C'mon, Give Socialized Medicine A Chance!

[Zoom-boing]

With this HC legislation the government is mandating health care insurance. Following that, will they then mandate what we are or are not allowed to eat/smoke/drink whatever they deem, because it contributes to obesity/cancer/addiction, under the guise of 'reducing health care costs'? This is one big-assed scam for uncle to gain more and more control over your personal choices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean that now everyone can see a doctor?

Everyone could always see a doctor.

Sorry, I must've meant "You mean that now everyone can AFFORD to see a doctor?"

Let me try again.

First, everyone always had access to an emergency room, in an emergency.

Always.

Second, the vast majority of those with employer-subsidized healthcare could see a doctor, and 85% of those polled were very happy with same. Operative terms, vast, and very.

Third, FactCheck found "But the average monthly payment for workers with employer-sponsored coverage is a more modest $280 for a family policy."

Fourth, there are various government plans that currently cover children, even those of relatively wealthy families, and the elderly.

And, of course, Health Savings Plans. And the wise take a high deductible Catastrophe policy.

(It's unfortunate that government rules do not allow interstate competition for same.)

Also, many without health coverage are able to negotiate fees similar to those who are covered. I recently saw an article in Lancaster, Pa. that discussed the way the Amish use the leverage of cash, and fairly large groups, to get health plan rates at local hospitals.

Lastly, what is your number commensurate with life-saving healthcare, that you would find fits the equation that includes decade-training of doctors and miraculous drugs and procedures and lines up with the term 'afford'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes and guess who passed that legislation in Masschuchetts, gov Mitt Romney. I am in Colorado and if I get sick, I can get in and see my doctor today.

Tort reform, is a major cause of the rising health care costs that we face, that needs to be reformed, it won't because there are too many ambulance chasers in Washington D.C.

People should be required to carry major medical insurance on themselves and their families to prevent catastrophic losses.

Many 20 and 30 year old healthy individuals could pick up major medical with a high deductible cheaply, yet they think that they will never get injured or sick so they choose not to and the rest of us get to pay in higher premiums when they show up in our emergency rooms.

Don't think for a minute that this debate over health care is because the democrats or President Obama cares about YOU. They are attempting to secure their voting block. That's all it is.

Greeting, many good points in your post.

Question. I would be only too happy to pin the problem on the donkey lawyers, but I have tried and been unable to get a handle on what percentage of healthcare costs are directly attributable to lawsuits, and malpractice insurance costs. Do you know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

* Those times were for non-emergency, non-disabling issues - like a moderately sore wrist, for example. Times would shorten in more serious cases.

Just read a story in Canadian press (from Le Journal de Montréal ) re: patients with extreme incontinence, up at least 12 times a night, have to wait 3 years for a 1/2 hour operation.
"In the Province of Quebec, patients suffering from serious incontinence - ie, they have to aller aux toilettes jusqu’� 12 fois par nuit (that’s 12 times a night) - have to wait three years for a half-hour operation. That’s 3 years times 365 nights times 12 trips to the bathroom.
The central point about socialized medicine is that restricting access is the only means of controlling costs."
In Canada, Citizens Wait 3 Years For A Half Hour Surgery To Fix Incontinence | KXNet.com North Dakota News


And:
" Mrs. Pipes related the story of her mother who felt ill in July ’05, but was advised by her primary care doctor that she did not have colon cancer. She requested a colonoscopy, and was told: “At your age we can’t give you a colonoscopy, but we can give an x-ray.” Nothing showed up on the x-ray. In November ’08, very ill with bleeding, she was advised to go to the emergency room by ambulance. There, she spent two days in the “transit lounge.” (…Transit Lounge opened today (Monday) to provide a peaceful place for discharged patients who need somewhere to wait before going home.) She received a colonoscopy, but died within two weeks. "
Sally Pipes is President of the Pacific Research Institute and the author of “The Top 10 Myths of American Healthcare.” A Canadian by birth, and an American citizen.

In America we expect Transit Lounges, for long waits, in airports, not hospitals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your first link, PC, was pretty interesting and informative. There seems to be no conclusive evidence that socializing medicine is harmful and in fact the authors speculate that MA will eventually produce positive results. Thanks for the link.

Conclusive, in this case, is speculating on the future. The Massachusetts situation is now.

I think that the experience is a replication of that of the European experiment, and you saw the recent elections seem to indicate a move to the right and a disappointment with the welfare state.

"When the New Left emerged in the 1960s, something else was born that would mark American elites for decades thereafter: the notion that social-democratic Western Europe was far superior to the capitalist United States. For much of the American Left, Western Europe was nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia.

This rosy view was never accurate, of course. Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy."

"…social-democratic welfare systems work best, to the extent they do work, in ethnically and culturally homogeneous (and preferably small) nations whose citizens, viewing one another as members of an extended family, are loath to exploit government provisions for the needy."
Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to step out on a limb here. Way out on a limb. I have on flame proof undies so bring on the heat. You can quote me on this if you care to. This socialized medicine crap that Obama is trying to push down the throats of the American public is not going to pass and become law. I can't believe as a country we would allow this to happen. I feel this way for a couple of reasons. First, we can't afford it. It will only work if the program can be paid for. Well, it can't be paid for. It's way too expensive. Secondly, Americans are beginning to open their eyes a bit and are finding out more and more everyday that socialized medicine is not as good as it appears on the surface. It's a bad deal. It's all a big lie being tossed about by the liberal Democrats in Washington. People are beginning to see this. Why do you think Obama wants it ran through Congress so fast? It's because he knows people are on to him. Like I said, this is never going to be. Now, I'll just sit back and watch my prediction come true. Remember, you heard it here first.

Nice, and very thorough.

But for me, the overriding question is why the left is so intent on these kind of programs.
Assuming everything in your post, and also assuming our left-wing colleagues and President are intelligent, and well informed, what is the impetus?

Why would the above need to force the majority into nationalized healthcare, the bogus cap and trade, the huge deficit spending?

We on the right, of course, see totalitarian thinking behind it. But hasn't history and experience tought our friends the error of this?

 

[PoliticalChic]

With this HC legislation the government is mandating health care insurance. Following that, will they then mandate what we are or are not allowed to eat/smoke/drink whatever they deem, because it contributes to obesity/cancer/addiction, under the guise of 'reducing health care costs'? This is one big-assed scam for uncle to gain more and more control over your personal choices.

Wait a minute.

Aren't they promising us prime healthcare at a subprime price.

This sound familiar.

 

[Maple]

as an amendment----


It's called the ' THE SHOULD YOU NEED IT LIST.' Under this amendment you should sign on to every waiting list, for example, you just might need a hip replacement operation and it will take you 5 years to get it. If you sign on now, even though you don't need the hip replacement now, you just might in 5 years, so get on these lists early and avoid the long, long waits you will have for any procedure. Sign up for all of them. The cancer list, all surgery lists, etc.

 

[toomuchtime_]

With this HC legislation the government is mandating health care insurance. Following that, will they then mandate what we are or are not allowed to eat/smoke/drink whatever they deem, because it contributes to obesity/cancer/addiction, under the guise of 'reducing health care costs'? This is one big-assed scam for uncle to gain more and more control over your personal choices.

Wait a minute.

Aren't they promising us prime healthcare at a subprime place.

This sound familiar.

This is already happening. The American College of Cardiology is the professional organization that sets the protocols for diagnosis and treatment nearly all cardiologists follow, and they are advising their membership:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released its 2010 proposed Medicare physician payment rule, which would slash payments for cardiovascular-related services. CMS projects that the proposed changes would reduce total Medicare payments to cardiology by 11 percent. In addition, CMS proposes a 21.5 percent reduction in the Medicare conversion factor due to the flawed SGR formula. In short, practices could face cuts ranging from 20 – 40 percent. For more on the rule, click here.

This Week at ACC

Under present law, Congress can accept or reject these proposals from CMS, but Obama is urging Congress to allow CMS to implement these changes and all future changes at its discretion. So if your cardiologist is going to be paid 40% less for his/her services, is he/she going to just accept a lower income and buy a cheaper car and a smaller house and send his/her kids to state colleges? Is he/she going to work 40% more hours in order to try to maintain his/her present income? Or is he/she going to try to see 40% more patients in the same number of hours he/she currently works? If the last, will this compromise the quality of health care he/she provides? How can it not.

So not only will we pay for Obama's plans with higher health insurance premiums, higher taxes, more debt, US businesses burdened with higher labor costs that make them less competitive, meaning fewer jobs and a higher cost of living, but we will also pay for Obama's plans with reduced quality of health care from over burdened providers.

Everything about the Obama-Pelosi-Kennedy plan to overhaul health care in America is driven by political and ideological ambitions and none of it driven by real concerns for better outcomes in health care or in our economy. That's why Obama is unconcerned about pressuring cardiologists to give 40% less time to their patients in order to try to maintain their incomes.

 

[sealybobo]

If 72% say they want single payer, it should at least be an option on the table.

It must actually be a fix to our problems with the insurance companies crapping their pants over it the way they are.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Dog, it was a joke, a joke.

Tongue in cheek.

Making fun of the left, get it?

I'm a tad slow sometimes. I get the joke.

You guys are just selfish stupid people who are afraid you'll pay more and get less. Greedy and ignorant.

I'm afraid you are wrong. You have really bought into this nonsense, hook. line and sinker. I truly feel sorry for you. You beat the drum so loudly and blindly that you can't see what is happening right in front of your very eyes. First, the government took over the banks. Then they took over the auto industry. Now, they are making a move on health care. The country is turning into a socialist nation and most decent people have no use for it. You are blindly following a President who is intent on destroying this nation and he proves it daily. I hope you wake up before it is too late. I don't want my country to be like the other European countries and Canada. I know well how badly the medical care in both Canada and England is run. Trust me, you don't want this for America. You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Zoom-boing]

dog, it was a joke, a joke.

Tongue in cheek.

Making fun of the left, get it?

i'm a tad slow sometimes. I get the joke.

you guys are just selfish stupid people who are afraid you'll pay more and get less. Greedy and ignorant.

i'm afraid you are wrong. You have really bought into this nonsense, hook. Line and sinker. I truly feel sorry for you. You beat the drum so loudly and blindly that you can't see what is happening right in front of your very eyes. First, the government took over the banks. Then they took over the auto industry. Now, they are making a move on health care. The country is turning into a socialist nation and most decent people have no use for it. You are blindly following a president who is intent on destroying this nation and he proves it daily. I hope you wake up before it is too late. I don't want my country to be like the other european countries and canada. I know well how badly the medical care in both canada and england is run. Trust me, you don't want this for america. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Exactly!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

If 72% say they want single payer, it should at least be an option on the table.

It must actually be a fix to our problems with the insurance companies crapping their pants over it the way they are.

And exactly what are your objections to the insurance companies?

 

[Big Black Dog]

And exactly what are your objections to the insurance companies?

I know a little bit about insurance companies. For a very brief time in my life I sold insurance for two major, well-known companies. I went to the sales school that each of the companies send their new providers to and I sold some policies for both of the companies. I was not a happy insurance sales employee. I found their sales tactics to be legal and ethical, but just barely so. I felt like a real creep trying to push off the policies onto people knowing full well that should there be a claim against the policy the insurance company would do all they could do to deny the claim, or a good portion of it. So, I am not a big fan of insurance companies. I detest paying a premium every month and then having to pay a co-pay charge when you have very seldom even used the policy. I hate the money you have to pay out of your pocket before the insurance companies will even begin to pay. They call it a deductible. I call it theft and borderline fraud. So, please don't get the idea I am a big fan of insurance companies. I have go-rounds with my own company from time to time and the person who is my insurance salesman and policy servicer is a friend I know well. I think there should be some overhaul of the insurance companies. It is widely known that hospitals and doctors charge a certain fee for the services of people that have insurance and higher fees for people who don't have insurance. Insurance companies will only pay so much for a particular medical service and the health care providers know it. What I would like to see is lower cost for health care, the end to co-pays and deductibles, and a requirement that everybody be able to obtain affordable health care, privately, on their own. You don't need the Federal government to manage health care. You need the Federal government to put some controls on the insurance companies by passing consumer friendly insurance laws. After that point, the government needs to get out of the way and let the system run itself. There will always be people who can't afford insurance or for some reason do not have health insurance. It's a sad part of life but the Constitution does not provide for individual health care or insurance. The Constitution is not a "Living Document" as some would like for you to believe. It spells things out very clearly and in most cases leaves little to figure out. The government needs to follow it and not the desires of liberal minded individuals.

 

[Political Junky]

Everyone could always see a doctor.

Sorry, I must've meant "You mean that now everyone can AFFORD to see a doctor?"

Who can't afford to see a doctor? If they're poor, there's a government program just for them. If not, they should have the money to do so. If they'd rather buy an SUV than get health insurance, that is their right. The government has no right to tell a person that they have to buy health insurance.

Are you the one who invented the story of welfare moms in Cadillacs?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And exactly what are your objections to the insurance companies?

I know a little bit about insurance companies. For a very brief time in my life I sold insurance for two major, well-known companies. I went to the sales school that each of the companies send their new providers to and I sold some policies for both of the companies. I was not a happy insurance sales employee. I found their sales tactics to be legal and ethical, but just barely so. I felt like a real creep trying to push off the policies onto people knowing full well that should there be a claim against the policy the insurance company would do all they could do to deny the claim, or a good portion of it. So, I am not a big fan of insurance companies. I detest paying a premium every month and then having to pay a co-pay charge when you have very seldom even used the policy. I hate the money you have to pay out of your pocket before the insurance companies will even begin to pay. They call it a deductible. I call it theft and borderline fraud. So, please don't get the idea I am a big fan of insurance companies. I have go-rounds with my own company from time to time and the person who is my insurance salesman and policy servicer is a friend I know well. I think there should be some overhaul of the insurance companies. It is widely known that hospitals and doctors charge a certain fee for the services of people that have insurance and higher fees for people who don't have insurance. Insurance companies will only pay so much for a particular medical service and the health care providers know it. What I would like to see is lower cost for health care, the end to co-pays and deductibles, and a requirement that everybody be able to obtain affordable health care, privately, on their own. You don't need the Federal government to manage health care. You need the Federal government to put some controls on the insurance companies by passing consumer friendly insurance laws. After that point, the government needs to get out of the way and let the system run itself. There will always be people who can't afford insurance or for some reason do not have health insurance. It's a sad part of life but the Constitution does not provide for individual health care or insurance. The Constitution is not a "Living Document" as some would like for you to believe. It spells things out very clearly and in most cases leaves little to figure out. The government needs to follow it and not the desires of liberal minded individuals.

" You need the Federal government to put some controls on the insurance companies by passing consumer friendly insurance laws. "

How about a few suggestions.

BTW, not to change the point of this thread, I really like the comment " The Constitution is not a "Living Document" as some would like for you to believe. "

The following are from a speech by John Goodman, President of the Center for Policy Analysis.
a. Liberate patients by designating what they can pay for with the money, and then giving them more control over the money, at least one-third of their Medicare dollars. People with ‘health savings accounts’ managing their own money make radically different choices: they are more prudent and economical.
b. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.
Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!
If consumers save and spend their own money, and doctors are allowed to act like entrepreneurs, health care can be prevented from rising faster than our incomes.

The free market examples in health care:
a. Cosmetic surgery behaves like a real market. It is not covered by insurance, consumers compare prices and services, and doctors act as entrepreneurs. Over the last 15 years, the real price of cosmetic surgery has gone down, even though the number of people getting cosmetic surgery five- or six-fold.
b. In Dallas, a health care provider has two million customers who pay a small fee each month for the ability to talk to a doctor on the telephone. Patients must have an electronic medical record, so that whichever doctor answers the phone can view his medical records. The company is growing due to the fact that it provides a service the traditional health care system doesn’t provide.
c. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance.
d. Concierge doctors, doctors who don’t want to deal with third party insurers. In Dallas, these doctors charge $40 per employee per month, give telephone and e-mail access, and keep electronic medical records.
e. Medical tourism: hospitals in India, Singapore and Thailand are competing worldwide for patients. They have lower costs, and high quality, with doctors board-certified in the United States, and publicize their error rates, mortality rates, infection rates, etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, I must've meant "You mean that now everyone can AFFORD to see a doctor?"

Who can't afford to see a doctor? If they're poor, there's a government program just for them. If not, they should have the money to do so. If they'd rather buy an SUV than get health insurance, that is their right. The government has no right to tell a person that they have to buy health insurance.

Are you the one who invented the story of welfare moms in Cadillacs?

Are you the one who doesn't believe that we landed on the moon 40 years ago?

 

[Terry]

I guess you can call the insurance military people have as Gov. insurance. right? Well here is my story with it. I needed surgery, tri-care told me to find a surgeon. I call every surgeon in my area and as soon as they heard I was on Tri-Care they denied me. I had one receptionist that was honest with me and said. Dr. so and so will not accept any more patients on Tri-Care because Dr. So and So has yet to receive any payment from Tri-care over the past 7 years. This was in the late 90's.

Then in 2001, again I needed surgery, and found a surgeon. His cost normally for this surgery was $7,800.00 all labs were included in this cost. Tri-Care paid this surgeon $768.00 only. What happened, what he took out and was suppose to be sent to the lab never was...yes this negligence, I could sue but I was in a State that had a cap on it, after attorney's fees what would I get? Absolutely zip. Not worth the stress and some Doctor's know this. Now think Obama Care, and my surgeries were a must. I would probably be dead if I had to wait longer than a month. Do people honestly want to risk that type of care on their mother, sister, brother, and themselves?

 

[chanel]

Nope.