sense in you and I debating statistical polling, Keedy. I won't convince you and I know enough about how polls are conducted and their accuracy not to change my mind based on your one-liners. Let's just say that my reaction to your latest one needn't go further than the title of this response...HUH???

[Guest]

Well, there is big bucks to be made in the polling business, to be sure. Maybe I have simplified it a bit, ok? You can go to ten people who have driven nothing but a Yugo car and ask them a bunch of questions on how the ride was and how it performed and you will get some varied responses. They have never driven anything else. Now, let those same people drive a Lexus and then ask them how it drove compared to the Yugo and you might get a more accurate assessment, right? HUH?