Why This Moment Matters (Fallows)/Health Care Reform Poll - Merged threads

okay, doug- i'll play...then can we agree to just ignore each other's threads, since we obviously don't have much/any common ground? :beer:

the republicans had complete control under bush for 6 years and did nothing to improve health care. their only "accomplishment" was to put in prescription drug care for medicare--the biggest entitlement program in 40 years, to the tune of $1 trillion. they put off any meaningful reform, and since then they've just been the party of "no".

 

That's not what I said. Here is exactly what I did say:

We have higher costs (by a large amount) and similar (or worse) outcomes.

 

An article copied from US News and World Report:
5 Overblown Fears About Healthcare Reform

Rick Newman, On Monday March 22, 2010, 4:22 pm EDT
In Washington, everybody knows about unintended consequences: the outcomes you fail to anticipate when you change the way something works. But there's another phenomenon that works somewhat in reverse: Preregulatory paranoia, or the fear that new rules meant to make the system better will instead produce mayhem and disaster.
It will be a long time before we know whether the historic healthcare reform finally passed by Congress will make the system better or worse. But the rhetoric surrounding the yearlong ordeal has already set new standards for overwrought fearmongering. There's a long history of pre-emptive hyperbole in Washington, in which the combatants on each side of an issue paint a dismal scenario if things don't go their way. But the dire predictions almost never materialize. Businesses adjust. Lawyers find loopholes. Lobbyists get new rules watered down. Entrepreneurs come up with better ways to make money, regardless of constraints. And if the new rules really do fail, we have this little process called electoral politics to make sure the government responds to voters' concerns.


Still, the overheated claims and counterclaims about healthcare reform have produced widespread confusion about what the new legislation will actually do. Here are a few of the most overblown concerns:
The government will take over one sixth of the economy. That would be alarming if it were true. But government involvement in healthcare will increase gradually over time and remain modest, especially since there's no "public option" in the current plan that would set up a government-run insurer. If you have doubts, consider the attitude of professional investors, who would stand to lose a lot if the government took over healthcare. They don't exactly seem worried. Shares of health insurers like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Wellpoint, and Cigna--subject to the strongest new rules under reform--have outperformed the stock market over the past year. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries also are considered winners because there will be millions of new customers who suddenly have insurance that can pay for treatment. That led the entire stock market higher the day after reform passed. In fact, it's hard to identify any part of the private-sector healthcare industry that stands to lose under reform.
The federal debt will explode. It might, but not because of healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office--which is probably the most reliable, nonpartisan number-crunching outfit in Washington--says the reforms will reduce government deficits by $143 billion through 2019, thanks to new taxes and fees and cost savings in government healthcare programs like Medicare. But opponents of the bill and powerful lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say otherwise, and they seem to have had a stronger influence on public opinion than CBO's methodical analysis. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 55 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the CBO has said the healthcare legislation will add to the deficit. Only 15 percent know that CBO has said the opposite.


Doctors will revolt. Doctors don't like the current system, in which insurance companies call the shots. But instead of sweeping reform and more government involvement, they prefer gradual reform that puts more control in the hands of ... doctors. In one recent survey, nearly one third of physicians said they'd consider leaving medicine if reform passes, which it now has. Doctors worry that the new rules will cut into their incomes--which may happen, eventually. But it's implausible that thousand of doctors who have dedicated years to a complex profession will simply quit. What will they do? Become accountants? Open a Subway franchise? Besides, with millions of new patients seeking care, the demand for doctors will actually rise, not decline. And if cost controls discourage the docs who are in it to get rich, maybe that will help bring costs down for everybody else. Meanwhile, the American Medical Association and dozens of other physicians' lobbying groups will continue to look out for doctors' interests in Washington.
Businesses will suffer. The new rules will impose fees on businesses with more than 50 employees if their workers receive government subsidies to buy insurance in lieu of employer-provided coverage. Business groups complain that this could stunt economic growth and slow hiring. But businesses are more resourceful than that. It's true that many companies will have to absorb additional costs, which they do every year anyway when health insurance premiums go up. But well-run companies excel at solving problems. That's what makes them successful. Smart entrepreneurs salivate at the chance to outcompete bigger firms that can't manage challenges like this. And companies already pass on the rising costs of healthcare to their employees; there's no reason to expect that will change if they can't manage costs some other way. There's also an outside chance that the new insurance exchanges will make life easier for small businesses, as intended, by giving their workers a way to buy coverage at rates comparable to what big companies are able to negotiate.
[See 8 sneaky ways to raise taxes.]
Socalized medicine is on the way. In the Kaiser poll, 41 percent of respondents said they believe the new law would require people who already get insurance through their employer to change their coverage. But most people who already have health coverage won't have to change anything, unless they want to. The new rules will have the most direct impact on people who don't have coverage, or who don't get it through an employer. Those who fear the advent of "socialized medicine" mainly seem to worry that the current set of reforms is just Phase 1, to be followed by bigger changes that will replace doctors with bureaucrats and render individual patients even more powerless than they are now. This is supposed to happen despite the likelihood that the Democrats who supported reform will lose seats in the November elections, while Republicans who opposed reform will gain seats. It seems much more likely that after surviving the battles of the last year, the current for-profit healthcare industry will be with us for the foreseeable future.

 

Dirtvert... your dead on ... but just cuz the republicans are idiots does not make the democrats smart. Unfortunately, they're just two men wearing the same hat.

And whether we like it or not we REALLY need to start saying NO alot more often. We simply cannot afford to say yes to everything, even though we want to and it hurts us to say no. That is the reality, unfortunately the party you accuse of saying no is just saying no to regain power. Then they will start saying yes to their hand picked favorites, just like the other party.

Sad that something as important as healthcare gets caught up in the whirlwind of power grabs and political madness. I say term limits, no add on legislation and a decrease in pay will make public service more true public service than a career.

Silver: You still need to back up the statement that "every other first world country is better than us". In heathcare, you mean, right?

 

](*,)

Again, here is what I actually wrote. I'll bold the important part for you:

With regards to healthcare, every other first world country is better than than us. We have higher costs (by a large amount) and similar (or worse) outcomes.

So, what do you think I was talking about? Cricket? Truffle sniffing pigs? Sugarcane output?

 

Thats great we've both quoted you 2wice now... back it up! I've spent a bit of time in the hospital in 3 countries and I think the level of service and quality of care in the US is pretty damn good! Expensive (perhaps way too expensive) but pretty damn good nonetheless. "Life expectancy" is NOT healthcare. Back your statement up.

BTW: the reason I'm pressing you is I feel many people think the way you do and I believe they are mislead. I believe our healthcare is great, some of the surrounding stuff has problems that increase the cost disproportionate to the actual care received.

 

Ooops

Barack, I heard you say they were covered ...

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot not exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year

 

..

 

I'd agree. It's good. It's not 10x as good though, like we pay. I too have spent time in other countries hospitals. When Canada, Japan, Switzerland, etc get to buy the same equipment we get, but for 1/10th the price, simply because GE knows they can bilk American providers for every penny, and our hospitals will just pay it and roll the cost, well, hooray, you're getting the "best" (as far as you know) equipment, but we've established a reputation as the gullible suckers in the deal. Americans will buy anything, for any price. When was the last time you were in a hospital and asked how much an MRI cost? When they finally find someone who knows, and they tell you $1800, do you shop that around to save the rest of us any money? Nobody does, because that's not the way it's done. They tell you you need an MRI, you do it. Nobody much thinks about the cost. The more expensive it is, the happier people are to have gotten something really expensive done for their tiny co-pay. Nevermind there's a specialist down the street with an identical or better MRI machine that'll do it for you for $475. Just don't worry about how much anything will cost. Insurance will cover it. The suckers will pay. All that $ sure does pay for some neat things. Good thing there's an endless supply of it.

This thread has tanked.

 

I agree ManInAShed ... I finance that equipment for US hospitals and negotiate the prices with suppliers. I also review and see a plethora of Hospital financial statements. There are a lot of problems with the system!!

Unfortunately, this bill does not fix them, or even start to..... sorry!

 

I'll bet with some effective health care rationing, we can be just like the blue lines.

Also, notice that in socialized medicine countries, people go to the doctor more. I don't get how anybody thinks that that leads to reduced costs. More people insured, less healthy people insured, more doctor visits equals lower health care costs?!?

 

Don't know about anybody else's experience with health care over the past 30 years, but based on many experience's within our health care system starting with a knee surgery in 1982, today's medical treatment in the USA is so far superior to that of 30 years ago that we might as well be on different planets. 30 years ago there were no routine arthroscopic and out patient procedures...there were xrays but no mri, ctscan, ptscan...physical therapy was yet to emerge with the technological breakthroughs that improve the healing time...prenatal care was a relative guessing game...cancer was still, for the most part a death sentence.

In 2003 I was diagnosed with cancer, so I am very aware of the pros and cons of our current healthcare system. I'll always remember what my oncologist told me when giving me my prognosis: "If this were 20 years ago", he said, "you'd be dead in less than a year." Doesn't sound to me like we have such a dismal healthcare system and the advancements (yes, driven by the profit motive) have saved more lives than this bill can ever hope to on it's own. What we do have is a challenge covering enough people without bankrupting the system, which is exactly what I fear this bill will do, and in my lifetime. If it is as good a bill as the Dems say it is, why all the secrecy and backroom deals within their own party to get it passed. And as for those wondering why the Repubs didn't participate in the process, the Obama administration made it clear within it's first month that "Elections have consequences" and in many instances when this plan was first being developed, Dems refused to even let Repubs sit in on the meetings. I think I've been called a "tea bagger" somewhere in this thread, which is interesting since I'm a registered independent. I'm neither Democrat or Republican but I am, like millions of other Americans, pissed off and fed up that those in power on both sides in Washington not only don't listen to the will of the people (yes, every poll for the past six weeks was 60-40 against this bill), but that they stand there and give us the bird while demanding an ever increasing portion of our time and treasure. A pox on both of their houses. If you're cheering the passage of this bill, don't be deluded: there is a serious anger boiling across the country at the manner in which this goal was achieved. There will be consequences, especially if a leader emerges who can channel that anger into a specific action plan.

 

If you get that care.

A group like Remote Area Medical shouldn't have to be active in the United States.

(Great organization, by the way. http://www.ramusa.org/ )

You believe our healthcare is great because you personally have had good care and you're also in the industry. You're hardly an honest broker in the discussion.

 

Not sure how this relates - if you choose to live in a remote area, aren't you choosing to live where all services (not just medical care) will be limited?

 

Inglewood?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/13clinic.html

 

Do Something

 

..

 

Your argument is that the socialized, rationed systems have lower costs and more doctor visits and that is a bad thing?

Just wanted to make sure I'm reading you correctly.

Actually, having everyone covered spreads risk around better than having old and sick people covered and young healthy people opting out and still getting covered emergency care. That's sort of the fundamental point.

 

I thought it was great, and wish I still had it.

I almost lost my life, and then my hip. Somehow they managed to keep me alive and save me from a hip replacement at the age of 18- that would have been a bummer.

So two surgeries and two weeks in the hospital cost me about $631 out of pocket.

The ambulance ride to the hospital: over a grand.

I'll take the public option, please.

 

:lol: Really?

This is why I love the PUB! lol :bang: