A "Bottom Line" Question

[Guest]

We've had all kinds of exchanges on whether the government can be trusted to run anything, let alone take an even larger responsibility than providing it for about 40% of Americans, as they do now thru Medicare and Medicaid. Everything anyone has said, eiher supporting the government option or de-bunking it, is pure opinion and really can't be either proven or refuted with any certainty.

But to really see how we feel about our healthcare and the different ways it could be provided as the result of healthcare reform legislation, let me pose a question.

First, there are a couple of simple facts that we will all accept, I think, that serve as the background to my question. I think we will all agree that the cost of healthcare to Americans is increasing at a rate that is unsustainable. Something has to be done to reduce the cost, both as a percentage of GDP as well as on a per capita basis. Doing nothing is not an option. My second "given" in setting up the question is that regardless of who will provide healthcare insurance in any healthcare reform legislation, we won't know all the details for some time after it's passage. The implementation details such as coverage, terms and cost will have to be worked out by government bureaucrats for government-run programs, and the private sector to meet the legislative requirements laid down by Congress in whatever bill gets passed.

So, given that the country needs healthcare reform and must do something, but that we really won't know what "something" is until long after the legislation is passed, I pose this question...

Which of the following choices would you endorse as the basis of healthcare insurance crafted by Congress?
Continuation of the Medicare program. But in addition, the creation of a "government option" insurance policy that citizens could choose at their option in place of any private insurance they currently have, or might buy instead of the new option. Citizens who could not afford insurance would be required to take the government option. The government would pay the premiums for insurance for all those who could not afford to pay them.

Medicare would be discontinued. No "government option" would be offered to insure those Americans that are not currently insured. Private, for-profit insurance companies would be required to design insurance policies to offer to all citizens. To the extent that some people could not afford to buy the private insurance, the government would pay the premiums to the private insurers. If you have Medicare now, it would be discontinued and replaced with private insurance whose coverages, terms and cost would be determined later.


Neither of these options is going to happen, of course. But I pose the question to determine how many of us would really be willing to give up government insurance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid and place the decision for what their healthcare will be and what it will cost in the hands of the private sector.

Where do you stand?

[Guest]

Number Two - in a heartbeat!!!

Given those two options, and they represent a reasonable choice, I would cheerfully replace my Medicare Insurance with private insurance where I had the opportunity to select my carrier and pay for those benefits in addition to the base benefits as I choose and can afford. I have experienced, twice, Medicare overruling my cardiologists recommendations. The result of these actions have had a severe impact on my health and well-being. Having faceless government bureaucrats with zero accountability making life or death decisions does not satisfy me.

[Guest]

if these are the type of changes to be made in health care I don't want any part of it. Even with the lowest level Blue Cross HMO that I have it has been great. I certainly am not willing to take a chance on the government forcing me into less than I already have.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?page=0

[Guest]

Had the question been posed before the establishment of Medicare, then the answer would seem obvious.

Now that most of us have sunk a lot of our money over the years into this "system" and now have little options available since the insurance industry has tailored itself into the Medicare Supplement business, the answer again seems obvious.

[Guest]

Given only those choices, number 2.

However I disagree with your basic premise that you think we all should agree with. I believe that health care cost will do the same as every free market item and cost will level off or come down when people stop paying for it because it's to expensive.

It has already started to happen with the high deductibles and larger co-pays. Go out and protect yourself with a policy that has a $5000 annual deductible, a 20% co pay from $5000 to $100000 and a cap of $1,000,000. They are available and actually very cheap. Then purchase another policy that covers 1st through 20th doctor visit with a $50 co pay and a cap of $25000 with a prescription drug co pay. Again very affordable. Combine the two and you have manageable health care at an affordable price. Maximum out of pocket with worst case would be $25,000 in a year. Is that good, no, but would you survive, yes. This type plan would protect 95% of us and is available today and cost is reasonable. Yes you could get hit with some really bad illness that would overrun this plan. But seems they have that built into the government plan by sending you home with a pain pill if your to expensive to save.

[Guest]

Given only those choices, number 2.

However I disagree with your basic premise that you think we all should agree with. I believe that health care cost will do the same as every free market item and cost will level off or come down when people stop paying for it because it's to expensive.

It has already started to happen with the high deductibles and larger co-pays. Go out and protect yourself with a policy that has a $5000 annual deductible, a 20% co pay from $5000 to $100000 and a cap of $1,000,000. They are available and actually very cheap. Then purchase another policy that covers 1st through 20th doctor visit with a $50 co pay and a cap of $25000 with a prescription drug co pay. Again very affordable. Combine the two and you have manageable health care at an affordable price. Maximum out of pocket with worst case would be $25,000 in a year. Is that good, no, but would you survive, yes. This type plan would protect 95% of us and is available today and cost is reasonable. Yes you could get hit with some really bad illness that would overrun this plan. But seems they have that built into the government plan by sending you home with a pain pill if your to expensive to save.

I agree somewhat....Tort reform is the only answer...Too many wasteful tests because everybody is worried about being sued.

[Guest]

It's not sustainable and they know it.
Insurance is the pooling of resources to cover the cost of a possible but by no means certain misfortune befalling a given individual. Government-subsidized coverage for people already sick is welfare. We can debate whether this is good, but let's discuss it honestly. Calling welfare "insurance" muddies thinking.
Read John Stossel:

http://reason.com/news/show/135266.html

[Guest]

Had the question been posed before the establishment of Medicare, then the answer would seem obvious.

Now that most of us have sunk a lot of our money over the years into this "system" and now have little options available since the insurance industry has tailored itself into the Medicare Supplement business, the answer again seems obvious.

and yes, we did not/do not have a choice about Medicare and have/and are still paying dearly into it.

[Guest]

Read John Stossel:Good article. I agree with him. Well written with not a lot of partisan twist. That's why designing this beast is proving so tough. In the end, if it doesn't have at least these two things, it won't work...
Tort reform
Higher taxes

[Guest]

Good article. I agree with him. Well written with not a lot of partisan twist. That's why designing this beast is proving so tough. In the end, if it doesn't have at least these two things, it won't work...
Tort reform
Higher taxes


I never thought I would say I agree with you....except I worry about the tax issue.

[Guest]

Good article. I agree with him. Well written with not a lot of partisan twist. That's why designing this beast is proving so tough. In the end, if it doesn't have at least these two things, it won't work...
Tort reform
Higher taxes


And neither of the two will make health care more affordable to anyone.

[Guest]

And neither of the two will make health care more affordable to anyone.

Are you really saying that with the fear of being sued removed and therefore many needless expensive test eliminated, the cost of healthcare would not go down drastically?

[Guest]

So, given that the country needs healthcare reform and must do something, but that we really won't know what "something" is until long after the legislation is passed, I pose this question...

Which of the following choices would you endorse as the basis of healthcare insurance crafted by Congress?
Continuation of the Medicare program. But in addition, the creation of a "government option" insurance policy that citizens could choose at their option in place of any private insurance they currently have, or might buy instead of the new option. Citizens who could not afford insurance would be required to take the government option. The government would pay the premiums for insurance for all those who could not afford to pay them.

Medicare would be discontinued. No "government option" would be offered to insure those Americans that are not currently insured. Private, for-profit insurance companies would be required to design insurance policies to offer to all citizens. To the extent that some people could not afford to buy the private insurance, the government would pay the premiums to the private insurers. If you have Medicare now, it would be discontinued and replaced with private insurance whose coverages, terms and cost would be determined later.


Neither of these options is going to happen, of course. But I pose the question to determine how many of us would really be willing to give up government insurance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid and place the decision for what their healthcare will be and what it will cost in the hands of the private sector.

Where do you stand?

Very well put, vk. You ask? I offer my stand...... to not allow the private sector to take control. What a horrible thought!!! It has been obvious that they would rob the people blind with their corporate golden fleece. It has been definitely proven what greed lurks in the upper echelon of the private sectors. No way!!!

[Guest]

Very well put, vk. You ask? I offer my stand...... to not allow the private sector to take control. What a horrible thought!!! It has been obvious that they would rob the people blind with their corporate golden fleece. It has been definitely proven what greed lurks in the upper echelon of the private sectors. No way!!!

Hmmmm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201536.html
Unlike the public sector? How about recently convicted US Representative William Jefferson. The public servant who got caught with $90,000 dollars cold cash in his freezer? Estimated that he also received over half a million in bribes?
The public sector Congress who just order jets for their private travels with taxpayer money after bad-mouthing the automakers for taking their private jet to congressional hearings?
The same public employees that just gave us the biggest deficit ever?

[Guest]

Are you really saying that with the fear of being sued removed and therefore many needless expensive test eliminated, the cost of healthcare would not go down drastically?


So, what "needless" tests have you had because your doctor(s) was/were afraid that you would sue them?

[Guest]

Let there be no doubt. Our health care program will change under this new regime, how far it is tweaked however; may be within our finger tips. If this government sees how riled up the seniors are over this proposed piece of garbage program they may not have a choice but to change things in committee and that is where the final bill must emerge from. We must be vigilant and keep the pressure up on our Senators and Representatives in Washington and Tallahassee. We cannot and will not be warehoused!

[Guest]

Are you really saying that with the fear of being sued removed and therefore many needless expensive test eliminated, the cost of healthcare would not go down drastically?

Where "tort reform" caps to medical malpractice have been made law, nothing has changed lawsuit-wise (average number of lawsuits). Cost of health care has not decreased. "Defensive medicine" (which I call 'consumer fraud') and "battery") is still alive and thriving. The only "winner" was that medical malpractice rates went down in those jurisdictions, but as private and CBO research has shown, medical malpractice (claims and insurance) only amounts to less-than-2% of health care costs. So, reductions from 2% to 1.5% is not a consumer-gain, but has increased insurance company (and possibly medical care provider) profits.

To possibly eliminate "defensive medicine" (the big concern) will require blanket amnesty to medical malpractice lawsuits. Are folk willing to relinquish any and all claims for damages incurred?

.So, it goes back to how much "risk" does the public want to accept. Do "we" want possibly lower costs at the trade-off of no claim for error or harm?

[Guest]

Hmmmm
....How about recently convicted US Representative William Jefferson. The public servant who got caught with $90,000 dollars cold cash in his freezer? Estimated that he also received over half a million in bribes?That's peanuts. Last time I looked, the average amount spent by lobbyists per member of Congress was $4.4 million! Until the electorate gets as up in arms about campaign finance reform as they seem to be about healthcare reform, nothing will change. The corporate types and the members of Congress are all committed to greed and self-service. That being said, it might be a heckuva lot easier to get rid of members of Congress than to oust corporate leaders.

If no one likes the idea of campaign finance reform, how about term limits?

In the meantime, we'll be left to choose between trusting Congress or the leaders of the private sector to resolve our healthcare issues. Whichever one chooses, they're left with a Hobson's choice. And doing nothing may be the worst choice of all.

[Guest]

So, what "needless" tests have you had because your doctor(s) was/were afraid that you would sue them?I had major orhtopedic surgery in late April. Prior to the surgery, the surgeon required a complete physical examination from a doctor on the staff of the same hospital where the surgery was to be performed in Chicago. I had a complete physical exam three months earlier done by a doctor in The Villages. None of the results of that exam were deemed acceptable. In the new physical the internist thought it would be a good idea if I had a stress test. Forget that I have had no experience or tests that suggest a heart problem.

If ALL these tests and procedures weren't unnecessary, they were at the very least a huge abundance of caution.

Medicare paid for it all. The "old" physical and tests, as well as another three months later.

[Guest]

I have talked to many people about medical tests and have talked to my own doctor and I am convinced that the cost of medical care and unnecessary tests are related big time.
I won't go into details about my case except to say that after my father died of heart related illness, I had it in my head that there must be something wrong with my heart...well it took many tests and a special trip into a major hospital in Boston to convince me my heart was healthy.
Needlesss to say, I finally pulled all my medical records from my long-time primary doctor and found another. This doctor never hesitated to just throw out prescriptions and tests like they were going out of style.
My new primary doctor frowns on unnecessary medicine and is a proponent of healthy lifestyles. I now only take 10mg of a statin to keep my cholesterol in check and I power walk one hour a day.(4 1/2 miles). He is amazed at my blood pressure and I know longer fantasize about heart disease.
This overweight red-nosed doctor is still practicing and handing out medicine and costly medical tests like candy. I don't blame the doctor for the culture of looking over your shoulder to see if there is a lawyer behind him.

[Guest]

VK Yes it was peanuts.But he got caught. There is billions of pork that is distributed for the sole purpose of buying votes.

[Guest]

I guess for me the bottom line is, do you trust government?

I see them over the years making pretty much a mess out of everything they touch. They lie, they are irresponsible with our money, they are self serving and things always cost about double what they say it will.

Do I trust Congress?. NO
Do I trust them with health care. NO.
Do I trust all of BO's non elected Czars? NO.
Do I trust BO? NO
Do I trust ANY politician? Generally NO.

BO made a promise over and over. If you make less that $250k a year your taxes won't go up one dime. HE LIED.

Forest for the trees folks.

Would you trust a wife or husband that behaved like congress? There's your bottom line.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=gnu;219004]if these are the type of changes to be made in health care I don't want any part of it. Even with the lowest level Blue Cross HMO that I have it has been great. I certainly am not willing to take a chance on the government forcing me into less than I already have.


Under the so-called public option, it is an option.There is no forcing at all. Period!

[Guest]

I guess for me the bottom line is, do you trust government?
Would you trust a wife or husband that behaved like congress? There's your bottom line.

NO!:agree:

[Guest]

Not sure what your money says but mine says "In God we Trust."

Put your trust in man and you will get screwed every time. But I'm sure health care will be different.

[Guest]

I had major orhtopedic surgery in late April. Prior to the surgery, the surgeon required a complete physical examination from a doctor on the staff of the same hospital where the surgery was to be performed in Chicago. I had a complete physical exam three months earlier done by a doctor in The Villages. None of the results of that exam were deemed acceptable. In the new physical the internist thought it would be a good idea if I had a stress test. Forget that I have had no experience or tests that suggest a heart problem.

If ALL these tests and procedures weren't unnecessary, they were at the very least a huge abundance of caution.

Medicare paid for it all. The "old" physical and tests, as well as another three months later.

And what if the stress test had revealed a problem that your other "complete" physical had not picked up? Would you have classed it as unnecessary then? My brother-in-law died needlessly at 67 of lung cancer because in all the prior "complete" physicals (every year for 3 years), not once had he had a chest x-ray. When he collapsed and was admitted to the hospital, then they did a routine chest x-ray and found it. By then it was inoperable. The explanation given to him and his wife was that if he had been a smoker, coughing, or coughing up blood then they would have done one. Like you, since he checked out healthy otherwise, they didn't deem it necessary. I do agree that it is ridiculous that most of the time the doctors won't accept what has been done by another since reputable labs come up with the results, not the doctor. All they would have to do then is do only those that had not already been done within a short timeframe, as in your case.