Health care reform, necessary?

[the rev]

I, as a christian, have a fundamental problem with for-profit heath care. And so should anybody else who calls themselves christian. Most of the Republican party are selling their souls in the name of partisanship and capitalism. Profit gets in the way of actually doing whats best for the patient. My grandfather who lived through the great depression used to tell me,"there are two things that should not be for profit, commodities and health/human services". Too bad they understood that after the fact.

Government doesn't have to run health care IF a privatized, non-profit company wants to step up. Non-profit doesn't mean nobody gets paid. They still make salaries, hell, even the CEO could pay himself 2 million a year. Key difference being no shareholders and no big bonus checks. Therefore, there is no profit to sell out humanity for. Takes the greed factor right out of health care. If no company wants to step up, then I have no problem with government giving the poor and sick a OPTION. And that's what it is, an option, not a takeover. Conservatives can spin it all they want. We're not stupid!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I, as a christian, have a fundamental problem with for-profit heath care. And so should anybody else who calls themselves christian. Most of the Republican party are selling their souls in the name of partisanship and capitalism. Profit gets in the way of actually doing whats best for the patient. My grandfather who lived through the great depression used to tell me,"there are two things that should not be for profit, commodities and health/human services". Too bad they understood that after the fact.

Government doesn't have to run health care IF a privatized, non-profit company wants to step up. Non-profit doesn't mean nobody gets paid. They still make salaries, hell, even the CEO could pay himself 2 million a year. Key difference being no shareholders and no big bonus checks. Therefore, there is no profit to sell out humanity for. Takes the greed factor right out of health care. If no company wants to step up, then I have no problem with government giving the poor and sick a OPTION. And that's what it is, an option, not a takeover. Conservatives can spin it all they want. We're not stupid!

I agree with you 100%. One wonders what Jesus would say about for profit health care.

 

[the rev]

I, as a christian, have a fundamental problem with for-profit heath care. And so should anybody else who calls themselves christian. Most of the Republican party are selling their souls in the name of partisanship and capitalism. Profit gets in the way of actually doing whats best for the patient. My grandfather who lived through the great depression used to tell me,"there are two things that should not be for profit, commodities and health/human services". Too bad they understood that after the fact.

Government doesn't have to run health care IF a privatized, non-profit company wants to step up. Non-profit doesn't mean nobody gets paid. They still make salaries, hell, even the CEO could pay himself 2 million a year. Key difference being no shareholders and no big bonus checks. Therefore, there is no profit to sell out humanity for. Takes the greed factor right out of health care. If no company wants to step up, then I have no problem with government giving the poor and sick a OPTION. And that's what it is, an option, not a takeover. Conservatives can spin it all they want. We're not stupid!

I agree with you 100%. One wonders what Jesus would say about for profit health care.

He would probably walk into United Health Care and start tearing the place apart as he did with the money changers in the temple. But it wouldn't stop there. Our "trickle down" economic system would be next on the list for a makeover. In fact, 80 percent of the people in this country would be firmly against the kind of society Jesus would support. Even the so called Christians on the right.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why isn't health insurance set up the same way as car or life insurance? If I don't like those I can shop around and choose from many, many different companies to find what I want at the price I want to pay. Even when getting health insurance through an employer you're limited to one or two choices that they decide on. Why isn't health insurance portable so if you lose your job you don't lose your insurance? Why don't the Ds and Rs in congress sit their assess down and find three things that they both agree on that will lower costs and pass a bill with that, then work on the next section? Why is it an 'all or nothing' proposition at this point? Why are they waiting for health reform to pass before making good on the $500B savings by going after fraud/waste in medicare/aid?

 

[Care4all]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

 

[the rev]

Capping profit means capping greed. Hospitals used to be non-profit. Now, they charge $15 for an aspirin. Everything has to make money. Its more of a spirit problem then a legislative one.

"so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development"

That comes up a lot. My question is from a different angle. Why does it take wealth or the hope/promise of it to develop and research what is necessary? People should want to help others naturally without getting rich off of it. The whole system is rotten, we have to grab an axe and cut it down.

 

[Gadawg73]

Those that have a job where someone else pays for their health needs do not favor reform.
Those of us in the real world do.

 

[johnrocks]

Yes, if by reform you mean less government intervention.

 

[johnrocks]

Those that have a job where someone else pays for their health needs do not favor reform.
Those of us in the real world do.

True, health insurance coupled with employment should have never taken place but government policy brought it about.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Those that have a job where someone else pays for their health needs do not favor reform.
Those of us in the real world do.

True, health insurance coupled with employment should have never taken place but government policy brought it about.

Ron Wyden, a liberal Dem senator from Oregon has recommended amending ERISA so that workers could choose to either buy into the company health insurance plan or receive a voucher from the company that could be used to buy individual health insurance. This would free workers from having to buy plans that were designed to serve the needs of the company rather than the needs of its employees.

 

[Subhumus]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

I could not agree more, but then again, this would mean the Government actually doing it's job by Governing the matter in a uniform intermediary fashion. That's most likely out of the question.

With respect to the "Christian" commentary, I certainly don't believe it's immoral to expect people to take responsibility for themselves. How is that unethical?

Insurance is an illusion. People view it as some type of personal "entitlement" only because of the political spin that has been placed on it. It's literally the greed within the tug of war between the medical profession and the insurance companies that is used to reinforce the public perception of this illusion. That's wrong.

Insurance isn't welfare nor is it charity, it's an extremely powerful and down right deceitful business practice based on the law of averages. It's the oldest racket in the game. It's the "protection" business. No matter how you loophole the context, there is absolutely no such thing as "non-profit" insurance. These companies like Blue Cross are making untold money in each and every case. How else do you think the CEOs or business heads of those "non-profit" corporations can make 6 and 9 digit annual incomes?

If we remove the illusion that is the role that insurance plays in the health care equation, the market will regulate itself accordingly. Yes, there will be tremendous growth pains to be certain. How could there not be seeings what a MESS this whole situation has been allowed to become. There is however, NO other alternative unless our government will honestly and ethically do it's job by governing the existing health care system apart from direct involvement.

Doctors and hospitals want to stay in business. They can only collect what the market can bear. The medical community would cut their overhead by most likely as much as 70% if insurance and the bloody sharks (lawyers) could be removed from the practice equation's direct cost and risk assessment cost analysis.

No one "deserves" health care other than the elderly or handicapped. That's because the law should ALWAYS and ONLY in this case be designed to protect those who cannot protect (or take responsibility for) themselves. Everyone else should be responsible for themselves.

Want to focus on the most important health care reform possible? I suggest putting the health of our ill government back on track first and foremost. Make that the ultimate priority in terms of reform.

In an effort to effectively heal the system, we need to eliminate professional private practice lawyers, all forms of insurance and sever all possible connections between government and special interest.

Then we need to do as swift and efficient a job as is possible with respect to changing the current form of monetary tender that we use. Whereby we could in one year's time account for all legitimate monies wherein the black market would collapse.

We NEED a great deal of reform with emphasis on the US Treasury Dept. as well as removing the entire good ol' boy system that's deeply entrenched and infecting our government presently.

 

[WillowTree]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

it "quites" the conservatives how exactly?

 

[blu]

it needs to start from the ground up. pharma companies and medical device manufactures need to cut their prices so that drs/patients can actually afford them then insurance companies would either drop their prices in step or be eliminaetd except for catastrophic cases and no longer allowed to drop people when big procedures come around. I think where the government shold get involved is helping DRs pay off student loans after they graduate. since so many people drop out, instead of funding up front, they should say pay 30-50% of DRs student loans after they graduate as this will keep costs downt oo since DRs are trying to pay back half a million dollars right out of school. universities should also drop their ridiculous tuition rates

 

[johnrocks]

Those that have a job where someone else pays for their health needs do not favor reform.
Those of us in the real world do.

True, health insurance coupled with employment should have never taken place but government policy brought it about.

Ron Wyden, a liberal Dem senator from Oregon has recommended amending ERISA so that workers could choose to either buy into the company health insurance plan or receive a voucher from the company that could be used to buy individual health insurance. This would free workers from having to buy plans that were designed to serve the needs of the company rather than the needs of its employees.

I'd like to see it and the HMO Act of 1973 repealed, prior to government intervention, health costs were stable; accounting for 4-6% of GDP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

it "quites" the conservatives how exactly?

Got me again. You are much too bright. I best forget about the substance of an issue, and make sure the form is perfect. Much like making sure the chairs are in order on the Titanic, something I suspect you might be very good at directing.

 

[WillowTree]

Historical evidence sure seems to quite the conservatives.

it "quites" the conservatives how exactly?

Got me again. You are much too bright. I best forget about the substance of an issue, and make sure the form is perfect. Much like making sure the chairs are in order on the Titanic, something I suspect you might be very good at directing.

Quiet true!

 

[KissMy]

Want to know why there are to few general practitioners & soaring medical cost?

They told me I was too smart to go into primary care "Everyone told me it was the wrong thing to do," recalls Dr. Jennifer Weyler, explaining her decision two years ago as a medical student to become a family doctor. "My teachers discouraged me; administrators discouraged me. They told me I was too smart to go into primary care or that the job wouldn't be enough of a challenge." And sure enough, Weyler, now a resident in family medicine at the University of Massachusetts, is frustrate - but not by her job, which she loves. "It frustrates me," she explains, "to have to continually explain to people what a primary care practitioner is."

It was only 50 years ago, after all, that no one had to be told what a family doctor was, mainly because that's about all there was. Eighty-seven percent of all doctors in the thirties were general practitionersgeneral practitioner - namely internists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Today that figure has dropped to 30 percent.

A New England Medical Center's Health Institute study in 1992 found that specialists order more tests, perform more procedures, and hospitalize patients more often than primary care doctors treating similar symptoms. Family practitioners are less likely to hospitalize patients than specialists treating patients who had similar levels of illness, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association report. A 1990 study estimated that a 50-50 mix of primary care doctors to specialists would produce a 39 percent reduction in total expenditures for physician services. "Primary care protects people from unwanted procedures," explains Fitzhugh Mullan, an assistant U.S. surgeon general "General practitioners look at risks and benefits, both in terms of care and costs."

The American Medical Association is a trade union that limits the number of people who can enter medical school. Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. This is like the POTUS Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. Do you really want more rationing & higher medical cost? Adding a 2,000 page bureaucracy congress did not read forcing everyone into that system (read pages 16-20) will make prices even higher & care worse for us that pay for it. Unlike the H.R.3200 health care bill passed by the house that does away with private health care & forces me to pay more for less, I would at least like the option to provide my own health care. A 10 page health care bill would be enough.

 

[Christopher]

History provides, among other things, perspective. Consider if you will T. Roosevelt & The Progressive Party Platform of 1912:
Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

Notice the call for National Health Care nearly 100 years ago, and other reforms such as campaign finance reform.
Now, as to your argument that there is "no credible analysis given behind the reasons for why things happened in history" I must say that is simply not true. Cause and effect do require critical analysis, but much has been done, and though absolute truth may not be known, events have been recored and sufficient evidence exists to make the certainty of the evidence nearly absolute.

Then I'm sure you can provide a link to one of these analyses. I will be waiting.

Are you kidding? Sure, start at the public library and go to the section on biographies. They are usually a very good source of historical information and most are well annotated, linking to primary sources (letters, documents and such).

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline
(a simple historical matrix)

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program
(A doctor organization discussing national health cares history in our nation)

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Health Insurance in the United States
(an academic historical analysis

Notice the tone of these links, none are emotional, though number two above is clearly partisan in favor of national health insurance. And then think about the 'arguments' presented by McConnell/Boehner/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity/et al of the RW, all are fear and ideologically based. It's really sad that many in our nation choose to listen to the sound bite, the fear mongering and the propaganda and are to lazy to spent the time researching issues.

Let me explain myself better. The original article you provided in this thread took some facts and figures and drew some conclusions about our health care system. There was no credible analysis provided that confirmed his/her conclusions. For instance, the author says we are getting poor results for the amount of money we spend on health care as compared to other nations. The author automatically assumes that the problem is entirely caused by the US health care system, which is not true. Many of our health problems are caused because we have many more people who live or have lived unhealthy lifestyles. Yet you claimed that historical evidence proves the author’s opinion correct.

Thank you for providing these links, however, they do not provide an analysis of WHY health care costs have increased. All they seem to do is show the history of things that happened, leaving out the WHY. If we are going to fix any problem we have to first understand why the problem is there, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Christopher]

I'm afraid the only way to cut costs to health care is sadly to cap prices....I just see no other way....

If we all individually bought our own health insurance and businesses did not pay for 60%-80% of the price of it as a benefit, then there would be resistance from the market place of individuals that could essentially cap the prices and profits made, but this would be a very long, painful process....

so, does the gvt come in and just cap the price increases on Medical care? And IF this were done, would it really slow research and development when it is our government that subsidizes R&D by the tune of 40% of the cost?

Should we be charged with letting the private sector profit, when we, ourselves, paid with taxes, for the research and development of the procedure or technology or medical product?

When the government starts putting a price cap on what a new medical technology is worth, that is when we will start to see less medical technologies (including drugs) being developed. There is more to it than the development costs of these technologies. Just like any great invention, it should be worth money. If the government says that it is only worth the cost for development, what company incentive is there to create the next great medical technology?

No, capping prices is not the solution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then I'm sure you can provide a link to one of these analyses. I will be waiting.

Are you kidding? Sure, start at the public library and go to the section on biographies. They are usually a very good source of historical information and most are well annotated, linking to primary sources (letters, documents and such).

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline
(a simple historical matrix)

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program
(A doctor organization discussing national health cares history in our nation)

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Health Insurance in the United States
(an academic historical analysis

Notice the tone of these links, none are emotional, though number two above is clearly partisan in favor of national health insurance. And then think about the 'arguments' presented by McConnell/Boehner/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity/et al of the RW, all are fear and ideologically based. It's really sad that many in our nation choose to listen to the sound bite, the fear mongering and the propaganda and are to lazy to spent the time researching issues.

Let me explain myself better. The original article you provided in this thread took some facts and figures and drew some conclusions about our health care system. There was no credible analysis provided that confirmed his/her conclusions. For instance, the author says we are getting poor results for the amount of money we spend on health care as compared to other nations. The author automatically assumes that the problem is entirely caused by the US health care system, which is not true. Many of our health problems are caused because we have many more people who live or have lived unhealthy lifestyles. Yet you claimed that historical evidence proves the author’s opinion correct.

Thank you for providing these links, however, they do not provide an analysis of WHY health care costs have increased. All they seem to do is show the history of things that happened, leaving out the WHY. If we are going to fix any problem we have to first understand why the problem is there, wouldn’t you agree?

I do agree we need to ask why. But the historical record provides a framwork for asking the intelligent/informed questions. Your point on unhealthy lifestyles is particualarly germain. Consider the Congress unwillingness to curtail the tobacco industry; or the efforts by many today to deny universal health care education and preventative care for all American citizens.
Both are the result of greed and self interest - need I explain the nexus?