debate on universal access to health care

julesa said:
Matt,
Why call the extra money profits when the execs can instead fund extravagant "business expenses," and the investors will be happy with 10% returns?
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you're ever a business owner, you know profits can be hidden in the form of "business expenses", "business investments" and generous executive wages.
 
Julesa, I understand the single-payer system that is being proposed and I support it. While it will not fix all of our problems, it will surely do good to relieve it.

Bob, I also understand your views on patching the system and then refining it. How long do you expect that to take though? 10 15 years? People can start to improve their health immediately. Today. Just by changing their diets. Just by taking a walk, riding a bike, jogging. You can patch up short term problem AND work on prevention at the same time. I get your example about heart disease and patching the artery. Even people with heart disease can walk to take some weight off, putting less stress on the heart. Maybe not someone in the ER but my friend's mom has heart problems and she's working hard to lose excess weight. Prevention while patching the problem doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

Everyone still seems to focus on the quick fix for everything. The health care reform people are talking about here all have something in common. Money. It's all about reducing money or giving the bill to someone else. Consolidating the bill as per single-payer. What if there were no bills? What if the only people that had to go into the hospital are the people that truly need to be there? Infants/children, elderly, sick, injured. Instead you see people that choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle putting stress on the system. People lining up every time they "think" they have the swine flu.

This debate extends from a debate on universal health care to lifestyle changes. You can reform the system all you want but if the air is dirty, the water is dirty, and the food is unfit to eat, then the initial system and proposed health care reform is flawed and doomed to failure.
 
Here is something that can be done to improve peoples health, change the tax code. Instead of rewarding people for being unhealthy, give them a tax break for being healthy.

Pretty stupid how the IRS gives a unhealthy person a tax break. The more unhealthy you are the more you get rewarded at the end of the year. Yet a healthy person that does not burden the health care system ends up paying the bills of the unhealthy person. Just ass backwards.

Just a little insight into how our government thinks and works.

Deron.
 
Considering that the IRS and the Federal Income Tax is illegal(totally different subject), I wouldn't support a bill that would give them more power and control. Supporting a tax break for healthy people, while nice, would still take power away from the people. This would also create a conflict of interest. A demand for unhealthy people to cover the tax breaks. I would hate to imagine what would manifest out of this created demand.
 
set said:
Considering that the IRS and the Federal Income Tax is illegal(totally different subject), I wouldn't support a bill that would give them more power and control. Supporting a tax break for healthy people, while nice, would still take power away from the people. This would also create a conflict of interest. A demand for unhealthy people to cover the tax breaks. I would hate to imagine what would manifest out of this created demand.
Click to expand...

You are looking at it all wrong.

Giving a tax break to healthy people would lessen the burden on the health care system. Right now you get a incentive to be unhealthy. Just think if people got their taxes reduced if you were healthier. Would they then tend to be more healthy, look for ways to take better care of themselves so as to get that check at the end of the year?

It would be a hell of a lot better then the current system, where the people that take better care of themselves have to foot the bill for people who smoke, who do not eat healthy, overeat, take undue risks, do stupid things to injure themselves...

Lets promote being healthy.

Deron.
 
set said:
.

Bob, I also understand your views on patching the system and then refining it. How long do you expect that to take though?
Click to expand...

i expect it to take as long as it takes but it will not happen until we get to work. Your expectation that people are just suddenly going to stop eating cheeseburgers and start jogging is just not realistic, any more than the expectation that AIDS and cancer will suddenly go away because people become vegetarians or start using rubbers.

The reality is that because of our broken health care system our infant mortality in America is 29th in the world!!! Infants born in the richest country in the world would have a 50% better chance of survival if they were born in South Korea or Malta, and their chances of survival would be twice as good if they were born in Iceland or France, while their chance of survival is only slightly better than infants born in Slovenia or Croatia. How do you expect these people who are just being born to change their evil ways and start getting healthy?

We live on a small ball of dirt with a lot of other people, and when they get sick we are likely to get sick too. It is simple self defense to make sure somebody with a communicable disease gets treatment before they infect too many other people. I have said this before, but you seem to ignore it: most of us are not willing to let our fellow citizens lay bleeding in the street or drop their babies in the gutter and let them die there. once we accept that anyone with two brain cells and a synapse should realize that it is much cheaper for us to provide prenatal care for poor women and basic health care for our citizens than it is to deal with the infants we scoop out of the gutter or the people we take to the ER in an ambulance a bit later. We educate our kids in the hope they can get a job, and by the same token it is cheaper to fix a kid's broken leg or birth defect than it is to have him grow up crippled and on welfare. And please don't try to tell me that poor people get the care they need now. they don't/we don't.

case in point: my wife developed such severe gall bladder problems that it caused pancreatitis and she was hovering on the edge of death without having her gall bladder taken out. This is not considered a life threatening emergency, so we could not get a surgeon to perform the operation without paying him $2500 up front, and this was giving us "a deal". I have medicare, she doesn't, and we could not afford to continue insurance when i became too ill to work because it would have cost all but $100 of my monthly income. The hospital is letting us pay off the $15,000 dollar bill at $100 a month, but the surgeon would have just let her die, and nobody else in our hospital system would do it without advance payment either. The surgeon lives in a multi-million dollar home and drives a mercedes. we live in a 1000 sf manufactured home and drive a 13 year old pickup, and are doing the best we can. Most of us agree this is not right. I cannot see any way to fix it without involving the government. Private insurers make money by denying care, not by providing it. They are parasites.

another member suggested he wanted in on what i call 'obscene profits'. The insurance companies' profits ARE obscene, and their stockholders are making money by doing nothing but buying in to their business plan of denying care to sick people. Here are the base salaries of a few of their CEO's not including all the private jet trips and other perqs:

Ron Williams - Aetna $24,300,112
H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA $12,236,740
Angela Braly - WellPoint $9,844,212
Michael McCallister - Humana $4,764,309
Jay Gellert - Health Net $4,425,355
Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group $3,241,042

you may argue that they are in business to make a profit and are compensated by the board of directors at a level they feel is appropriate. my argument is EXACTLY THE SAME... THEY ARE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT, and our health should be more important than their wealth... unfortunately their business model is to deny health care to their customers every chance they get, and to deny coverage to anyone who actually is sick or might get sick. This is just not working. The idea that we could ever trust these guys to look out for our best interests is ludicrous. Providing government managed care just like medicare to the people these parasites do not want to cover and letting the public system drive down costs is my solution. I reject your proposed solution to get people to change their behavior and suddenly no longer need health care as unworkable and inadequate. I think a lot of other people are on my side of the argument. Got any other ideas?
 
Good Q! What are the canadians doing different to keep costs down?
Maybe u guys can chime in.
I'm no expert.
I did read that canada BANS all drug advertisments,
the US allows drug ads.
Put Anything on TV and in magazines and people will buy it!
Restless legs? Allergy? Moody?
BUY DRUGS, it's the AMERICAN WAY.
Side effects are the CASH COW. They all have side effects, and they are great for the current health care system(if u want WASTE). Someone demands a drug for this or that minor condition. Some get dizzy, a common side effect. Next they end up in the hospital to get an MRI, etc. to see if its a brain tumor. $$$$$$ Cash cow. Do they cancel the 1st drug. NO. they give a 2nd drug to cure dizzyness. Then he can't sleep. Then they add a sleeping pill AS SEEN ON TV, drug #3 CASH COW! $$$$$$
So 1st write congress and demand a ban on MEDICAL ADS.
(get rid of lawyers' ads too, while u are at it)

bob
I do agree that CEO's are OVERPAID. I think 50k is plenty.
But, is this pay cut the way to fix things?
.
add up all those ridiculous salarys of CEO's. What is the TOTAL? now, divide by 300 million U.S. citizens. if they all work for FREE, how much will each of us save? Do the math. (it is less than $1, bob you should be ashamed of yourself for finding such small savings and calling it BIG) Now look up drug stocks(pfizer, merek, glaxo etc) and see how much they spend on ADS and drug promotion; BILLIONS bob, not millions). It is not profit that is evil, but shameless promotion of drugs. Billions bob, Billions.
 
Deron,
I approve of your plan!
We need a fitness program were people save $$$ on health insurance by losing weight and passing a fitness test(pushups situps etc).
Each year a Dr. tests us and gives us a goal for next year. If we pass, we get, say 20% off our health insurance. This will give out of shape people a reason to get in shape.
 
Matt Gruber said:
Deron,
I approve of your plan!
We need a fitness program were people save $$$ on health insurance by losing weight and passing a fitness test(pushups situps etc).

Each year a Dr. tests us and gives us a goal for next year. If we pass, we get, say 20% off our health insurance. This will give out of shape people a reason to get in shape.
Click to expand...

(my rant/opinons)

Dont need a DR. for most people, could be done by PA/Nurses or other health care people. Also in a group or automated manner if appropriate.

I have been proposing this for several years. Make it beneficial for people to do the right thing!

The easy stuff Plan:;
walk, exercise or bike at least 30 minutes a day.
decrease smoking.
know the symptoms of every disease/condition you have and the ones you are most likely to get.
know the nutrional content of what you consume.

A DVD is generated on the introduction to Asthma, Arthritis, Blood pressure, Diabetes, Nutrition, Exercise, etc.
Academic and physical tests given locally. Pass means you get money. Fail or dont enter means a financial penalty.

For each level of improvement in health and health wisdom, put money back in peoples pockets. (dont care if it is cash, insurance or tax rebates)
----
I already get my payback from being healthier;
My three brothers, my mom and my grandfather all have/had diabetes type II. I am the only one to ride a bike and the only one with normal blood sugar.

To me, and many, this is really a sign of the degradation of our culture. People can tell you what Brittany Spears wore yesterday, or who the top 5 College basketball teams are, but dont know diddle about how much salt they consume.


Stop the advertising for medicine and new proceedures!
(did you see the ad for "If your depression pills arent working, take this new pill in addition" ?

If I have a car, there is mandatory auto insurance. Makes sense.
If I have a home loan, there is mandatory house insurance. Makes sense.
But if I lose my employment, I lose my health insurance. ( I just lost a job, not my body!) Makes NO sense.

done.

d
 
Matt Gruber said:
I do agree that CEO's are OVERPAID. I think 50k is plenty.
But, is this pay cut the way to fix things?
.
add up all those ridiculous salarys of CEO's. What is the TOTAL? now, divide by 300 million U.S. citizens. if they all work for FREE, how much will each of us save? Do the math.
Click to expand...

i see the huge salaries of the CEO's as a symptom of a larger problem. i agree that their salaries will not make the difference, but i firmly believe that the problem is that these companies are making a profit by denying health care, not by providing it. If we just got rid of all the insurers and let the government manage the payments that would amount to billions saved that could then be used to provide care to those of us who need it instead of enriching stockholders and overpaid executives. innovative companies SHOULD make a profit on medical products, but why do we need a bunch of for-profit companies then managing our access to those products? Especially when their business model is denying care and making profits by doing so.

i totally agree we do not need multiple heavily advertised drugs for erectile dysfunction while there is no good treatment available for many real diseases. i do not think we can sustain health care reform without campaign finance reform, but neither do i think we can sustain the system the way it is. i do not see a better solution than private insurers being forced to compete with a public plan. i would love to see single payer but it is not going to happen this year. something will, because people are fed up with the republicans being the party of NO with no solutions.

when i helped build the first mri machines i thought we were going to make things better by providing a new imaging modality that was non-invasive and non harmful. I was horrified when the docs started injecting people with unnecessary contrast agents just to get prettier pictures without just taking a non contrast scan first. They want people through the machine as fast as they can push them, because the bottom line is more important than injecting people with poison that turns out to be causing huge health problems like nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. A lot of these people did not need contrast agents to find out what was wrong with them. The hospital just wanted more people through the machine every day.
 
Well bob
our gov does run medicare.
in the 90's i had stock in NOVACARE.
They provided services to medicare.
One day congress cut the payments.
Novacare could not break-even.
They lost $$$$$. soon failed and was liquidated.
That will teach those greedy investors!(stock went to zero).
Now, if the gov does everything, there will be no fall guy!
Nobody with excessive pay to be blamed.
No greedy investors. Who will we blame, and you can forget about new investors coming to the rescue(buying new shares to save the business)
So do we the public avoid losing out?
No, we will all be pressed for cash to pay the bills!
And if we don't pay?
The gov can print $$$$$$$$$$$$ and we will have runaway inflation and we all go broke.
Be careful what you wish for.
.
As far as making out by denying claims. WE ALL DO THIS.
Wife says she wants a new dress. NO NO NO!
Now u can buy a DVR.
EVERYBODY CANT HAVE EVERYTHING
.
When u die u don't get 72 virgins.
You are lucky if u get 1,
72 year old virgin.(Jay Leno)
 
Matt Gruber said:
Well bob
our gov does run medicare.
in the 90's i had stock in NOVACARE.
They provided services to medicare.
One day congress cut the payments.
Novacare could not break-even.
They lost $$$$$. soon failed and was liquidated.
That will teach those greedy investors!(stock went to zero).
Now, if the gov does everything, there will be no fall guy!
Click to expand...

yes there will be 100 fall guys in the senate and several hundred guys in the house and one guy in the big white house. we can in theory vote them out if we do not like what they are doing, and give the job to somebody else. we have no recourse at all when our health insurer does not act in our best interest. we must have campaign finance reform along with health care reform.

having the government run the health care system would be terrible. i can only think of one thing worse, and that is continuing on with the system we have. what the president is proposing is that if you like your insurance keep it. the rest of us have nothing at all now, so i propose we fix that by letting the government provide us with the same coverage that these guys in the senate get for life just for sitting there for a few years and doing nothing.

i am not against capitalism. there are some things that just should not be for profit. delivery of vital health care services is one of them. we do not hire private companies to keep kim jong il from nuking us, why do we need private companies to make money by managing delivery of something as important and as vital as health care, especially when they have proven to do such a dishonest job of it? The equivalent would be for us to allow a bunch of private for-profit companies to act as intermediates between defense contractors and our military, raking in huge profits for delivering only the minimum goods and services they can get away with to the military and denying any request for bullets they think they could get away with denying, in the hope that the requesting troops would be overrun by the enemy and killed, thus saving the cost of the bullets. If you do not think this is a valid analogy, consider it when you are stalled when you need chemo while the insurance company hopes like a bunch of vultures for you to die while they come up with excuses.

people who make money providing services at competitive prices are the foundation of capitalism and are the engines of prosperity. drug dealers who sell crack are not permitted to do it publicly, because most of us believe they are doing more damage than good. people who make money with a business model that:

1) denies any coverage at all to anybody who actually needs it (pre-existing conditions)
2) squirms out of paying for care for any possible reason they can come up with, or stalls hoping their customer will die first
3) corrupts our political process with the money earned as the fruits of 1 and 2
4) rakes in huge profits that should instead be used to provide health care

are no more necessary to our society than crack dealers. If you want to make a profit in the market, invest in a company with moral values in line with your own. if that means investing in companies that exist through 1-4 above that goes against MY moral values and i will do everything i can to make sure you lose it all just like i try to stop the crack dealers. There are some ways of making money that a civilized society just should not tolerate, and one of them is by behaving the way our health insurers have been behaving.

the private insurance companies are screaming "unfair- we cannot compete against the government" while they cherry pick the healthiest customers and leave the rest of us with no access at all to life saving treatments and medicines. They want to just insure the healthy people and dump the rest onto the scrap heap. If they agree to take everybody and stop trying to avoid paying for life saving treatment at every opportunity then they might have a right to complain.
 
So I was reminded tonight of my brush with government health care.

My Dad and I went out to a restaurant tonight, on the way there we walked past "Western Dental". This immediately brought back nightmares of my short experience with them. Years ago while I was still married, my wife had dental coverage through the Post Office. I had previously been going to the same dentist all my life, a private practice, but I decided to try the PO dental plan. When I looked into it, they would only cover you if you used their dentist. Some dental stuff was free, other stuff was co-pay.

Well, I went in to WD to have a cavity taken care of and right away I got a bad feeling. This place was a factory, all the dentist there still had the shine on them from dental school. I sat down and the dentist proceed to work on the cavity, not more then a minute into it, he cut the hell out of my tongue with the drill. I let him finish up because I did not realize how bad he had cut me. It took a couple of weeks for my tongue to heal.

I ended up telling my wife that I would never use the PO dental plan again, it would be more then well worth it for me to just go back to my private dentist and pay out of my pocket.

And it turned out that I did have to go to my private dentist to fix the botched job the WD guy did. Something as simple as a filling and the WD guy could not get it right.

Word of advice, take your health care dollars and go find a good doctor.

Deron.
 
INSURANCE- What is it?
Protection to cover an unusual or unexpected event. is how i would describe it.
I can't buy fire insurance when my house is in flames.
I can't buy collision ins. after a wreck.
I can't buy health ins. to cover a pre-existing condition.
Seems fair to me.
Health care for the sick. What does it cost per sick?
If it averages 8,000ea for everyone, how many are sick?
if 5% are sick, thats $160,000 per sick.
So who knows the actual % of sick(hospitalized) per year?
 
Two simple questions:

1) Would you prefer to see a poor person die at the doors to a hospital, or would you rather the hospital take that person in, knowing they can't pay, and just raise the rates for everyone else?

2) Which policy do you think would be better for the economy?

Some people would rather ignore the first question, but that's OK, I think the answer to the second question is at the root of this debate.

Remember, sick and dying people don't contribute much to the economy. Dead people don't contribute anything at all.
There are a LOT of healthy poor people out there, serving meals, running the grocery store, mopping floors, and they're all consumers.
 
swbluto said:
julesa said:
Matt,
Why call the extra money profits when the execs can instead fund extravagant "business expenses,"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
>>>>>>this is exactly how our congress funds family trips; at taxpayer expense. So if congress takes over health care, don't expect any savings over private co's
.
Any system will have pilfering. I just read of a nurse that takes home meds, if the patient doesn't take them. Whose property are they? They should be put back in stock. I'm all for stopping fraud and waste. I even own stock in the only public stock that is being paid by medicare to audit bills and get refunds. Perplexingly, congress tries over and over to STOP this program. (do to too much pressure from the industry, which "donates" money ). I also learned from the 10K that once they find the waste, they stop it! At first this sounds great, but as an investor i need an increasing source of income. As they are paid from fraud recovery, once it is ended, their earnings are ended too. So earnings are likely to decline and subject to congressmen being paid off! This explains why i lost 1/3 on this gem. Health care is rotten to the core.
.
in other news Blue cross today raised my bill 15% to 122/mo.
 
julesa said:
Two simple questions:

1) Would you prefer to see a poor person die at the doors to a hospital, or would you rather the hospital take that person in, knowing they can't pay, and just raise the rates for everyone else?

2) Which policy do you think would be better for the economy?

Some people would rather ignore the first question, but that's OK, I think the answer to the second question is at the root of this debate.

Remember, sick and dying people don't contribute much to the economy. Dead people don't contribute anything at all.
There are a LOT of healthy poor people out there, serving meals, running the grocery store, mopping floors, and they're all consumers.
Click to expand...

Man is that ever a loaded question.

1) Using that type of logic, we should be providing food, medical care, housing... to all the poor people in the world, or would you rather see them die in the doorway of a hospital, go hungry, live out in the cold? The US is one of the most prosperous countries in the world and I'm sure you and other people would have no problem giving up some of your luxuries so some poor sap in some third world country could get decent medical care.

2) You need to go a little deeper on this. Why go out and work for the extra income for health care if it is guaranteed by someone else? People would much rather spend their money on cigarettes, booze, women, big screen TV, car, gambling... "Hell if I get sick, it's all paid for by the government, I will skip that health care coverage you are selling buddy".

Deron.
 
julesa said:
simple question:

1) Would you prefer to see a poor person die at the doors to a hospital, or would you rather the hospital take that person in, knowing they can't pay, and just raise the rates for everyone else?
.......
This is NOT EASY to handle, but i'll give it a try.

Publish national policy guidelines for care:
Poor people don't get ignored, but neither do they get rich care.
Example: 2 guys arrive having a massive heart attack, 1 rich, #2 poor.
#1 the president (of anything) gets a quadrouple bypass on the spot.
#2. Gets clot busters or whatever good effective care is available. At the very least, pain meds should be supplied, but sorry, no $250,000 operation for free.
His plight gets listed on a website, listing his needs and a biography. (similar to KIVA.org) Anyone in the world can donate $25 or more to help. Once a minimum amount is donated, the hospital re-evaluates, and hopefully can offer better care.
Click to expand...
 
Do you know that most Dr.'s are blissfully unaware of the costs of different treatment? Even Dr. Nancy Sniderman(on NBC) said paitents need to call her office and talk to the girls to find out prices and pick the best value! She has no idea!
Hospitals too! I found a stock that for a fee, informs hospitals of the most effective, least cost treatment! Most have no idea!
And many are NOT interested in LOWER revenues.

My conclusion:
1. obama will not pull a rabbit out of a hat. He can't cut medicare waste in order to expand medicare as it will be broke in 2017. He will be lucky to keep it solvent.
2. Patients have to have the final say. They have to authorize payments in order to control costs. This will not happen.
3. Dr's & hospitals will have to learn a new trick: Finding the best value. This won't happen.
4. Ban medical and lawyers ads. Never will happen.
5. Insurance will not and can not cover pre-existing conditions. This is by medicare or medicaid or welfare or charity or savings or asset sales or hard work by the family. Where is easy credit when you really need it?
6. Unlimited coverage will NEVER happen. There will always be expensive experimental treatment few can afford.
7. Employer paid benefits are not taxed! This bizzare loophole keeps the gov from paying for more poor. As long as the rich(anybody with a job & ins) have loopholes like this there won't be money for the poor.
8. Revive the FLAT TAX idea, pay for health and balance the budget; everybody pays say 20%, after a personal exemption of $6,000 each. 39% over 200k. 50% over 1 million. Not going to happen!
 
Matt

One thing you can add to the list is, lawyers will have to back off with all the ambulance chasing. The unnecessary lawsuits and awards places a huge burden on the whole system.

Deron.
 
I think what will ultimately bring health care back down to Earth will be competition from providers outside the country. I hear it's already happening. You can get a operation and vacation all in one package. :D

Right here in San Diego, you can make a quick trip across the border and get dental care at greatly reduced prices. Drugs too, you just need to do your homework and make sure you are getting good quality.

Deron.
 
deronmoped said:
I think what will ultimately bring health care back down to Earth will be competition from providers outside the country. I hear it's already happening. You can get a operation and vacation all in one package. :D

Right here in San Diego, you can make a quick trip across the border and get dental care at greatly reduced prices. Drugs too, you just need to do your homework and make sure you are getting good quality.

Deron.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a report on 60 Minutes on going to India for the low price?
.
Yes on lawyers, no more ads on TV; i'll edit it.
.
 
Watched PBS Charlie Rose today
CEO of Atena says of all PUBLIC plans HALF are FOR PROFIT.
And make 6% profit! Sounds like we can save 6%,
BUT he says they pay 5% in TAX.
So if the US nationalizes the whole group, there
is a 1% savings possible.
 
Deron,

I say go a step further and remove lawyers from the equation, period. Some type of system review needs to be sufficient to weed out the bad apples.

Julesa,

To your question my answer is survival of the fittest. Anything done to prevent this only slows human evolution and contributes to over-population. Why should those who contribute to society be forced by the government to support those who are lead weights? Sure that may create jobs, but any job that is only to only carry a lead weight around is no contribution to society.

That said, the socialized health care system here in Costa Rica works pretty well, at least if you are under 18. Their Childrens Hospital has been top notch in my experience, but as an adult I wouldn't be caught dead in one of the other hospitals. After visiting a couple of employees in the hospital, I refuse to return regardless of my condition.

Free health care for kids... fine, great, I'm all for it. They shouldn't be held responsible for their parents misfortune, or benefit to the detriment of others for their parents fortune.

Now if you're really interested in making healthcare affordable for all, you don't get the government involved, except maybe to affect pricing. Sure the lawyer factor is a big chunk, but a lot more can be done to make the majority of visits far more cost effective. Health care is one of the most absurdly run businesses I know. I mean who is the customer?...ie If I have a 9am appointment, why am I sitting there still waiting at 10:30 when I am the customer? Why would anyone go to a hospital that has a 4hr or more wait time in the ER?...Please just let me die instead.

Sure something needs to be done, but letting the government take you under their wing isn't the answer.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top