Healthcare reform bill

[Guest janainaz]

My dh asks Canadians and Europeans every chance he gets about how they like their health insurance. He has never received one complaint, on the contrary. Even his doctor is from Britain and she said she would be able to give better care with government insurance.

[Supertechmom]

I think there are a lot of Americans out there that can afford health care, but choose to buy other things. That is their choice and I should have the choice not to pay for them through my taxes.:glare:

 

:iagree:That's one of the ways my kids pay the price. They don't get practices, they don't get lessons, they don't get cable, they don't get satellite, we drive paid for cars and hope they don't break down, They don't get trips, vacations, museum visits or anything like that unless it's a deal like dollar days or granddaddy pays. They don't get electronics, games or stuff like that unless they find ways to make money and save it to buy the stuff (though we do buy a wii game for their birthday) When the car sale market died and the jobless rate hit 20% for our state and we had to make decisions between mortgage/food or health care, the extras went out the door along with the health care.

 

You are right. Not affording health care and letting the gov take care of it for you from other taxpayers while you manage to provide the "niceties" of life is wrong.

[EKS]

We have found it much cheaper to pay when we go to the doctor, even though we are charged more than 3 times the amount of those who do have health insurance. Health insurance for us would be more than 50-75% of our income, not to mention the $5,000 deductible, and the fact that nothing diabetes would be covered for more than 5 years.. It is either be homeless with health insurance or have a home without it.

 

 

The thing is that you've been fortunate to have found it cheaper to pay as you go. One major hospitalization, one major illness requiring expensive treatment and likely you won't have a home either. That's the problem.

[johnandtinagilbert]

In the past it would have been set as well as possible and a cast applied. After 6 weeks it would have been removed and the results might not have been as good. Maybe she would hae had a limp the rest of her life, or not been able to play a sport she loved.

 

Medical care today is SOOO far advanced from the past and the desired results are so much higher, that it isn't a surprise that it would cost so much.

 

We priced indiv. policies once for ourselves and our dc and they were still sky high, even with $5-10000 deductibles. The assumption is that you will utilize large amounts of care (and that the care will cost a lot - like the ankle.)

Still, 50K...seems ridiculous to me.

 

I also don't like the assumption. Many, many people are healthy and as they put $ in, they never get it out. Medical costs are too high.

[Gretchen in NJ]

My dh asks Canadians and Europeans every chance he gets about how they like their health insurance. He has never received one complaint, on the contrary. Even his doctor is from Britain and she said she would be able to give better care with government insurance.

 

You should take a vacation over there. There is a news story or two every night about people who are being denied health care. My dh is in global practices for his company. He is always hearing of complaints from the Canadians and Europeans that work with him.

[johnandtinagilbert]

The Horse, Hunter and Stag

 

 

A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the

Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the

Stag. The Hunter agreed, but said: "If you desire to conquer the

Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your

jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this

saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon

you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the

conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then

with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and

said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove those things from my

mouth and back."

 

"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you

under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."

 

 

If you allow men to use you for your own purposes,

they will use you for theirs.

BRAVO!

[hsmamainva]

My dh asks Canadians and Europeans every chance he gets about how they like their health insurance. He has never received one complaint, on the contrary. Even his doctor is from Britain and she said she would be able to give better care with government insurance.

 

That's what I've heard, too.

 

We have posters on this board who live in Canada and Britain and Australia (I *think* they have government-run health care, too) and I can't recall too many negative posts about their healthcare system either.

 

As for us, my husband runs his own company (it's just him...no employees). We were paying $1500 a month for health insurance and just couldn't afford it anymore. That was 5 years ago. We dropped it. Since then, my oldest had her appendix removed ($15,000) and my youngest son suffered a skull fracture and spent a week in the hospital ($20,000). We're still paying those bills...and likely will for several more years.

 

Now, we can't get insurance because, during those 5 years, my husband developed diabetes. Now they won't cover him because it's a pre-existing condition.

 

We'd GLADLY pay for health insurance every month...but something affordable! $500-$700 a month. But we can't even do that.

 

What I'd like to see is insurance reform..which is what I thought this started out to be. Charge a reasonable fee and do away with the pre-existing condition clause.

 

Take car insurance for example. We're all required to have insurance on our vehicles, or pay an uninsured motorist fee if we don't. But auto insurance companies don't refuse to cover you because you have an older car or because you already owned a certain vehicle before you applied for coverage...and auto insurance doesn't cost $15,000 a year either.

[HollyinNNV]

We already have gov't run healthcare-the VA: understaffed, underfunded and unfortunate. The problem is the SYSTEM-not the employees; the system is inefficient & ineffective. DH has worked at the VA, so I'm not out to bash VA employees. They do the best with what they have-which is not much.

[Renee in NC]

Okay, can we ask WHY none of these places would hire your DH? Just really curious.

 

With Lowes we know it was bad credit. Yes, our fault. Can't change it now!

 

All the other places either were not hiring or didn't call him for whatever reason. Who knows why? He went to one interview to be told they had already hired 2 people (it had been 2 days since they called him.) Another place we found out had received 100s of applications for one opening.

 

The guy who worked for us put in 200 applications in all kinds of places. He got one job offer. He worked there for the past 8 months under terrible working conditions and was informed last week that he was being laid off, too.

 

If you are blue collar, things are really, really tight now. We moved to another state (leaving one of my dc behind - or he will be in August) to find a job.

[Mary in VA]

If we pay 2.5% of our AGI' date=' we get government healthcare?

 

 

K[/quote']

 

The 2.5% is the amount the government will tax people who opt not to get health coverage, not the cost of the coverage itself.

 

Mary

[BabyBre]

Total = $3960 for mediocre coverage.

 

We made about $40,000.

 

 

Is that your arguement FOR government health care? Do you really think it will get better?

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

If you are blue collar, things are really, really tight now. We moved to another state (leaving one of my dc behind - or he will be in August) to find a job.

 

That's us too. Dh has applied to many places over the past 2 years and either he's overqualified or they just don't respond...terrible time to need work.

[Melinda in VT]

Take car insurance for example. We're all required to have insurance on our vehicles, or pay an uninsured motorist fee if we don't. But auto insurance companies don't refuse to cover you because you have an older car or because you already owned a certain vehicle before you applied for coverage...and auto insurance doesn't cost $15,000 a year either.

 

Well, yes, but if the damage to your car is bad/expensive enough, they declare it "totaled" and tell you to get a new car.

 

There is really no limit to the amount of money you can spend on a human body.

[Renee in NC]

That's us too. Dh has applied to many places over the past 2 years and either he's overqualified or they just don't respond...terrible time to need work.

 

We were blessed that my uncle needed someone right when we really, really needed a job (unemployment ran out after 13 weeks.) The anguish over this move has been overwhelming - I did NOT want to leave my ds behind.

 

I want to say that we were able to move only because I have family here. We couldn't have picked up and moved to say, TX, for a job because we wouldn't have had the gas money to get there. And then to have to pay deposits and first month's rent? Nope.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Quote from Mid-Life MBA: The art of Business:

NHS London is the Strategic Health Authority for London, England. A paper leaked in April of this year openly acknowledged NHS London’s new mandate for cost containment through health care rationing, this, despite it’s stated mission to “deliver world-class care.â€

Among the cost cutting measures:

1) Panels were established across London to monitor the rates at which General Practitioners refer patients to hospital. Local health trusts were instructed to cut GP referral rates to the levels of the lowest 10% nationally at an estimated annual saving of 25m pounds.

2) Consultant to consultant referrals are also to be limited, effectively denying second opinons. In an earlier draft paper Hammersmith and Fulham reportedly found that a fifth of consultant-to-consultant referrals were “clinically not necessary.†Trimming back referrals accross London is expected to save another 7 million, though the administrative burden is estimated at 1.6 million.

3) Emergency care practitioners in emergency departments will “redirect†40-70 per cent of patients back to GPs or walk-in centres. If they treat those who could have been treated non-emergently, they will not be paid.

The British Medical Association condemned the plan. Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of the association’s GP committee, said that they left patients in limbo, with no one clear where the responsibility lay if the condition worsened or the patient died.

From the article:

“The plan, which is still in draft, was produced by the London Transition Team, led by John Bacon, a senior NHS manager. It is typical of the action being taken nationally to save money by reducing referrals, or, putting it more plainly, treating fewer patients.

There are serious questions about whether such systems will work. say two experts in general practice in this week’s British Medical Journal.

Myfanwy Davies and Glyn Elwyn, of the Centre for Health Services Research at Cardiff, say there is little evidence that referral management centres work to improve the quality of referrals or save money.

They say that the centres have “appeared overnight in an evidence-free zoneâ€.â€

End quote.

[LizzyBee]

I won't get a chance to start reading the bill myself till late afternoon, but according to this, that claim is being made by people who haven't actually read the bill.

 

We were paying 20 percent of our income to health care (with a $5,000 deductible per person) before my husband lost his job the end of May; I'm not going to shed any tears at the prospect of only having to pay 2.5 percent at some point in the future.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but isn't the 2.5% tax a penalty for not having insurance? So people who don't have insurance will pay 2.5% in exchange for nothing?

[Kari C in SC]

Is that your arguement FOR government health care? Do you really think it will get better?

 

No, that is not my only argument - see other posts.

 

I was also just speaking with my 69 year old mother about this thread. She reminded me that after my dad passed way, she had to go back to work to be able to pay for healthcare. She was not old enough for medicare. She worked 20 hours a week at the library and paid her ENTIRE salary to have catastrophic insurance. She was 59 years old at the time and worried about being without coverage.

 

I can give you another example - My aunt is 59 years old. She is a breast cancer survivor that is now crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. She is now on SS Disability, but they no longer offer immediate medicare on that. So, she has no insurance. She has had to refinance her house several times to keep up with medical bills.

 

I could give you so many examples of people who need coverage and have no means to get it. That is my argument for reform. For the people who can't get coverage even if they are trying to do the right thing.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Kari C in SC

[Tabrett]

Could someone tell me how a person who doesn't work will receive health care? For instance SAHM's?

 

If your employer is to pay for your insurance and you don't work where does that leave you? You don't have a "gross income" to tax at 2.5%

 

Or, If you only work 1/4 time and only make maybe $500 a month. Will you employer be required to carry health insurance for you?

 

Or, Who is responsible if you work for a temp service making $6-$8 an hour?

 

Mainly, temp services exist so companies DON'T have to provide benefits.

I could see most companies hiring through temp services or making employees independent contractors to avoid the insurance cost.

:lurk5:Anybody? What will happen if you don't work and are a SAHM? Will you get coverage? How? I would think this effects most people on this forum.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but isn't the 2.5% tax a penalty for not having insurance? So people who don't have insurance will pay 2.5% in exchange for nothing?

 

I shouldn't have to make that choice. I should be able to have the freedom to not have health insurance without paying a penalty. I should be able to choose my medical treatment options. This will all disappear. There will be government guild lines as to what the care should be.

[Sara R]

You should understand the math on the national debt and ongoing deficits before having an opinion here. These debts were overwhelming even before the recession and bailouts started: David Walker on 60 Minutes in 2007.

 

Because of all of the bailouts, and because the recession is decreasing tax revenues and increasing handouts, Social Security will implode ahead of schedule. And Medicare is seven times the problem, mathematically, that Social Security is.

 

The bottom line is that our country is running out of money. We need to drastically pare down expenses, on both a national and an individual scale.

 

I think that the next generation or two is going to see a drastic downgrade in medical services. If we're lucky, 1960s-level care is going to become normal. Someone has to pay for medical care. Costs have become much higher than most families can pay. I think what is perceived as "normal" service is going to have to go down in order to reflect that.

 

My first choice would be for those costs to go down in a way that respects the free market. Medical costs for the indigent have been subsidized by those who pay their bills; how much would ending that subsidy lower bills? I'd like to know. There should be standardized insurance plans (A through H, for example), covering different types of ailments at different percentages. That way people could easily comparison shop for insurance. Some of those choices should cover fewer health concerns at a lower cost.

 

There have been so many laws about what insurance "must" cover, and those increase the cost for everyone. I've seen breast cancer, so I can comment there. Breast reconstruction can be about as expensive as breast cancer treatment (mine was). The law says that insurance companies must cover breast reconstruction if they cover breast cancer. This is not just one simple surgery, but usually multiple surgeries. And often the results are poor. I wish I'd skipped it. But still, if I wanted to do more surgery because of unsatisfactory results, "revisions" are covered as well. Those kinds of choices, while wonderful for breast cancer patients (if reconstruction works), increase everyone's costs to unmanageable levels. Reconstruction is not medically necessary, and often women get better results with prostheses.

 

It makes me angry that health insurance coverage of unnecessary drugs like Viagra make insurance unaffordable for everyone. Mental health parity, while blessing some families, is also hugely expensive. Families should have a choice to have mental health coverage (at a higher expense) or not.

 

We can also decrease the cost of medical care by making insurance truly insurance, a way of paying unexpected expenses. Instead, now medical insurance is a way of pre-paying medical costs, buffet style. People should pay for normal care out of pocket, leaving insurance for the unpredictable catastrophic things.

 

My dearly beloved grandparents have received extraordinary medical care. Dh's 85 year old grandma had a quintuple bypass surgery. My grandmother has been hospitalized for the past 8 months with very little hope of recovery. These expenses just aren't sustainable. If the family wants to pay for it, or if the individual saved enough money to pay for extraordinary medical care for themselves in their last years, great! But the system can't cope with these expenses on a grand scale. Our wonderful modern medical care does not prevent death in the elderly.

 

Any government "solution" to the health care crisis needs to respect that our country no longer has vast resources of wealth to throw at the problem. The wealth is going and gone; the debt remains.

[julesmama3]

My husband and I were watching CSpan last night. The republicans were outraged at this bill because there is no mention of abortion coverage in it.

 

They said that when a bill specifically does not mention something then the courts can rule in favor for it. Their bottom line was that we as tax payers will be paying for federally funded abortions and also that we will see an increase in abortions because of this.

[LizzyBee]

My dh asks Canadians and Europeans every chance he gets about how they like their health insurance. He has never received one complaint, on the contrary. Even his doctor is from Britain and she said she would be able to give better care with government insurance.

 

OTOH, a friend of mine used to live in Ireland. She needed a test that is considered routine in the US, but she was going to have to wait 6 months there. She asked the doctor what he thought she should do. His recommendation was for her to fly back to the states to have the test done, so that's what she did.

 

Last month, a co-worker's sister had to go to the ER in Canada (where she was living while teaching in a Canadian university) with blood clots in her legs. She spent 3 very uncomfortable days in the ER waiting for a bed to become available in the hospital.

 

Having been a military dependent as a young adult, I do not want the federal government managing my healthcare. At the time, I thought military healthcare was fine. But after becoming a civilian, I realized how much better civilian care is. I had an HMO for 2 years, and even my HMO offered better care and more choices than the military.

[Laura Corin]

I am going to make this one post, then leave the thread, because I find arguing my corner on this issue so frustrating.

 

The NHS, like all systems, is imperfect, however during my father's final illness his treatment was exemplary, and my mother's care is wonderful. Since arriving in the UK last year, my own treatment for various illnesses, and my son's orthodontic treatment, have been superb.

 

The NHS has a history of long waits for treatment. Enormous sums have been poured into the system over the last ten years and waiting lists have been slashed. Health care in the UK costs the country enormously less than the service does in the US, and life expectancy is slightly longer.

 

When stories come up of people being denied treatment under the NHS, there is widespread misunderstanding of what that means. The NHS functions like one enormous insurance programme, but whilst there are no pre-existing condition exclusions, treatments are given based on evidence of their efficacy, which is reviewed constantly. If one in a million people with a particular condition will benefit from a certain treatment, then it will not be authorised, because the money would be better spent elsewhere. There is nothing stopping an individual or their family from taking out top-up insurance to cover an unproven treatment, or buying it privately with cash, but the NHS will not cover it. I have no problem with that.

 

A friend of mine worked on the cancer policy for the NHS. She visited various countries around the world, including the US, investigating how many lines of treatment would be tried in order to save a life, and what effect this had on the patients. Her impression was that the US was too wedded to heroic medicine, and that the patient's interest, in most cases, was not served by line after line after line of treatment, when the likelihood of recovery was vanishingly small. My father died of cancer in the UK five years ago, and I think the balance between treating him and allowing him to fade in peace was well struck.

 

I will not be reading the detail of the proposed US policy, so I don't know if it is well designed. I do hope that someone reading this can consider the issue with an open mind.

 

Laura

[johnandtinagilbert]

OTOH, a friend of mine used to live in Ireland. She needed a test that is considered routine in the US, but she was going to have to wait 6 months there. She asked the doctor what he thought she should do. His recommendation was for her to fly back to the states to have the test done, so that's what she did.

 

Last month, a co-worker's sister had to go to the ER in Canada (where she was living while teaching in a Canadian university) with blood clots in her legs. She spent 3 very uncomfortable days in the ER waiting for a bed to become available in the hospital.

 

Having been a military dependent as a young adult, I do not want the federal government managing my healthcare. At the time, I thought military healthcare was fine. But after becoming a civilian, I realized how much better civilian care is. I had an HMO for 2 years, and even my HMO offered better care and more choices than the military.

 

You reminded me of my dad's situation. He's retired military. Sick from agent orange. Waiting lists are MONSTER in his area where there are a variety of military bases (San Antonio, TX) Up to 6 months to see a specialist. As soon as he was old enough for Medicare, they bumped him off of his military lists. Now he has to wait all over again on the Medicare lists. C R A Z Y

 

Just one more example of how the gov't does not handle their plates well now.

 

Health care is a crisis, admittedly. I'm just so confused at how I can't get credit, say $1000 to fix my family vehicle, but the gov't can walk in double-digit trillion $ of debt. There simply is no money. Why can't the people in congress see that?

 

Perhaps not enough of them were home schooled cuz they just can't do the math...feeling very not impressed with Harvard, Yale or whatever Ivy League graduates our "finest" leaders.

[Sara R]

A friend of mine worked on the cancer policy for the NHS. She visited various countries around the world, including the US, investigating how many lines of treatment would be tried in order to save a life, and what effect this had on the patients. Her impression was that the US was too wedded to heroic medicine, and that the patient's interest, in most cases, was not served by line after line after line of treatment, when the likelihood of recovery was vanishingly small. My father died of cancer in the UK five years ago, and I think the balance between treating him and allowing him to fade in peace was well struck.

 

Yes, your friend is absolutely right. I read phrases like "passive euthanasia" to describe not giving heroic medical care. One of my cancer doctors described one of his other patients as suicidal because she quit chemo when she was stage 4 and had very little hope of recovery left. Modern medical care does not accept death well, and everybody still dies. If patients have their own resources to pay for heroic medicine, great!

 

I doubt that this health care bill can change that attitude. Medicare has been socialized since the late 60s, and that's where I see the biggest examples of heroic medicine.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I urge all to at least check out the Bill Moyer's show with Wendell Potter on pbs.org. It is quite informative on the antics of health insurance companies.

 

 

I read this by Dr. Jon LaPook, Chief Medical Correspondant at CBS News:

 

"Opponents of a public option for insurance warn about the danger of having a bureaucrat in between the patient and the physician. But that threat already exists in the current system every time an insurance company decides whether to approve a claim. Wendell Potter, former head of Public Relations for Cigna, recently told Bill Moyers about Cigna's decision to deny a liver transplant to a 17-year-old girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, even though her doctors at UCLA had recommended the procedure.

 

A public-relations uproar forced Cigna to reverse its decision; the company subsequently explained its reversal as an exception, saying the surgery was approved "despite the lack of medical evidence regarding the effectiveness of such treatment."

Ms. Sarkisyan died hours after Cigna's decision, without having received the transplant.

 

A critical flaw in the current system -- and one that must be addressed in any overhaul -- is that the same people who refuse to pay for a recommended course of action are the ones who consider the appeal of that decision. And, lo and behold, they usually end up agreeing with themselves! In more than two decades of medical practice, I have spent countless hours trying to get various services covered by payers. One encounter -- when I tried unsuccessfully to get a stomach-acid lowering pill approved for a patient who needed it -- ended up as an example of twentieth-century frustration in Letters of the Century."

 

I think that what Dr. LaPook write sums up my feelings.:)

 

I also have read of countless people who go bankrupt with healthcare insurance due to over-whelming health care bills. Catastrophe can happen to anyone of us. I know since I worked in a critical care/trauma unit for 7 years. I know that I took care of many people who ran up hospital bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. All I can say is God bless them.

 

I pray for a strong, medicare-like, public health insurance option that is available to all Americans. As to whether this particular bill is the answer, I have not decided yet.

Edited July 17, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[Retired]

I have all kinds of reason why I don't support government health insurance.

 

But this audio clip from Ronald Reagan against socialized medicine sums up my thoughts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

 

I wish people could understand the real problem with government ran anything. This is a old clip and since that time the US has moved more toward social ideas. The people want the government taking care them.

[cathmom]

I came up with an idea that the government should have with a catastrophic plan that covers all Americans, so no one has to lose sleep over being wiped out, and then outlaw health insurance. Patients would negotiate directly with doctors and hospitals.

 

We are very low-income and we pay almost 10% of our net income for a private policy to cover dh and me. Dh could get insurance through work, but then he is tied to his job. I would dearly love to see a insurance separated from work - I think it's horrible and limits people's choices too much. If dh lost his job, we could not afford COBRA, and we have no guarantee he could get back on my private plan.

 

Our insurance is with BC/BS, a supposed non-profit that has been making record profits for years. They raise our rates every year no matter whether we have used our insurance or not. I bet we'll have a huge increase this January because I hurt my back this year and needed a couple doctor visits and x-rays, and because we are both nearing 40.

[Mommyof4ks]

I'm worried my dh's company will do the same thing. Then we will be forced into the gov't program. In fact, I think the administration is counting on it.

 

I wish those who want a gov't program because private insurance companies are only worried about the bottom line would realize the gov't will only worry about the bottom line too. That's the reason for the rationing, and it's what they mean by "cutting costs".

 

Of course, if you die while waiting months for life-saving surgery or to see a specialist, I guess they don't have to worry about paying for your treatment anyway. Now that will save money. And if you are elderly, you're really out of luck.

 

There are alternatives out there that will really cut costs and provide more accessibility without going to a government run program.

 

Why do so many of us automatically assume the government is always the only answer to our country's problems? I've never gotten that.

 

Exactly! I am terrified, because my 4 year old son is in treatment for cancer. As it stands now he can see the doc anytime day or night, no waiting, and tests are done as soon as it is deemed necessary to hopefully catch relapse or illness which can kill him. All I have to do is call and an hour later we are getting a test done. If the gov't takes over he may not have that kind of access and it may take a few days or longer to get xrays and such ordered that could literally save his life. Now if the gov't lets him die they would not have to worry about the ongoing problems he will have his entire life, but I will miss my baby.

 

Who will decide if he is 'worth' it. Relapsed leukemia is hard to treat, but we know many kids who were given less than a 5% chance of survival who are doing well years later. Our current private ins has allowed that, and I thank them.

 

My dh has worked very hard to get ins that we have now and it pay SO WELL that we are not sinking even though our son has been in treatment for 2.5 years and is not yet done. Those with medicaid don't get nearly the help with side effects and such that we do and it is sad to watch those kids suffer while my son looks so healthy even on such harsh treatment.

 

Just my own frustration. :D

[Colleen in NS]

The health care in Canada and Britain is a disaster and we are headed that way. It is absolutly true that in Canada and Britain, there is a WAITING LIST for cancer treatment!

 

No, it is not a disaster here in Canada for everyone. And no, not everyone with cancer is on a waiting list for treatment. I have known at least four people since moving to Canada 16 years ago who have had cancer, and NONE of them had to wait for treatment. I've also used the health care system many times since having children and have never had those newsworthy disasters. It all depends on the locality, and of COURSE you are going to hear the worst-case scenarios on the news.

 

When we were in England last September, there was one or more news stories about people being denied medical care.

 

Everyone knows that the most important part of the treatment of cancer is to find it early and to treat it right away. This does not happen in Canada and England where treatment can be delayed for months.

 

Again, it's the worst-case scenarios that make national and international headlines. And again, it's NOT TRUE all across the nation that cancer isn't found early and treated right away here. Gosh, my dr. is right on top of me every year, making sure I get whatever cancer-screening procedures done!

 

My dh is in global practices for his company. He is always hearing of complaints from the Canadians and Europeans that work with him.

 

I would wonder which Canadians he is talking to - the ones with higher income who want to complain about every little glitch in the system, or the ones like us with very low income (and doing all we can to raise our kids with a good education so they won't have to struggle as much as we do) who are just extremely grateful to have one less thing to worry about?

 

I think that the next generation or two is going to see a drastic downgrade in medical services.

 

Services. Service vs. health care. That is the contrast my FIL saw last winter, when he went to FL for six months. He saw the American system as being more service-oriented (complete with dr. telling him, "you could have this done for xx amount of dollars, or you could go with this for xx amount" - all FIL wanted to know was "which do you recommend as most efficient and effective, health-wise???") and the Canadian system being more health-oriented. We had a long talk about that, because I am a dual citizen and he's always talking with me about these things. It was interesting to hear that contrast of service vs. concern for health.

 

Last month, a co-worker's sister had to go to the ER in Canada (where she was living while teaching in a Canadian university) with blood clots in her legs. She spent 3 very uncomfortable days in the ER waiting for a bed to become available in the hospital.

 

Must have been a busier area in Canada. But did they treat her blood clots in the ER or just leave her unmonitored?

 

I've spent time in ERs here, but it has always been with being monitored or my kids being monitored, and me doing my parental duty of closely monitoring my kids while waiting for a dr. or nurse to come in the room and knowing that if their condition changed for the worse while waiting, all I had to do was shout for help and we'd be shot up the priority list.

 

I knew an 8 month old baby, who died a few weeks ago. She was at a regular dr. appt (she did have some health issues), when she suddenly started "crashing." She was rushed to the children's ER, where they worked on her for over an hour, trying to restart her heart. No waiting there. (and unfortunately, it was an undetected underlying problem that would have happened anyway with the same result)

 

And I know an 80 year old woman who just had some eye surgery done. No months and months of waiting, and no denial of care just because she is 80.

 

I know a 41 year old man with brain cancer, who CHOSE to discontinue treatment when he was told it probably would only extend his life by a few months. He chose to forego all the chemo and radiation sickness (after his first go-round with all that), so that he could live out the rest of his days in peace and relatively little ill-effects. He is enjoying his life to the fullest he can right now, day to day. He's not going for the heroic medicine, because it would make him miserable.

 

Please remember not to believe everything you hear in the news. Talk to the real people in these other nations when you compare national systems. And talk to a diversity of the people, from different parts of the countries, and different financial circumstances. There are many, many of us who love using the gov't. health care system, and feel that the system serves us, we don't serve it.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[asta]

Please tell me they aren't trying to institute a Medicaid-type program for the whole country?!? I thought they were just going to open up the fed health insurance for people to buy into.

 

You're joking, right?

 

Not even the US Military gets the same level of health insurance/care as the lowest level federal employee - much less the level of Congress. You do know that *true* federal employees (not GS, but Judges and their clerks and Congressmen) don't even pay federal tax, right?

 

I think there are a lot of Americans out there that can afford health care, but choose to buy other things. That is their choice and I should have the choice not to pay for them through my taxes.:glare:

 

And I think this really boils it down: do some people have catastrophic events? Certainly. Do the majority of people who have made choices other than health care have them? No.

 

The last time this healthcare debate came 'round, there were all of these sob stories about families who chose not to have any health care insurance, and then bemoaned how expensive coverage was now that they had had a horrible accident, developed a chronic illness, etc. Uh... duh! Of COURSE insurance is expensive for someone who has already presented with a major problem - insurance works off of statistical analyses of risk - the greater the risk, the higher the cost - and that is for any type of insurance, not just health.

 

Is rationed health care "kind"? No, it's not. But it is what one gets in a capitalistic society. If one is happy to bear the fruits of capitalism, one must also deal with its downside - that not everyone gets everything. Fair? No. But I'd much rather deal with the current, messed up as it is, system then go to socialized medicine. I've lived in Germany: don't get old, very damaged, or be born with a significant abnormality - it isn't pretty.

 

Finally, mental health parity? Do you want to know what is really happening with that? Insurance companies are lowering their overall coverage to the level of what has been their MH coverage. Lose-Lose.

 

 

a

[MomLovesClassics]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there are a lot of Americans out there that can afford health care, but choose to buy other things. That is their choice and I should have the choice not to pay for them through my taxes.:glare:

Yes you are right I do choose to do other things with my money instead of buy health insurance. I choose to spend my money to put a roof over my head and buy electricity and phone service. And no we do not live in some big A$$ fancy house either. So I would love to hear more about how people waste their money instead of buying health insurance. I would also love to hear how my family is costing taxpayers because my family does not have health insurance. The last time I checked I was the one buying my husbands insulin and diabetic supplies.

[Sara R]

Yes you are right I do choose to do other things with my money instead of buy health insurance. I choose to spend my money to put a roof over my head and buy electricity and phone service. And no we do not live in some big A$$ fancy house either. So I would love to hear more about how people waste their money instead of buying health insurance. I would also love to hear how my family is costing taxpayers because my family does not have health insurance. The last time I checked I was the one buying my husbands insulin and diabetic supplies.

 

The problem is that no one else has gobs of spare money either. Everyone is hurting, even rich people (who have lost a lot of their investments over the past year). Business owners are facing higher taxes in an already stressful business climate. The government doesn't have the money either. Whether health care is socialized or private, we collectively are going to have to figure out how to economize, because the money just isn't there anymore.

[MomLovesClassics]

Did the house committedee pass this bill???

[Audrey]

My dh asks Canadians and Europeans every chance he gets about how they like their health insurance. He has never received one complaint, on the contrary. Even his doctor is from Britain and she said she would be able to give better care with government insurance.

 

 

Glad you posted that. I'm an ex-american, now Canadian, and having lived on both sides I can confidently say that the healthcare I receive here is excellent. There is no rationing of care. I have free choice of doctors -- more so than I ever did with my HMO in the States. Canadian researchers are not hindered by our system either. They have consistently produced some of the most cutting edge medical breakthroughs over the past 40+ years that Canada has had universal healthcare.

 

I can also tell you that every year I have lived here my dh and I TOGETHER have paid LESS in Federal AND Provincial taxes combined than I ever did for a year's worth of health insurance for myself alone. If all I ever got from my taxes was healthcare, I'd still be ahead financially. Of course, I get much more than just healthcare for my tax dollars, so I'm even that much further ahead.

 

Having seen my American parents -- who HAD insurance -- crippled by the bills that insurance didn't cover for my mother's cancer care, I would never want to go back to a system like that. I think of all the people who don't have insurance and how they must be struggling with a loved ones cancer. Well... I just can't imagine it. Gods forbid my son should ever need serious treatment or care, but at least I won't have to consult my bank balance before getting him to the doctor. I can't imagine how that must feel to a mother. I don't ever want to know how that feels, and I very much wish that no mother would have to know.

[Tree House Academy]

To be honest, I am so opposed to this bill (and many of the other things that Mr. Obama stands for and wishes to implement in this country) that it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. I find myself wishing I could move out of the country right about now.

[MomLovesClassics]

To be honest, I am so opposed to this bill (and many of the other things that Mr. Obama stands for and wishes to implement in this country) that it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. I find myself wishing I could move out of the country right about now.

I was sort of thinking the same thing.

[Shenan]

Yes you are right I do choose to do other things with my money instead of buy health insurance. I choose to spend my money to put a roof over my head and buy electricity and phone service. And no we do not live in some big A$$ fancy house either. So I would love to hear more about how people waste their money instead of buying health insurance. I would also love to hear how my family is costing taxpayers because my family does not have health insurance. The last time I checked I was the one buying my husbands insulin and diabetic supplies.

 

 

Insurance is a priority for this family. Dh has been known to turn down GREAT job offers because they didn't carry decent insurance coverage. We would forgo electricity and phone service just to be sure we had coverage. Matter of fact many years back, we did EXACTLY that!! NO food too! But we had health insurance and a steady paycheck!

 

We couldn't bear the thought of allowing our medical bills fall onto the shoulders of others. But millions of other people every year have no problem doing that. I guess it all has to do with one's conscience and morality levels.

 

My mother was one of those who 'couldn't afford health insurance' while we were growing up (however she never had an affordability issue purchasing cigarettes, lighters, and going to the bars). Now your and my tax dollars are paying for her longtime lifestyle choices 3 times a week when she goes to her dialysis appts. Oh and I don't recall her EVER paying for any of her children's ER appts. Grandma and Grandpa always took us to the doctor when we got sick. She also CHOSE not to have a job since I was 15. She bummed from one friend or another. So how could others who don't have a job pay into a system that GIVES them health coverage! BTW, I have a sister who is following my mothers footsteps. She CHOOSES not to work! We CHOOSE to work and are going to be punished for those who choose not to!

[LMA]

Here is the actual bill:

http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/HR%20-%201018%20page%20bill%20July%2014.pdf

 

It is 1,018 pages and I plan to read all of it. I am on pg.169 and I've just read that if you choose not to have health insurance, for whatever reason (think young healthy adult who thinks they're invincible)...you will be taxed by the federal government 2.5% of your gross income.

This is an outrage. Oh, and if you have private insurance, great, it can get "grandfathered in" (pg. 16) but don't try to change it or apply for private insurance once healthcare goes national...you won't be able to do it.

Call your Representatives! Call your Senators! Read the bill because they won't be and they need to know how bad it is.

It will cost 1.5 trillion dollars and create a mound of spaghetti of government bureaucracy...

 

 

This is modeled after the Massachusetts health reform. Anyone who doesn't have health insurance is penalized on their taxes.

[Dirtroad]

The Horse, Hunter and Stag

 

 

A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the

Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the

Stag. The Hunter agreed, but said: "If you desire to conquer the

Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your

jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this

saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon

you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the

conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then

with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and

said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove those things from my

mouth and back."

 

"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you

under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."

 

 

If you allow men to use you for your own purposes,

they will use you for theirs.

 

HIT THAT NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD! They pay, they own you!!!!

[MomLovesClassics]

I want to know if I understand something clearly.

Under this new plan if you choose not to buy health insurance, you will have to pay extra taxes. If you do go the doctor, you will be forced to pay your (government insurance plan) yearly premiums, plus interest.

[Dirtroad]

Actually, right now my dh has NO CHOICES in healthcare when his Cobra runs out. He has many pre-existing conditions. We cannot get private insurance and have too many assets to qualify for medicaid. So, where are his choices? As far as paying for somebody's insurance. You are paying for them right now to NOT have insurance. Say that somebody needs their gallbladder out. They don't have insurance and have absolutely no way to pay the thousands of dollars for that surgery. The hospital, doctors, etc do not get paid. They turn around and pass that cost on to you. So, you paid. You just paid on the back end instead of up front.

 

Even with health insurance, many of us don't have choices. Right now, my dh has Cobra (only because of the stimulus package that is paying 65% of the premium). He has BCBS and has to pay $1500 to have an endoscopy/colonoscopy done. He has to pay the deductable to get the procedure. $1500 may as well be $15000 right now - so we have no choices there and he HAS this wonderful private insurance. Then there is me. I pay $180 a month for catastrophic coverage. I paid $150 a month all of last year and then they raised my premium $30 a month. I didn't use my insurance ONE time and they still raised my premium that month. I don't use my insurance for one basic reason... if I have a blood test and it says something like I have high cholesterol - the will cancel me or raise my premiums. I need to know I have that policy in place in case I need something major in medical. So, I don't even use it for basic stuff because I can't afford to be dropped or have the premiums go up. Where is my freedom in that?

 

My kids - they qualify for SCHIP - state kids health care. I take them to the doctor, dentist, and eye doctor regularly. When they are sick, I don't worry at all. I just make and appointment and go. Their medical concerns are well cared for. There is FREEDOM in that. I don't have to worry about their healthcare.

 

I do not agree, but understand your distress. There are catastrophic plans out there. There are organizations that work to help each other and share the burden of healthcare. Sometimes there are cobra extensions.

 

As for not paying... this is a huge immigration issue also ... but many don't want to face it. Hospitals have begun to fight this abusive issue too.... often these excessive cost are due to abuses of the system & emergency rooms are beginning to be very strict on triage (you should need the emergency room or they refer you to gen pract, etc).

 

Hospitals also have grants. My brother had a tree fall on him. He didn't have insurance. He paid some in cash & recieved a grant for part of it.

 

You can pay on time. I have friend (very irresponsible, by the way) who can't seem to ever have money for her bills (but weights 350# and scrapbooks).... hospital bills are paid at $10 per month. (she shoudl be in jail, this is really dishonest on her part). But she is a perfect example of the sob stories that are out there.

 

There are extreme cases & some are difficult. But the entire country should not be forced in to substandard medical care b/c some don't or won't have insurance.

 

Honestly, selling some assests might be needed to cover health cost. They should not be free & no person should expect others to cover their costs in order for them to not do all they can first. I know it sounds hard, but you have to pay your bills & be blessed that you have the healthcare in this country where you can get better... and not be told you are too old, too unnecessary to society, or wait 9 months & come back.

[PineFarmMom]

To be honest, I am so opposed to this bill (and many of the other things that Mr. Obama stands for and wishes to implement in this country) that it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. I find myself wishing I could move out of the country right about now.

 

:iagree: Dh and I were discussing this last night. We no longer have choices. How many things have been just flat inflicted on us since this man came into office? It's beyond ridiculous and will get worse. These senators aren't even reading these things they are agreeing to. It's maddening!!

[PineFarmMom]

Who is sure her Stalin-hating great-grandfathers are rolling in their graves...

 

Amen!!! We knew it was coming...I guess I'm just surprised it steam-rolled so quickly. :(

[Dirtroad]

I want to know if I understand something clearly.

Under this new plan if you choose not to buy health insurance, you will have to pay extra taxes. If you do go the doctor, you will be forced to pay your (government insurance plan) yearly premiums, plus interest.

 

 

You will not be allowed to NOT buy health insurance. You will have to prove that you have it (probably on yearly income tax filings) or be fined a HUGE fine at tax time (the fine is about the same as the fees).

 

You wil not be allowed to select your own health insurance with the gov't (if you are not covered when law becomes effective)... the government will select for you.

 

And, if your company drops insurance or changes the conditions of your policy, you will be forced into the government program automatically.... and they chose your new plans.

 

This is not about helping those lost in the middle. This is about ALL of us under the thumb of social health care.... oh, except congress & president... they get to keep their current plans!

 

THIS is serious & dangerous..... actually terrifying!

[MomLovesClassics]

I am shocked that so many people are FOR this plan. I am against it. This bill opens the door to more dictatorship.

[elw_miller]

I haven't read all the responses yet--this is a very interesting discussion so I'll do my best (in addition to trying to plow through the actual bill). :)

 

The posts brought to mind the issue of taxing health care benefits, first proposed by John McCain prior to the election. The door has been left open by President Obama to also do this.

 

Some articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7731736

 

What are your thoughts on the taxing of some health care benefits?

What do you think will be the end result of both of these ideas coming to fruition?

[Alice]

I have not yet read the bill but my fear is that in most of the discussions I've heard the fundamental questions about health care reform are not being addressed. What I hear discussed primarily in the media is the idea of "coverage for everyone" and the question of how to raise the money for that coverage. Those are important issues but I don't think address a lot of the underlying problems.

 

I think American health care reform will be different from health care reform in other countries because we are different as a society and different as a culture. Not better or worse, just different. A large part of what drives up the health care costs in this country is public expectations. Most people expect the best care and they expect to get whatever care they want when they want it. So they might want X test or Y test. Maybe there is only a 1% chance that X test will discover X disorder given a set of symptoms. But to most Americans that 1% change is worth taking despite the costs as they want to "make sure". I don't really see this seriously talked about in the discussions about health care reform. People talk about "rationing" but not really about a fundamental change in our attitudes. It just is not possible to provide every single possible test/medical service to every single person. It's not. And I don't see Americans changing their feelings about this. This does not mean that people would necessarily get worse care if they aren't getting the tests....in many cases people ask for or demand tests that aren't necessary or that could wait without harm. But we want them the way we want it.

 

I also think the administration has made it pretty clear they have no interest in malpractice reform. I'm not one of the doctors who thinks that malpractice is the only thing driving up health care costs. We, as doctors, are responsible for our share of that but malpractice is kind of like the elephant in the room that is being ignored. I do think it's a large part of the problem. Not just the idea that doctors have huge malpractice insurance premiums to pay that then drives up their costs of doing business. But more that many doctors practice in a state of awareness of malpractice. I try really hard not to make medical decisions due to the fear of being sued or not sued but I know there have been times that I might have ordered an extra test or done something out of the knowledge that a particular patient seemed to be antagonistic and I was scared of what would happen if I missed something. I think that's true of all doctors practicing today.

 

A classic example is appendicitis. 20 years ago, even 10 years ago if a person came in with the classic symptoms of appendicitis the patient would be examined and surgery would be done based on the history and exam. Now almost every patient who goes into the ER with appendicitis gets a CT scan to confirm appendicitis. The reason for this is that it can be done and it may prevent a few people from having unnecessary surgery. (Pre CT-scan, surgeons would accept a small percentage of cases where they did surgery and finding a normal appendix knowing that that meant they weren't missing the ones who did need surgery.) Nowadays, surgeons know that if they take someone to the OR and operate and there is no appendicitis...they could easily be sued. (Doesn't matter if they would be found guilty or not...they'd still have to deal with the suit and the possibility.) The CT is a very useful tool, especially for cases that are not-typical or where the exam is not clear. I'm glad we have it. But it is absolutely overused for this reason. And each time it's used, it's an added cost. All those added unnecessary costs add up.

 

I think the UK has a different system for malpractice, but I'm not sure about that. Someone from there would have to comment.

 

Two really interesting articles about health care reform were recently in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande. Gawande is an amazing writer and also a surgeon in Boston. Even if you don't agree with his position, you might find the articles interesting.

 

This one is very critical of doctors..but very interesting. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

 

This one is very interesting in discussing how health care reform here is different from places like Canada or the UK. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande

Edited July 17, 2009 by Alice

[OnTheBrink]

We educate our own children because we don't trust the government's ability to do it, but we are going to trust this same government to manage our health and the health of the children we don't trust them to for their education? Logic? Hello?

[Shenan]

You know,

 

once upon a time......a short time ago.......oh, let's say 50 plus-ish years or more..... Healthcare was considered a luxury item....I don't think health insurance even existed when my grandmother was a little girl. Which is probably why they paid their doctor with pies and/or eggs.... So I am just curious, why now do so many people think it is a luxury that everyone deserves to have?

 

 

:bigear: