OMG! Our President Lied!

[PoliticalChic]

Two points right from the get-go:

First, the campaign was about “HOPE and CHANGE,” but the Obama supporters on the board are all over the fall back position “so he lies, he’s (just) a politician, what do you expect.”

And, as I read the transcript of the ‘press conference,’ I find untruths. If the Healthcare Plan was so great, why would the President have to lie to get it accepted?

1. THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.

2. every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/22/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Fact-Check.html


3. “It will keep government out of health care decisions…’
The truth: “ In March, President Obama appointed Dr. David Blumenthal to head the system of computer-guided medical care as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Just days later, Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do. Dr. Blumenthal's latest article corrects CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and FactCheck.org's Lori Robertson, who insisted incorrectly that nothing in the stimulus legislation indicated "the government is going to tell your doctor what to do."
Defend Your Health Care

4. “It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket.”
The truth: . Still, it remains to be seen whether certain drugs or procedures wouldn’t be denied to customers under a public plan as well. In fact, the criticism from conservatives has been that a public plan would be stingy in what it would cover in an effort to control costs. We can’t predict the future, but we find it unlikely that at least some denials wouldn’t take place no matter who is issuing insurance.
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

5. “And it will cover preventive care, like check-ups and mammograms, that save lives and money”
The truth: “Prevention instead of treatment? Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said on March 23 that "we have to get to a system of keeping people well, rather than treating the sickness." That would make sense if all disease were behavior-related, but many cancers and other diseases are linked to genetics or unknown causes. De Parle's pronouncement echoes how Sir Michael Rawlins, a British health official, explains his nation's low cancer survival rates. The British National Health Service, he said, has to be fair to all patients, "not just the patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody."
This approach is deadly for those with serious illness. In the U.S., about 5 percent of the populace needs 50 percent of treatment dollars. The drumbeat for shifting resources from treatments to prevention should worry any family dealing with M.S., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cerebral palsy, or with a history of cancer.”
Defend Your Health Care

6. “Overall our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them…”
The truth: . Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

 

[sidneyworld]

Two points right from the get-go:

First, the campaign was about “HOPE and CHANGE,” but the Obama supporters on the board are all over the fall back position “so he lies, he’s (just) a politician, what do you expect.”

And, as I read the transcript of the ‘press conference,’ I find untruths. If the Healthcare Plan was so great, why would the President have to lie to get it accepted?

1. THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.

2. every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/22/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Fact-Check.html


3. “It will keep government out of health care decisions…’
The truth: “ In March, President Obama appointed Dr. David Blumenthal to head the system of computer-guided medical care as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Just days later, Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do. Dr. Blumenthal's latest article corrects CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and FactCheck.org's Lori Robertson, who insisted incorrectly that nothing in the stimulus legislation indicated "the government is going to tell your doctor what to do."
Defend Your Health Care

4. “It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket.”
The truth: . Still, it remains to be seen whether certain drugs or procedures wouldn’t be denied to customers under a public plan as well. In fact, the criticism from conservatives has been that a public plan would be stingy in what it would cover in an effort to control costs. We can’t predict the future, but we find it unlikely that at least some denials wouldn’t take place no matter who is issuing insurance.
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

5. “And it will cover preventive care, like check-ups and mammograms, that save lives and money”
The truth: “Prevention instead of treatment? Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said on March 23 that "we have to get to a system of keeping people well, rather than treating the sickness." That would make sense if all disease were behavior-related, but many cancers and other diseases are linked to genetics or unknown causes. De Parle's pronouncement echoes how Sir Michael Rawlins, a British health official, explains his nation's low cancer survival rates. The British National Health Service, he said, has to be fair to all patients, "not just the patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody."
This approach is deadly for those with serious illness. In the U.S., about 5 percent of the populace needs 50 percent of treatment dollars. The drumbeat for shifting resources from treatments to prevention should worry any family dealing with M.S., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cerebral palsy, or with a history of cancer.”
Defend Your Health Care

6. “Overall our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them…”
The truth: . Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

Yeah! What she said!

Well done, PC.

Anne Marie

 

[Big Black Dog]

Did you expect anything else but lies out of this idiot?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you expect anything else but lies out of this idiot?

What? No change???

 

[mskafka]

Idiot. Wow, that's quite an insult there.

Consider the definition of "idiot", from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2: a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective

A JD from Harvard. That is not a degree that an "idiot" typically achieves.

So am I to assume that you all don't believe that healthcare reform is a necessity? Do you believe that healthcare is just fine the way that it is? Do any of you work in healthcare?

Consider this: I have a family memeber that has three children. She makes around $13/hour. Because of those massive wages (and she has a college degree by the way) she does not qualify for medicaid. And, if she decides to take the benefits from her place of employment, she will not be able to survive. So, it comes down to.....does she want to eat, or does she want to get that CT scan that she needs.

It was recently discovered that she has scar tissue on her spleen. Who knows what the heck is causing it, and guess what....she cannot afford to get another CT scan because she is uninsured.

She works 50+ hours per week, and chooses not to be a welfare mom.

So what do you people think? It's her fault? She is just SOL? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are trying to convey, but it sounds pretty cold-hearted to me.

 

[mskafka]

So if you are healthy, and have the Cadillac of insurance plans....and you will be able to keep them; what is the issue? If you've been fortunate enough not to be born with a congenital heart defect, diagnosed with diabetes, any kind of heart disease, arthritis, cancer, hypertension, autoimmune disorder; and you're able to keep your current plan, then what is the problem? Is it the possibilty that your premiums may go up? If you can afford it, what is the problem?

I have hypertension, anemia, a heart murmur, hearing loss....if I were to lose my insurance tomorrow, I would be in trouble. My gross income is way above medicaid criteria, and there is no way that any insurance company is going to cover me with all of my pre-existing conditions.

So at that point, I would have 2 choices. I could just go on about life, and pray to God that I don't get sick, because I would never be able to afford my scripts without insurance. Or, I could just quit my job, file for disability, get on medicaid, and you would end up paying for me anyway.

Please help me understand why you all are so against this.

 

[driveby]

Or Obamacare gets passed, you wait six months to see a doctor and the treatment you need gets denied because it's not economically viable. Sooper dooper solution......

 

[mskafka]

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the statistics that say that Canada and UK's healthcare is far superior to ours. I work in healthcare, so I would like to see it get better. If we rank 37th in healthcare quality, and we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth....what is the cause of that?

 

[elvis]

Wait. I thought the Messiah was incapable of lying.

 

[driveby]

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the statistics that say that Canada and UK's healthcare is far superior to ours. I work in healthcare, so I would like to see it get better. If we rank 37th in healthcare quality, and we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth....what is the cause of that?

Jesus Christ, those lies have been debunked 100 times already newb ........

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if you are healthy, and have the Cadillac of insurance plans....and you will be able to keep them; what is the issue? If you've been fortunate enough not to be born with a congenital heart defect, diagnosed with diabetes, any kind of heart disease, arthritis, cancer, hypertension, autoimmune disorder; and you're able to keep your current plan, then what is the problem? Is it the possibilty that your premiums may go up? If you can afford it, what is the problem?

I have hypertension, anemia, a heart murmur, hearing loss....if I were to lose my insurance tomorrow, I would be in trouble. My gross income is way above medicaid criteria, and there is no way that any insurance company is going to cover me with all of my pre-existing conditions.

So at that point, I would have 2 choices. I could just go on about life, and pray to God that I don't get sick, because I would never be able to afford my scripts without insurance. Or, I could just quit my job, file for disability, get on medicaid, and you would end up paying for me anyway.

Please help me understand why you all are so against this.

MS, your two posts are heart rending. I can feel the pain.

But I don't believe that you understand the debate that is going on here, on the USMB.

The majority of the debate is whether or not the two bill, refered to as Obamacare, are problem-solving. Many of us believe that they are not.

There is an awful lot of background material with which you should familiarize yourself, to get up to speed here on the board.

But none of these disputes are meant for you and your family to take personally. They are structural with respect to the nations needs and wants.

Now, as for the term 'idiot,' applied to the President, I am speaking for myself: you will never find such invective in my posts about the office nor the administration.

I always make cogent arguments about the subject, and although I happily criticize the individual, I don't use terms that I would not wish applied to my candidates.

If you would list five or six problems you see with the current healthcare, I would be happy to either answer same, or give my suggestion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the statistics that say that Canada and UK's healthcare is far superior to ours. I work in healthcare, so I would like to see it get better. If we rank 37th in healthcare quality, and we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth....what is the cause of that?

Ah, here is one of the problems.

We are not 37th in healthcare. You should look into the basis of the number, what criteria are used in determing the ranking, and who does the ranking.

Further, remember that WHO does not accumulate the data, but rather accepts what the nation in question submits.

Healthcare, as with so many topics, can rarely be separated from politics. There are many in the world, and even in this country, who hate America, and this colors both data and perception:

"“The United States is comically bad at making its own case,” Maddox writes in the book’s opening pages. This observation will ring true to those Americans who wonder how their country—which welcomes more immigrants than any other, is more generous in its foreign aid than any other, and whose culture is so popular—could be loathed by so many. It will sound even more spot-on to those non-Americans, like Maddox, who consider themselves friends of the United States. For years, overseas admirers of the U.S. have had to endure witless editorials and boorish dinner companions ranting about how Uncle Sam is the root of all evil. Unfortunately, the government of the United States has failed miserably at defending itself in the court of world opinion.
Maddox makes the case for American indispensability. “American values are Western values,” she titles her third chapter. She stresses to her non-American readers that whatever differences they might have with America, they would do well to understand that the United States ultimately stands for individual rights, political freedom, and the free exchange of goods—all distinctly Western ideas.
CJ Mobile


Neither Canada nor UK is superior to ours, and once you remove infant mortality, our life expectancy is comparable to or better than any other.

1. “…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Health Care

In short, the changes that the left, and I'm taking about the Obama Administration, wish to install will necessitate both limitations on access and rationing. Very, very few of your problems with healthcare will be addressed, and the bill will be enormous.

I hope that I have answered some of your points.

Be well.

 

[mskafka]

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the statistics that say that Canada and UK's healthcare is far superior to ours. I work in healthcare, so I would like to see it get better. If we rank 37th in healthcare quality, and we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth....what is the cause of that?

Jesus Christ, those lies have been debunked 100 times already newb ........

Yeah, cuckoo. Do you work in healthcare? Or do you just sit and watch FoxNews everyday? Heritage foundation.....Rand Institute

You see, that is the thing that I don't understand about you conservatives. You think that everyone in the world is stupid but you. Your catchphrases: Dumba$$, Dumb $h**, idiot, just because they don't believe what I believe.

I'm guessing that you can point me to the website that debunks evolution and global warming as well?

I would like to know how it has been debunked.

 

[elvis]

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the statistics that say that Canada and UK's healthcare is far superior to ours. I work in healthcare, so I would like to see it get better. If we rank 37th in healthcare quality, and we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth....what is the cause of that?

Jesus Christ, those lies have been debunked 100 times already newb ........

Yeah, cuckoo. Do you work in healthcare? Or do you just sit and watch FoxNews everyday? Heritage foundation.....Rand Institute

You see, that is the thing that I don't understand about you conservatives. You think that everyone in the world is stupid but you. Your catchphrases: Dumba$$, Dumb $h**, idiot, just because they don't believe what I believe.

I'm guessing that you can point me to the website that debunks evolution and global warming as well?

I would like to know how it has been debunked.

Gee, that sounds a lot like you Obamabots.

 

[mskafka]

So if you are healthy, and have the Cadillac of insurance plans....and you will be able to keep them; what is the issue? If you've been fortunate enough not to be born with a congenital heart defect, diagnosed with diabetes, any kind of heart disease, arthritis, cancer, hypertension, autoimmune disorder; and you're able to keep your current plan, then what is the problem? Is it the possibilty that your premiums may go up? If you can afford it, what is the problem?

I have hypertension, anemia, a heart murmur, hearing loss....if I were to lose my insurance tomorrow, I would be in trouble. My gross income is way above medicaid criteria, and there is no way that any insurance company is going to cover me with all of my pre-existing conditions.

So at that point, I would have 2 choices. I could just go on about life, and pray to God that I don't get sick, because I would never be able to afford my scripts without insurance. Or, I could just quit my job, file for disability, get on medicaid, and you would end up paying for me anyway.

Please help me understand why you all are so against this.

MS, your two posts are heart rending. I can feel the pain.

But I don't believe that you understand the debate that is going on here, on the USMB.

The majority of the debate is whether or not the two bill, refered to as Obamacare, are problem-solving. Many of us believe that they are not.

There is an awful lot of background material with which you should familiarize yourself, to get up to speed here on the board.

But none of these disputes are meant for you and your family to take personally. They are structural with respect to the nations needs and wants.

Now, as for the term 'idiot,' applied to the President, I am speaking for myself: you will never find such invective in my posts about the office nor the administration.

I always make cogent arguments about the subject, and although I happily criticize the individual, I don't use terms that I would not wish applied to my candidates.

If you would list five or six problems you see with the current healthcare, I would be happy to either answer same, or give my suggestion.

What is your background? Are you a physician? Do you work in healthcare?

Okay problems...

1. Uninsured going to the emergency room because a clinic refuses to see them, because they are.....uninsured. Meanwhile, a chest pain waits dangerously long for a bed to come available, while an indigent patient is treated for bronchitis.

2. People who want to work who don't qualify for medicaid because of their wages, but have pre-existing conditions, so therefore cannot get private health insurance.

3. I've seen an above knee amputation sutured in a sloppy fashion on an indigent patient because quote: "He knows that he will not be paid for it". So the patient was still bleeding after days of intensive care.

4. As liberal as I am, I support some tort reform. Not many physicians are willing to become OB/GYN because of the cost of malpractice insurance, and the liability potential is so high. I wouldn't be willing to put my livelihood on the line that way either.

5. I've witnessed many incompetent physicians. I've seen patients killed by these physicians. This is mostly in rural areas.

I could go on and on. Is this what you were looking for?

 

[mskafka]

I can see that I have landed in a red post, so I'm going to bow out gracefully. If all you read is conservative commentary, propaganda, and watch Fox News...you're going to have a one-sided view of what is going on with this issue. I'm open-minded and willing to listen to both sides, until one becomes irrational.

But I can tell you first hand, that healthcare is in trouble. And yes, it needs to be reformed. In this country-if you have monetary wealth and the highest quality health insurance, you are going to get top notch care. But if you are anywhere below that, you scrape the bottom of the barrel, or you get nothing at all.

Physicians are so afraid of being sued, they run many unneccesary tests on patients. I see it all the time. EVERYONE, who comes in with a headache gets a CT scan, and a full workup. The CT alone is around $2K. An MRI for C-Spine clearence-about $4K-after a minor fender bender. So if you have health insurance that covers say....50% after the deductible is met....easy...$2K. Most, not all, but most people don't have that kind of money lying around.

There are many problems with private health insurance, especially for the lower-middle class, and down.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if you are healthy, and have the Cadillac of insurance plans....and you will be able to keep them; what is the issue? If you've been fortunate enough not to be born with a congenital heart defect, diagnosed with diabetes, any kind of heart disease, arthritis, cancer, hypertension, autoimmune disorder; and you're able to keep your current plan, then what is the problem? Is it the possibilty that your premiums may go up? If you can afford it, what is the problem?

I have hypertension, anemia, a heart murmur, hearing loss....if I were to lose my insurance tomorrow, I would be in trouble. My gross income is way above medicaid criteria, and there is no way that any insurance company is going to cover me with all of my pre-existing conditions.

So at that point, I would have 2 choices. I could just go on about life, and pray to God that I don't get sick, because I would never be able to afford my scripts without insurance. Or, I could just quit my job, file for disability, get on medicaid, and you would end up paying for me anyway.

Please help me understand why you all are so against this.

MS, your two posts are heart rending. I can feel the pain.

But I don't believe that you understand the debate that is going on here, on the USMB.

The majority of the debate is whether or not the two bill, refered to as Obamacare, are problem-solving. Many of us believe that they are not.

There is an awful lot of background material with which you should familiarize yourself, to get up to speed here on the board.

But none of these disputes are meant for you and your family to take personally. They are structural with respect to the nations needs and wants.

Now, as for the term 'idiot,' applied to the President, I am speaking for myself: you will never find such invective in my posts about the office nor the administration.

I always make cogent arguments about the subject, and although I happily criticize the individual, I don't use terms that I would not wish applied to my candidates.

If you would list five or six problems you see with the current healthcare, I would be happy to either answer same, or give my suggestion.

What is your background? Are you a physician? Do you work in healthcare?

Okay problems...

1. Uninsured going to the emergency room because a clinic refuses to see them, because they are.....uninsured. Meanwhile, a chest pain waits dangerously long for a bed to come available, while an indigent patient is treated for bronchitis.

2. People who want to work who don't qualify for medicaid because of their wages, but have pre-existing conditions, so therefore cannot get private health insurance.

3. I've seen an above knee amputation sutured in a sloppy fashion on an indigent patient because quote: "He knows that he will not be paid for it". So the patient was still bleeding after days of intensive care.

4. As liberal as I am, I support some tort reform. Not many physicians are willing to become OB/GYN because of the cost of malpractice insurance, and the liability potential is so high. I wouldn't be willing to put my livelihood on the line that way either.

5. I've witnessed many incompetent physicians. I've seen patients killed by these physicians. This is mostly in rural areas.

I could go on and on. Is this what you were looking for?

Actually, since neither you nor I are writing or proposing an overall healthcare plan, the best we can do is explore what is being proposed by President Obama, and the Democrat Congress.

My view is that any of the plans is based on these three lynchpins a) Limit access b) ration care c) increase the demise of the elderly

Offhand, there are three examples we can view, that are in effect now, and see the results obtained:
1.) Europe. This from City Journal: "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. "http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_pim-fortuyn.html

2) Massachusetts: "Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700. " Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy

3) "The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs." RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

"By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology." Dr. Emanuel is the brother of Rahm Emanuel and is health advisor to OMB.

Tom Daschle was the President's original choice to run healthcare: "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. "
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey - Bloomberg.com

This is why I see the a,b,and c above as representing the Obama plan.

From your 1-5, only #2 would be addressed by the plan. Incompetent and slovenly doctors would still exist, and with reduced remuneration, might be exacerbated.

Suggestions:
Introduce measures to increase the number of physicians.

For the 8-10 million who cannot get healthcare (your #2) use debit cards, as currently used for food stamps, based on need, financial and medical.

Allow the free market for insurance companies to allow every purchaser to list on the policy exactly what they wish to be covered for, as opposed to the current laws that dictate the many aspects covered. This would reduce costs for insurance. And nationwide competition instead of state wide.

Increased use of HSA's with tax benefits.

The following are freemarket suggestions from John C. Goodman, Center for Policy Analysis:
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.

I'd appreciate your views.

 

[alan1]

I can see that I have landed in a red post, so I'm going to bow out gracefully. If all you read is conservative commentary, propaganda, and watch Fox News...you're going to have a one-sided view of what is going on with this issue. I'm open-minded and willing to listen to both sides, until one becomes irrational.

But I can tell you first hand, that healthcare is in trouble. And yes, it needs to be reformed. In this country-if you have monetary wealth and the highest quality health insurance, you are going to get top notch care. But if you are anywhere below that, you scrape the bottom of the barrel, or you get nothing at all.

Physicians are so afraid of being sued, they run many unneccesary tests on patients. I see it all the time. EVERYONE, who comes in with a headache gets a CT scan, and a full workup. The CT alone is around $2K. An MRI for C-Spine clearence-about $4K-after a minor fender bender. So if you have health insurance that covers say....50% after the deductible is met....easy...$2K. Most, not all, but most people don't have that kind of money lying around.

There are many problems with private health insurance, especially for the lower-middle class, and down.

Sure you are open-minded, that's why you have so many reasons to dis-regard what somebody says, none of which have any basis in fact, just your opinion.
Seems your definition of "open-minded" is somebody that agrees with you, rather than debating the facts presented.

 

[mskafka]

Uhm....no, no, and NOOOOO....for healthcare savings account. Everything that you have cited is from a Republican and conservative viewpoint or think tank. I'm going to see if I can find some literature from the other side, or maybe the middle of the road. I'll have to get back to you.

 

[mskafka]

I can see that I have landed in a red post, so I'm going to bow out gracefully. If all you read is conservative commentary, propaganda, and watch Fox News...you're going to have a one-sided view of what is going on with this issue. I'm open-minded and willing to listen to both sides, until one becomes irrational.

But I can tell you first hand, that healthcare is in trouble. And yes, it needs to be reformed. In this country-if you have monetary wealth and the highest quality health insurance, you are going to get top notch care. But if you are anywhere below that, you scrape the bottom of the barrel, or you get nothing at all.

Physicians are so afraid of being sued, they run many unneccesary tests on patients. I see it all the time. EVERYONE, who comes in with a headache gets a CT scan, and a full workup. The CT alone is around $2K. An MRI for C-Spine clearence-about $4K-after a minor fender bender. So if you have health insurance that covers say....50% after the deductible is met....easy...$2K. Most, not all, but most people don't have that kind of money lying around.

There are many problems with private health insurance, especially for the lower-middle class, and down.

Sure you are open-minded, that's why you have so many reasons to dis-regard what somebody says, none of which have any basis in fact, just your opinion.
Seems your definition of "open-minded" is somebody that agrees with you, rather than debating the facts presented.

Your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.