Are you sick of health care threads yet?

[iwka]

Article below from here:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16614

 

As President Obama urges Congress to pass health care reform legislation by August, a medical clinic in Madison, Wisconsin is offering a novel way to address medical needs by offering free care for the uninsured. Patients with insurance only pay a single yearly fee for their care at Our Lady of Hope Clinic. When Drs. Michael Kloess and Anne Volk Johnson became unhappy with the medical system in which they worked, they decided to found Our Lady of Hope Clinic. Their goal was to start a clinic where they could minister to the poor while being free to practice their Catholic faith fully.

Our Lady of Hope Clinic is “totally pro-life and totally Catholic,†developmental director Steven Karlen told CNA. “So they don’t have to dispense birth control, they don’t have to refer for sterilizations or in-vitro or abortion or anything of that nature. They can practice in complete accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.â€

The ability for doctors to freely practice their Catholic faith is currently being challenged throughout the country as lawmakers debate whether or not to exempt workers from performing abortions, prescribing contraceptives, or participating in other activities that violate their consciences.

At Our Lady of Hope, Kloess and Johnson are able to live out their faith by practicing the corporal works of mercy and providing free care for the uninsured, particularly the “working poor,†those who are employed but do not have insurance through their jobs and cannot afford it on their own.

According to their by-laws, at least 50% of the care given at Our Lady of Hope will go to the uninsured, who can come in on a day-by-day walk-in basis and will receive no billing or other charges.

Treatment of the uninsured is funded by the clinic’s benefactors, clients who pay a once-a-year fee to receive unlimited concierge-style primary care. For a single person, the annual fee is about $1,200. In the case of married couples and children discounts are given, with no additional charges after three children.

For this fee, benefactors receive unlimited access to the clinic. Whether they are coming in for a simple physical or for a condition that requires a weekly visit, there are no additional charges beyond the set annual rate.

The number of benefactors will be limited to 300 per provider in order to ensure less waiting and more access to personalized quality time with a doctor.

Karlen explained to CNA that this system benefits not only the uninsured, but also the paying clients, “particularly those who have control in purchasing their insurance.†These people, such as the self-employed or small-business owners, “can very often save money by dropping a more comprehensive plan and switching to a high deductable or catastrophic major medical sort of plan, and then using the clinic for their primary care.â€

Others who just like the idea of the Catholic clinic make the contribution and become benefactors in addition to their normal insurance plans, he added.

While every benefactor must have insurance for cases outside of primary care, such as hospitalization or referrals to a specialist, Our Lady of Hope does not bill any insurance at all, Karlen continued, noting that the money that would be spent on insurance claims and billing is instead used to treat the clinic’s uninsured patients.

As they started the clinic, Drs. Kloess and Johnson found a model in St. Luke’s Family Practice, a similar organization in Modesto, California, and currently the only other full-time clinic of this type in the country.

Our Lady of Hope Clinic opened in Wisconsin on April 1 to benefactors, and on June 1, it began treating the uninsured free of charge.

Now, the clinic is working to raise awareness of what they offer and increase their number of benefactors. Both doctors currently work part-time as volunteers, spending half the week at the clinic and the other half at their previous practices so they can make money to support their families.

Once they have a larger base of benefactors, they will be able to work for pay full-time at Our Lady of Hope.

[Julie in Austin]

Wow--lots of new comments since I last checked. Thanks to all of you for such a good discussion!

 

Several of you have brought up the issue of government corruption. I have no doubt that there is corruption, but that isn't the relevant question. The relevant issue is whether there will be more or less corruption in the current system or a single payer system. Given the track record of health insurance companies and what we've learned from whistle blowers in that industry, I firmly believe that a well-designed single-payer system could have substantially less corruption.

 

farmmom4him writes, "As a family who DOES NOT use any of the government assistence programs, I have to say that if the government get further involved in our helathcare we are going to have huge issues."

 

That's fascinating--how do you manage your farm and household without using roads? And that must be a lot of work to maintain your own police and fire departments. (I'm going to apologize for being snarky, but I always find it interesting how people forget the services that they rely on from the government.)

 

OHGrandma writes, "Many people have varying philosophies about homeschooling but a common link seems to be the conviction that a parent can educate their own child better than the gov't run schools."

 

I think the health care equivalent of public schools would be if you were assigned a doctor based on your geographic area and assigned a treatment based solely on your age. Whereas the schooling analogue for the single-payer health care I support would be a voucher system. Big difference. ;)

 

priscilla, thanks for standing up for the government!

 

rlowetx, what did you think about my explanation of why a free market won't work in health care (that is, the information problem)? Because you say that you want a free market, but you didn't address that crucial problem.

 

Gretchen in NJ, there is a lot more to the picture than cancer survival rates and anecdotal information about celebrities. Google life expectancies in different countries and see what you find. And to answer your question re costs, google "percent of GDP spent on health care by country" to find your answer.

[WishboneDawn]

How about Natasha Richardson?

 

 

A reponse can be found here. Seventh show down titled, "Canadian health care on trial."

 

A failing in Quebec's health care system doesn't mean UHC in Quebec is a failure. Most system have failings, even American ones. What is good about Quebec's system is that because it's UHC it's accountable to the people of Quebec, political pressure can ensure the system is reviewed and changed. Something that might not happen with a system accountable only to, say, shareholders.

[Sarah CB]

Unlike other posters here, I do not agree with you but felt the need to address a few points only.

 

(f) You don't want to hear negative stories from other countries to color your opinions - well, I have heard them first hand over the last 5 years from many concerned parents that have little to no choices for their children's feet. This does color everything about my decision making in this matter. I would like to believe that things will work out but I can tell you, I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that if this legislation passes, it will mean nothing but bad things for my daughter. That may make me selfish but that is what I see in our lives. .

 

Maybe I'm not understanding this properly, but how would universal healthcare take away your choice for treatment? I have experienced a couple of instances where I wanted to do things differently than what was first recommended. This hasn't been a problem or an issue at all. We're also able to switch doctors - so if a particular doctor disagreed with how I wanted to proceed I'd research and then find one that had similar views to mine. There may be a case of not being able to find the particular kind of treatment you're looking for close to home, but then you'd always be able to travel (like you're doing now) in order to take advantage of what is available elsewhere.

[Colleen in NS]

" Originally Posted by Julie in Austin

On average, other countries spend half what we spend for similar or better outcomes."

 

This is a completely false statement since the statistics show that we have a higher cancer survival rate here in the USA over Canada.

 

[*]For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.

[*]For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

 

Completely false statement? Those outcome numbers look pretty similar to me. The comparisons only differ by 3-4%.

 

Besides the point, Canada also has a much smaller population, so I'd say, according to your statistics, the cancer survival rates are pretty good here!

 

Canada must be keeping cost down by not having medical helicopters and fewer and not as good as USA trauma centers.

 

It's not all of Canada that was being referred to in the quote, it was a province in Canada, called Quebec. Parts of Canada DO have medical helicopters. And Canada DOES have good trauma centres, just, according to that quote anyway, not as good in Quebec as in the States. But Canada encompasses more than just Quebec.

 

And, I'm sure there are parts of the States that are don't readily have helicopters available to transport to top-notch trauma centres, and there are probably second and third rate trauma centres in the States.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[runninmommy]

I think Rush pretty much summed it up today.

 

Obama is acting like Madoff. Promising everything and delivering nothing.

 

There are so many things hidden in this bill. Even the lobbyists (who normally are very well-informed and actually read the bills) can not read the healthcare plan b/c it is so long with so many earmarks in it. Obama has not read it..The Dems have not read it....How on earth can they support it??

[theresatwist]

" Originally Posted by Julie in Austin

On average, other countries spend half what we spend for similar or better outcomes."

 

 

 

Completely false statement? Those outcome numbers look pretty similar to me. The comparisons only differ by 3-4%.

 

Besides the point, Canada also has a much smaller population, so I'd say, according to your statistics, the cancer survival rates are pretty good here!

 

 

 

It's not all of Canada that was being referred to in the quote, it was a province in Canada, called Quebec. Parts of Canada DO have medical helicopters. And Canada DOES have good trauma centers, just, according to that quote anyway, not as good in Quebec as in the States. But Canada encompasses more than just Quebec.

 

 

For what it's worth though the US ranks below Canada, Japan, France, and most other industrialized European nations in terms of life expectancy. We rank 42nd. All those other nations I've mentioned have universal healthcare. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552/

 

The article says the difference cannot be attributed solely to the large number of uninsured Americans, but the statistics suggest that that's a factor. They also talk about how we've become fat and lazy. How about a universal exercise bill??? I bet that would be easier to get through Congress...Just kidding.

[Julie in Austin]

 

There are so many things hidden in this bill. Even the lobbyists (who normally are very well-informed and actually read the bills) can not read the healthcare plan b/c it is so long with so many earmarks in it. Obama has not read it..The Dems have not read it....How on earth can they support it??

 

Congresspeople never read bills. Bills are written in legalese to prevent future law suits, hence the length and complexity. That's what they have a staff for. I'd demand his/her resignation if my rep or senator were reading bills instead of doing their job! When I hear "but they haven't even read it!" on any side of any issue, I immediately suspect that the speaker is (1) unfamiliar with the political process in this country and (2) has run out of actual arguments about the content of the bill.

 

And I simply don't believe the part about the lobbyists. We have busy homeschooling mums on this board who have actually read the whole thing, and I am supposed to think that people following health care legislation as a full-time, paid job can't read it? It's only a thousand pages--that's less than two Harry Potter novels, which most of our preteens could knock off in a weekend!

[farmmom4him]

farmmom4him writes, "As a family who DOES NOT use any of the government assistence programs, I have to say that if the government gets further involved in our helathcare we are going to have huge issues."

 

That's fascinating--how do you manage your farm and household without using roads? And that must be a lot of work to maintain your own police and fire departments. (I'm going to apologize for being snarky, but I always find it interesting how people forget the services that they rely on from the government.)

 

 

Oh, but get this...

 

I live in the middle of an area of dirt roads that typically the farmers take care of. They may be maintained by the county twice a year, but that is it. The government does not pay for the MANY, MANY accidents caused by deer overpopulation, but they limit the amount that may be hunted every year. This is a HUGE issue where I live as a man was just killed in a deer vs. motorcycle accident here. Every week there are about 30 deer vs car/auto accidents. I do drive on the highways once a week or so, but most all my miles are on dirt roads.

 

Oh, and roads are public, not assistance programs.

 

And before you bash a farmer's wife, you may want to thank her and her family, for the sacrifices they give so her husband can be in the fields late at night, early in the morning and all day long, so you can have food on your table, or at that restaurant, clothes on your back, gas for your car, and so forth. Unless of course you are completely self-suffient, then you know the hours my husband works.

 

Oh, and I havent' forgotten the services of our government--I was an EMS worker until I had children. I have close friends who are military. And don't get me started about our Veteran medical issues. See, right there is a perfect example that the government can really mess up health care if given the opportunity.

[Colleen]

Just wanted to say I appreciated your post, Julie, and am in large part in agreement. Which, in light of the fact that you and I quite often don't share the same political perspective, is noteworthy. Aside from that, though, you set aside the emotionalism and anecdotal evidence so often relied upon in this discussion; thank you for that.

[Colleen]

 

My husband farms. We DO NOT use any of the farm assistance programs that are available. WE do qualify, but seeing farmer X who is making over a 6 digit income use them abuse them and still whine, really makes us balk all the more away from them. Farmer x has brand new equipment, cars, house and all. My dh still funs our small farm with cabless tractors (1952-1975) :D and we are proud of that fact. Farmer X by the time he takes out all his deductions for his new equipment has his kids on state funded healthcare. We pay for our health insurace out of our pocket every month. Honestly for the most part those programs are not helping the small farmer that they were designed to help. They are helping the mass producers and us little guys are suffereing.

Interesting. Your reality must be specific to your area.

A better approach would be to get rid of the foods that are causing a ton of health problems. Make it illegal to use certain harmful ingredients (high fruittose corn syrup, msg, etc). More education on natural remedies would be helpful.

As a staunch advocate of slow, real food, I hear you.

Don't even get me started on forced vacinations. There is nothing good coming from immunizing your child.

In your opinion (needless to say).

If you think the government directed healthcare is going to be a good thing, why are you homeschooling? Do you agree with everything that is going on in public schools? They are directing the public school. Just saying...

This argument is simply frivolous. Aside from the fact that people homeschool for all manner of reasons, it doesn't follow that those who don't directly utilize public schools will by extension avoid all programs in which government plays a role.

And before you bash a farmer's wife, you may want to thank her and her family, for the sacrifices they give so her husband can be in the fields late at night, early in the morning and all day long, so you can have food on your table, or at that restaurant, clothes on your back, gas for your car, and so forth. Unless of course you are completely self-suffient, then you know the hours my husband works.

No need for a pity party. Neither Julie nor anyone else was "bashing" you or your line of work. OUR line of work, I should say...

 

[theresatwist]

I think Rush pretty much summed it up today.

 

Obama is acting like Madoff. Promising everything and delivering nothing .

 

There are so many things hidden in this bill. Even the lobbyists (who normally are very well-informed and actually read the bills) can not read the healthcare plan b/c it is so long with so many earmarks in it. Obama has not read it..The Dems have not read it....How on earth can they support it??

 

:confused: Obama and Madoff, eh? I think the more accurate comparison would be Rush and Madoff, the two of the three who have criminal records.

[theresatwist]

As a family who DOES NOT use any of the government assistence programs, I have to say that if the government get further involved in our helathcare we are going to have huge issues.

 

My husband farms. We DO NOT use any of the farm assistance programs that are available. WE do qualify, but seeing farmer X who is making over a 6 digit income use them abuse them and still whine, really makes us balk all the more away from them. Farmer x has brand new equipment, cars, house and all. My dh still funs our small farm with cabless tractors (1952-1975) :D and we are proud of that fact. Farmer X by the time he takes out all his deductions for his new equipment has his kids on state funded healthcare. We pay for our health insurace out of our pocket every month. Honestly for the most part those programs are not helping the small farmer that they were designed to help. They are helping the mass producers and us little guys are suffereing.

 

Seeing as how that has gone, if the government gets involved in our healthcare, we are going to be one sick nation. A better approach would be to get rid of the foods that are causing a ton of health problems. Make it illegal to use certain harmful ingredients (high fruittose corn syrup, msg, etc).

 

More education on natural remedies would be helpful. Many prescriptions end up causing one to need another prescription to offset a side effect of the orginal prescription. :glare: How many dr appts do you suppose it took to get those prescriptions? Many back surgeries could be prevented if they would see a chiropractor... actually consitpation, ear infections, allergies, asthma, many pregnancy issues. and so forth. I can give more information on the above.

 

Don't even get me started on forced vacinations. There is nothing good coming from immunizing your child. Yeah, they may not get the illness that was immunized for, but what other things did that immunization cause? Autism, aspergers, SID, asthma, adhd, neurotransmitter issues etc.

 

 

If you think the government directed healthcare is going to be a good thing, why are you homeschooling? Do you agree with everything that is going on in public schools? They are directing the public school. Just saying...

 

I think there is a place for government regulation, but I don't think it is for them to take over. I believe they could make some changes along the lines, of what our insurance companies do.. The provider can only charge $30 for an xray, rather then $300. Yes, my ds broke his leg. The unadjusted bill was $328 for the x-rays. Our insurance changed it and it was $30. Right there is how the government could help. Set charges across the board. period. Why is it, I can go to the dr here and only be charge $30 for an office visit, but in our nearby town it is $65? The dr here even gives out samples of what he would prescribe. Why is it that pharmacy A charges $147 for a 10 day supply of prevacid, but Pharmacy B charges $128 same dosage, and all?

 

I can see the government limiting the amount of allowable charges, rather then getting involved in the all in all...

 

The federal government has almost no control over the public schools. Local governments and school boards are the ones making those decisions.

[Aggie]

It is sad to see so much goverment bashing. Our goverment is our fellow Americans and does get it right some of the time. Our military, police, fire-fighters are shining examples of our goverment getting it right.

 

The military is run by the military, not by the government. They answer to the government, but Congress does not run the military.

 

Police and fire-fighters are locally, not federally, run.

 

Our gov't, imo, is full of self-absorbed, self-serving individuals who need to go home and get real jobs after spending 4 or 8 years in DC. Twenty years is too long for people to have their hands in gov't, imo.

 

I wonder if any of that 1000 page bill includes reform on litigation against the medical community.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Colleen]

 

I think Rush pretty much summed it up today...

I believe we need an addendum to Godwin's Law, the tongue-in-cheek (yet apt) observation that the longer an online discussion grows, the higher the probability a comparison will arise involving Hitler/Nazis. In our variation, we can amend as follows: "...the higher the probability someone will cite Rush, only to be summarily dismissed by non-ditto-heads...

 

Edited July 22, 2009 by Colleen

[theresatwist]

The military is run by the military, not by the government. They answer to the government, but Congress does not run the military.

 

Police and fire-fighters are locally, not federally, run.

 

Our gov't, imo, is full of self-absorbed, self-serving individuals who need to go home and get real jobs after spending 4 or 8 years in DC. Twenty years is too long for people to have their hands in gov't, imo.

 

I wonder if any of that 1000 page bill includes reform on litigation against the medical community.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Well, I agree with you that local governments have a ton of power in this country. However, local governments are dependent on federal funds if they want to maintain their police and fire forces.

 

The President is commander-in-chief. He takes advice from military commanders, but it is Obama deciding whether or not we send more troops/ withdrawl troops, etc. and Congress controls the purse strings. So I'd say the federal government does play a role in the military, albeit a limited one.

 

I'd love to see reform on litigation against the medical community.

 

Self-serving and self-absorbed government officials? Oh, yes we have our share. But, let's not pretend that they don't exist in the private sector as well. I do not buy the argument that the market gets rid of the bad guys. They do what they have to for publicity's sake, but it's still the same few guys being shuffled around on top.

[Aggie]

For what it's worth though the US ranks below Canada, Japan, France, and most other industrialized European nations in terms of life expectancy. We rank 42nd. All those other nations I've mentioned have universal healthcare. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552/

 

The article says the difference cannot be attributed solely to the large number of uninsured Americans, but the statistics suggest that that's a factor. They also talk about how we've become fat and lazy. How about a universal exercise bill??? I bet that would be easier to get through Congress...Just kidding.

 

Just wait! It won't be long! LOL

 

This article, though, is full of fallacies.

 

One reason the US ranks high in infant mortality (although I did notice a number wasn't reported in the article) is that some countries only report "infants" as children who live past one-two years. The US counts all babies in our infant mortality rate. In other words, a country may lose many children under 1 year old, but it doesn't report them until the children are over 1 or 2 years old. (I hope I'm explaining this so it's easy to understand.)

 

Another fallacy: Guam is listed as a country that surpasses the US. Why wouldn't a US territory be counted as part of the US and not as a country? I mean, *many* US tax dollars are sent there, and many Guam residents are eligible for military health care, courtesy of the USA. As an aside, when we lived there 8 years ago, the public hospital didn't offer women epidurals.

 

It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.

 

“It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children,†said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. “We haven’t done anything to eliminate those disparities.â€

 

This disparity could be because white women have more abortions. There are no numbers reported on who has abortions or why, so this argument is difficult to refute. And what are the *social* conditions that would cause a higher infant mortality rate? Isn't this article saying that infant mortality is related to health care? No, wait. "It's not that easy." My personal favorite from this paragraph..."We haven't done anything to eliminate those disparities." Really? Nothing, huh? hmmmmmm

 

The numbers that jumped out at me the most are the highest life expectancy, which is 83.5 years, and the US LE, which is 78 years. Not a HUGE difference. It may be when I'm 77years old, though. :)

 

I also wonder if our military was counted as part of this. We obviously have a very active military compared to, say, Andorra and San Marino.

[funschooler5]

Do you really see a connection?

 

I call a plumber to put in new pipes and a mechanic when the car breaks, although I am sure some people could do it themselves. But I could not have performed my daughter's eye surgery, given my son stitches, or filled my own cavities -- nor do I have a license to prescribe my family medicine. These require a specialist. Therefore, I need to take my family members to a doctor when we become ill.

 

Having the government guarantee that all citizens have access to some basic healthcare so they don't DIE is a noble goal, as far as I am concerned. Just like public schooling -- I'm not required to send my kids to a public school, but I would be uncomfortable in a society that provided NO WAY for people who could not do-it-themselves to educate their children. I have relatives who are only marginally literate, and they have children who have graduated from college. I am not certain this couldn't have happened without public schools.

 

I find the angry "pay for healthcare yourself, you lazy lout" threads to be offensive. Medical costs are simply prohibitive in this country. I have been in another country where it is possible to pay for one's own healthcare. Health insurance costs are rising at ridiculous rates, and most of us are suffering.

 

I refuse to believe that the current medical insurance scheme is great, given that the #1 cause of bankruptcies is due to medical costs, and those people have insurance, and that millions of Americans are uninsured.

 

Something needs to change.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Excellent post. I've typed out and delete my post several times, but yours sums up everything I wanted to say.

[jewellsmommy]

I would genuinely like to see if a well conducted poll/study has ever been done to determine the percentage of Americans that are 1. uninsured by choice 2. Want insurance, but not enough to rearrange their finances to pay for it 3. Really can't afford it and do not qualify for any other program and 4. Can't obtain insurance because they are un-insurable. Again, I am not being cheeky here. I just have not come across a poll/study that truly differentiates between the 2 classes of "I can't afford insurance."

 

I say this because the people that I know who make very little money are covered by either fed. govt or state govt plans. I know a few who make too much to be poor but not enough to be comfortable and they too find health care, not insurance, but are cared for through local pay as you go clinics and are happy with their care. I also know a family who says that they can't afford to pay for health insurance for their children through the husband's work and they make too much for the currently available help plans. However, they do make enough to buy a bigger house, pay for a truck, new minivan, boat and a timeshare. They have also gone to Disney and such.

I know that there are people who truly can't afford insurance or straight out of pocket care. But there are also quite a few people who choose not to afford insurance and there is a difference. I do not mind helping out a struggling family who is doing their best and still falling short. But it is not right that my family makes sacrifices to afford our insurance while a family who makes considerably more money than us "can't afford it" and yet says insure my poor children we need universal healthcare.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I am sure no one here wants to see children go without. I also agree that our health system is flawed. My husband could make more money working somewhere else but stays with our city government because their benefit plan is better than we could find elsewhere. It's a tough decision. We would love to buy a house and afford a second car. But I won't say we can't afford those things, we choose not to. I am physically capable of going to work, but I choose not to for many reasons (homeschool and others) these are our priorities and choices and I hold no one else responsible for my choices. Am I making sense here? Yes, we need to overhaul some things, I agree. But let's take the needed time as a country to get it right.

 

I have my beef with the status quo. My dd is a victim of the overinfatuation our doctors have with antibiotics. Our whole country needs education in nutrition, excercise, stress reduction and less reliance on drugs and antibiotics (when not actually needed.)**Just a side rant here, please don't ever ask your dr. for antibiotics and if you start them, finish them. It amazes me the number of people who don't finish the course and "save" them for future illness. Don't do that!, My dd had a bad MRSA infection (which was resistant to all drugs that they would normally give to a young child). She is currently facing her 6th surgery as a result of this problem that was created by over medicating the masses. Sorry, going on now.** We need smarter health care! That will not be accomplished by rushing through a bill on a political timetable. Please, regardless of which side you are on, don't you want the most thought out, round table type, open door information, complete healthcare plan we can make?

 

If you are a person of faith, I urge you to make this a matter of prayer (you probably already are) and if you are not, why don't we urge our reps and senators to slow down. Lets meet in the middle somewhere and start with pushing preventative care and education. These are just my thoughts on the matter. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Edited July 22, 2009 by jewellsmommy

[LeeAnn Balbirona]

We have really good medical insurance through my husband's job: 100% coverage for everything we've needed (so far) and no co-pay. However, the dental plan covers only 80% and unfortunately this has led us to put off needed treatments, not to mention orthodontia. Our situation is a rarity though--we have it pretty good--very few US employers are so generous with their insurance coverage. That being said, I am in favor of universal coverage and agree with the OP. I cannot imagine the tax burden it will cause, but I don't see any other way to give everyone a basic level of care. Why should the government not be involved in the mission of loving our neighbor?

[JennC]

\ I pay a premium to help reduce the risk of me getting hit by a whopper (major car crash, house fire).. other than that I have to pay to keep my car and house maintained so it lasts me for a long time..and to do those things I shop around and get the best price and the best service (sometimes I pay more b/c I want better service...). Just my opinion, which no one has...

 

I understand what you are saying: we have a $10,000 deductible on our health insurance. We also have a health savings account where we can put OUR money pretax to pay for the maintenance of our health. This insurance plan costs me about $130/mo for me and 5 kids. (We would be paying $900/mo to add the 6 of us to dh's employer plan). Well, duh. My children are all healthy and we don't have money just laying around to pay for insurance we a) do not need/use & b) if we used it because we DID need it, we would just have to hassle with the insurance company - my personal favorite >>>"that ambulance company (the only one in the county) is not a preferred provider so we won't pay their cost, only what we deem necessary"

OK so we have to pay EVERYTHING out of pocket until it is $10000 - big deal, we save $770/mo on premiums and can put that away tax free. It is very freeing to be in control of the process. and not worry - ever - if the insurance will pay - I already know they won't.

I don't submit a bill to the car insurance for an oil change either.

[dangerdad]

I respect your reasoning generally, but I disagree with every single point you made. I think the facts you cited are also wrong, though I'd be happy to stand corrected if you can back them up...

 

(1) I am an ardent believer in free markets. However, we have what economists call an information problem when it comes to health care. I go to my doctor and she says, "We can do a [long Latinate word] for $2400 or a [longer Latinate word] for $3200." I'm a well-educated person, but I just don't have the information to choose between those. Now add another doctor to the mix who says, "I'll do the first for $2000 and the second for $3000." Is that a good deal? Or is it a rip off because his results are worse? Another information problem. And that's for someone with a sound mind and body and two advanced degrees who isn't having an emergency and who knows how to do research on the Internet! What kind of decision would my 80+ year old, half-blind, hard-of-hearing grandmother make when given those options?

 

The same reasoning could be applied to anything. How much do you know about internal combustion engines? Airline maintenance? Food purity? Architecture and civil engineering?

 

All those markets are regulated for safety, just like medicine. But no body or expert tells you how much an engine rebuild costs, or how much an airline ticket costs, the price of a loaf of bread, etc. And it works just fine.

 

The free market works because of the decisions in the aggregate. The more important the cause, the more important it is to preserve the freedom of the individual to choose.

 

(2) In our current system, a huge chunk of our health care spending goes to the insurance companies. It has been estimated that if we redirected that money to actual health care, we could cover everyone who isn't covered.

I hate the use of the passive voice here. Who has estimated it? From what I've read, only 2-3% of all health costs go to insurance companies.

 

(3) Our current system stifles other free markets: it is likely that the car companies would have been fine without their health care burdens. I would never, never let my husband start his own business because we need his health care. I know people with 2 degrees working at Wal-Mart for the benefits. We are crippling other sectors of the economy by forcing people into certain jobs just because those jobs carry insurance.

This doesn't make sense. The current system is a stifled free market, to be sure. However, it's not because people can choose where to work based on benefits -- that's the definition of freedom. The real question is, why is health care tied to jobs at all?

 

(4) Therefore, I favor single-payer, universal care. I would like a system where a board of doctors, medical goods makers, patient advocates, and economists would set prices for all procedures. If you had that procedure done, the fed would write a check for that amount to your provider. The doc would be free to charge more and you could choose to pay that or pick a different doctor.

 

We could have such a body to suggest prices right now, without abrogating freedom. In fact, what you propose is simply central planning, which never works precisely because it destroys the information that a free market expresses in prices (see Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", chapter 5).

 

What you describe is what Medicare is, and Medicare is a mess. Its costs have been rising faster than the private sector. Furthermore, Medicare keeps reducing reimbursements which cause doctors to make up their expenses by charging more to private insurers. To put it plainly: Medicare is what is ruining health care in the country, and more of it won't solve the problem.

 

(5) People like Sara R rightly point out that this could get expensive. It could, but I believe we can reap a lot of savings via what I have outlined above. More importantly, however, what are the costs of doing nothing? Health care costs have been skyrocketing. This pushes middle-income families into bankruptcy, which is expensive to the rest of us. It pushes poor people into the ER, which you and I end up paying for. It pushes all sorts of people to live with untreated conditions that inhibit their ability to become taxpayers and instead pushes them onto disability.

 

Please back some of this up. Yes, prices have gone up, but why? A great deal of the cost increase has to do with improving technology that provides better care than in the past. If you want to eliminate CT and MRI scans, chemotherapy, etc. I guarantee you can bring costs down.

 

Bankruptcies due to health emergencies are a favorite anecdote for those who favor so-called "universal" health care, but it's a myth.

 

 

(a) This is no more the slippery slope to socialism (although that is fun to say--try it!) than libraries, interstate roads, the military, or colleges are. Every single industrialized nation except for the US has universal health care, many for over 50 years, and not a one has become a remake of Orwell's worst nightmare.

That's not slippery slope, that's socialism straight up. What you describe is central planning, is socialism.

 

(b) It doesn't mean the fed "owns you." If anything, right now, the insurance companies "own you." I'd rather be owned by a gov't with a free press and free elections than an insurance company that makes un-appeal-able decisions behind closed doors.

But the insurance company can't take your money away by force. And to be frank, most decisions in congress are being made right now behind closed doors. At least with a market, you can turn to somewhere else. Not so with the government.

 

© There will be waste and fraud. I know this. Nothing is perfect. But if designed right, there may well be less waste and fraud than we have now.

This is just handwaving. Government is designed for waste and fraud. Medicare fraud is estimated at $60 Billion / year in this story. Because decisions in government are made based on politics (favors, bribes, etc.) instead of results, it can only get worse when people can't choose anything else.

 

(d) There is only a limited moral hazard. I can get how someone might take advantage of welfare--there's a lot of fun you can have with free money! But how many people do you think will get extra appendectomies just because they are free? Medical care is always enough of a PITA that abuse will be limited.

More handwaving. Basic economics shows how a scarce resource priced too low results in shortage. if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception.

 

(e) I'm not persuaded by complaints about rationing. We have rationing now, and it works like this: if you are lucky enough to have a job with insurance and/or wealthy enough to pay out of pocket, you get the moon. If you aren't, you don't get anything. I think it would be far more moral to have rationing that went like this: the government will provide a basic level of care to everyone and if you want more, pay for it yourself.

 

You're abusing the word "rationing" here, as well as overstating your case. The exchange of money for goods and services is the market, based on the principles of property and freedom. Rationing is done by government, to arbitrarily apportion goods and services. It is the opposite of freedom, favors the political and powerful classes, and destroys property.

 

Furthermore, there are many programs (S-CHIP, Medicaid & Medicare, Shriners hospitals, etc.) that provide free healthcare for those who have none.

 

(f) I'm also not persuaded by anecdotal evidence about your cousin in Canada who died after waiting six months for something. On average, other countries spend half what we spend for similar or better outcomes.

 

Then read the statistics. The most comprehensive studies on Canada waiting times is called "Waiting Your Turn", done every year by the Frasier Institute. I've never seen criticism of their methodology. Here's a summary of one of the studies from a few years ago:

 

"These waiting times are the second-longest Canadians have ever experienced, despite record levels of health spending and numerous commitments made by provincial and federal governments," says Esmail.

 

Source: Nadeem Esmail, "Canadians Waiting Longer for Medical Treatment in 2006 According to Annual Survey," Fraser Institute, October 24, 2006.

 

I work in health care, and have seen the damage Medicare does. I write software for medical imaging and radiation oncology, and it costs money. However, Medicare reimbursements explicitly discourage innovation and cost-cutting in favor of the status quo (there's your body of experts at work). I was horrified when oncologists and medical physicists choose procedures based on what Medicare will pay for over what works best.

 

Lastly, we have seen from Massachussetts that it simply doesn't work. Their costs have increased out of control, so much so that only three years after enacting it, they've decided to drop 30,000 legal immigrants from coverage. That's not what I call progress, cutting costs, or in fact anything good.

[Gretchen in NJ]

I respect your reasoning generally, but I disagree with every single point you made. I think the facts you cited are also wrong, though I'd be happy to stand corrected if you can back them up...

 

 

 

The same reasoning could be applied to anything. How much do you know about internal combustion engines? Airline maintenance? Food purity? Architecture and civil engineering?

 

All those markets are regulated for safety, just like medicine. But no body or expert tells you how much an engine rebuild costs, or how much an airline ticket costs, the price of a loaf of bread, etc. And it works just fine.

 

The free market works because of the decisions in the aggregate. The more important the cause, the more important it is to preserve the freedom of the individual to choose.

 

I hate the use of the passive voice here. Who has estimated it? From what I've read, only 2-3% of all health costs go to insurance companies.

 

This doesn't make sense. The current system is a stifled free market, to be sure. However, it's not because people can choose where to work based on benefits -- that's the definition of freedom. The real question is, why is health care tied to jobs at all?

 

 

 

We could have such a body to suggest prices right now, without abrogating freedom. In fact, what you propose is simply central planning, which never works precisely because it destroys the information that a free market expresses in prices (see Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", chapter 5).

 

What you describe is what Medicare is, and Medicare is a mess. Its costs have been rising faster than the private sector. Furthermore, Medicare keeps reducing reimbursements which cause doctors to make up their expenses by charging more to private insurers. To put it plainly: Medicare is what is ruining health care in the country, and more of it won't solve the problem.

 

 

 

Please back some of this up. Yes, prices have gone up, but why? A great deal of the cost increase has to do with improving technology that provides better care than in the past. If you want to eliminate CT and MRI scans, chemotherapy, etc. I guarantee you can bring costs down.

 

Bankruptcies due to health emergencies are a favorite anecdote for those who favor so-called "universal" health care, but it's a myth.

 

 

 

That's not slippery slope, that's socialism straight up. What you describe is central planning, is socialism.

 

 

But the insurance company can't take your money away by force. And to be frank, most decisions in congress are being made right now behind closed doors. At least with a market, you can turn to somewhere else. Not so with the government.

 

 

This is just handwaving. Government is designed for waste and fraud. Medicare fraud is estimated at $60 Billion / year in this story. Because decisions in government are made based on politics (favors, bribes, etc.) instead of results, it can only get worse when people can't choose anything else.

 

More handwaving. Basic economics shows how a scarce resource priced too low results in shortage. if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception.

 

 

 

You're abusing the word "rationing" here, as well as overstating your case. The exchange of money for goods and services is the market, based on the principles of property and freedom. Rationing is done by government, to arbitrarily apportion goods and services. It is the opposite of freedom, favors the political and powerful classes, and destroys property.

 

Furthermore, there are many programs (S-CHIP, Medicaid & Medicare, Shriners hospitals, etc.) that provide free healthcare for those who have none.

 

 

 

Then read the statistics. The most comprehensive studies on Canada waiting times is called "Waiting Your Turn", done every year by the Frasier Institute. I've never seen criticism of their methodology. Here's a summary of one of the studies from a few years ago:

 

 

 

I work in health care, and have seen the damage Medicare does. I write software for medical imaging and radiation oncology, and it costs money. However, Medicare reimbursements explicitly discourage innovation and cost-cutting in favor of the status quo (there's your body of experts at work). I was horrified when oncologists and medical physicists choose procedures based on what Medicare will pay for over what works best.

 

Lastly, we have seen from Massachussetts that it simply doesn't work. Their costs have increased out of control, so much so that only three years after enacting it, they've decided to drop 30,000 legal immigrants from coverage. That's not what I call progress, cutting costs, or in fact anything good.

 

Great points! Also there was the Hawaii's Universal Health Coverage for Children which was eliminated only after 7 months. Everyone was droping their private plans for a government subsidized plan.

[cdrumm4448]

Our whole country needs education in nutrition, excercise, stress reduction and less reliance on drugs and antibiotics (when not actually needed

 

 

:iagree:I'm amazed at the number of people I encounter in daily life that still do not recognize the connection between what you eat and your level of health.

[Julie in Austin]

I respect your reasoning generally, but I disagree with every single point you made. I think the facts you cited are also wrong, though I'd be happy to stand corrected if you can back them up...

 

 

 

The same reasoning could be applied to anything. How much do you know about internal combustion engines? Airline maintenance? Food purity? Architecture and civil engineering?

 

All those markets are regulated for safety, just like medicine. But no body or expert tells you how much an engine rebuild costs, or how much an airline ticket costs, the price of a loaf of bread, etc. And it works just fine.

 

The free market works because of the decisions in the aggregate. The more important the cause, the more important it is to preserve the freedom of the individual to choose.

 

I hate the use of the passive voice here. Who has estimated it? From what I've read, only 2-3% of all health costs go to insurance companies.

 

This doesn't make sense. The current system is a stifled free market, to be sure. However, it's not because people can choose where to work based on benefits -- that's the definition of freedom. The real question is, why is health care tied to jobs at all?

 

 

 

We could have such a body to suggest prices right now, without abrogating freedom. In fact, what you propose is simply central planning, which never works precisely because it destroys the information that a free market expresses in prices (see Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", chapter 5).

 

What you describe is what Medicare is, and Medicare is a mess. Its costs have been rising faster than the private sector. Furthermore, Medicare keeps reducing reimbursements which cause doctors to make up their expenses by charging more to private insurers. To put it plainly: Medicare is what is ruining health care in the country, and more of it won't solve the problem.

 

 

 

Please back some of this up. Yes, prices have gone up, but why? A great deal of the cost increase has to do with improving technology that provides better care than in the past. If you want to eliminate CT and MRI scans, chemotherapy, etc. I guarantee you can bring costs down.

 

Bankruptcies due to health emergencies are a favorite anecdote for those who favor so-called "universal" health care, but it's a myth.

 

 

 

That's not slippery slope, that's socialism straight up. What you describe is central planning, is socialism.

 

 

But the insurance company can't take your money away by force. And to be frank, most decisions in congress are being made right now behind closed doors. At least with a market, you can turn to somewhere else. Not so with the government.

 

 

This is just handwaving. Government is designed for waste and fraud. Medicare fraud is estimated at $60 Billion / year in this story. Because decisions in government are made based on politics (favors, bribes, etc.) instead of results, it can only get worse when people can't choose anything else.

 

More handwaving. Basic economics shows how a scarce resource priced too low results in shortage. if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception.

 

 

 

You're abusing the word "rationing" here, as well as overstating your case. The exchange of money for goods and services is the market, based on the principles of property and freedom. Rationing is done by government, to arbitrarily apportion goods and services. It is the opposite of freedom, favors the political and powerful classes, and destroys property.

 

Furthermore, there are many programs (S-CHIP, Medicaid & Medicare, Shriners hospitals, etc.) that provide free healthcare for those who have none.

 

 

 

Then read the statistics. The most comprehensive studies on Canada waiting times is called "Waiting Your Turn", done every year by the Frasier Institute. I've never seen criticism of their methodology. Here's a summary of one of the studies from a few years ago:

 

 

 

I work in health care, and have seen the damage Medicare does. I write software for medical imaging and radiation oncology, and it costs money. However, Medicare reimbursements explicitly discourage innovation and cost-cutting in favor of the status quo (there's your body of experts at work). I was horrified when oncologists and medical physicists choose procedures based on what Medicare will pay for over what works best.

 

Lastly, we have seen from Massachussetts that it simply doesn't work. Their costs have increased out of control, so much so that only three years after enacting it, they've decided to drop 30,000 legal immigrants from coverage. That's not what I call progress, cutting costs, or in fact anything good.

 

dangerdad, I've learned from sad experience that a reasonable conversation isn't possible with you, so I won't engage you on this thread.

 

I will say to anyone who read what dangerdad wrote and thought, "huh, that sounds reasonable" to do your own research on every point he made and see for yourself where he went wrong.

[CAMom]

Congresspeople never read bills. Bills are written in legalese to prevent future law suits, hence the length and complexity. That's what they have a staff for. I'd demand his/her resignation if my rep or senator were reading bills instead of doing their job! When I hear "but they haven't even read it!" on any side of any issue, I immediately suspect that the speaker is (1) unfamiliar with the political process in this country and (2) has run out of actual arguments about the content of the bill.

 

And I simply don't believe the part about the lobbyists. We have busy homeschooling mums on this board who have actually read the whole thing, and I am supposed to think that people following health care legislation as a full-time, paid job can't read it? It's only a thousand pages--that's less than two Harry Potter novels, which most of our preteens could knock off in a weekend!

 

Huh?:confused: Congress is full of legislators but it's not their job to read the legislation upon which they are going to cast a vote? What kind of sense does that make?:confused:

 

What is their job then? I guess I am "unfamiliar with the political process in this country" and expect much more than what it has to offer?

 

So, we have busy homeschool moms who are doling out Latin assignments, reading and discussing Shakespeare and changing diapers who can manage to read the bill but Congress itself isn't expected to read it? We're supposed to read it ourselves in order to intelligently comment on it, but the very people who cast a vote can depend on their staff to read it, interpret it, (twist it :glare:), and summarize it for them? Just give them the highlights?

 

What is the job of Congress then?

 

Disillusionment growing....

[8circles]

dangerdad, I've learned from sad experience that a reasonable conversation isn't possible with you, so I won't engage you on this thread.

 

I will say to anyone who read what dangerdad wrote and thought, "huh, that sounds reasonable" to do your own research on every point he made and see for yourself where he went wrong.

 

When I read dangerdad's post I actually thought he took the words right out of my mouth. I'm sorry that you've had a sour experience with dangerdad but if you could explain where his post is wrong, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[dangerdad]

dangerdad, I've learned from sad experience that a reasonable conversation isn't possible with you

 

And I've learned from sad experience this is what people say when their ideas can't be defended. I still respect your ideas even if I disagree with them (heck, we even use your FHE lessons!).

 

Feel free to not have a conversation with me but to just defend your ideas.

[Julie in Austin]

When I read dangerdad's post I actually thought he took the words right out of my mouth. I'm sorry that you've had a sour experience with dangerdad but if you could explain where his post is wrong, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

If you are genuinely interested, I'll PM you my response; it is important to me to avoid wasting time arguing with people where it won't be productive.

[8circles]

If you are genuinely interested, I'll PM you my response

 

OK - PM me.

[Julie in Austin]

And I've learned from sad experience this is what people say when their ideas can't be defended. I still respect your ideas even if I disagree with them (heck, we even use your FHE lessons!).

 

Feel free to not have a conversation with me but to just defend your ideas.

 

I've had exactly one political conversation with you (that I remember, anyway :tongue_smilie:) and it went something like this: I referenced a NY Times article on an issue of fact (not opinion) and you summarily dismissed it because the NYT could not be trusted. This led me to conclude that when it came to politics, you were a troll (who probably didn't realize his trollishness, but still . . .).

 

But perhaps I have misjudged you. Let's take a trial run on just one issue that you raised, and see how it goes? If we all stay civil and sane, then we can take it from there.

 

Start with just this one piece of the puzzle: you wrote this in response to my (d):

 

"Basic economics shows how a scarce resource priced too low results in shortage. if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception."

 

Let me preface by saying that you might not realize this, but I am an ardent free-market-er, who has voted straight Libertarian (well, as much as possible--not always an option for all races) in all elections until this last one. But that's the subject for another post ;) . . . a post which would probably end up deleted!

 

I agree with what you wrote above in every single case and market I can think of--except health care. The reason for that, as I stated in the OP, is that health care is a PITA, and no one would get "extra" just because it is free.

 

Do this thought experiment: if you are up-to-date on your screenings, and your doctor was offering free colonoscopies today, would you go get one just because it was free?

 

Didn't think so. Aside from the, uh, . . . unpleasantness of the procedure, people realize (or: should realize) that there are risks (even if no financial cost) associated with all medical procedures, and so I wouldn't expect a significant number of people to get medical care that they thought was unnecessary just because it was free. Now, this certainly wouldn't be the case if the govt gave out unlimited free food--we can see very easily that rates of consumption would skyrocket. But it won't happen with health care.

 

Two caveats to my position:

 

(1) There will be an increase in health services, because right now people delay needed treatment because it is expensive (even the copay, if they have insurance, and certainly the bill, if they don't). So, yes, there will be more health services sought initially. But the number would be capped at "genuine need" and not "sky's the limit--hey, it's free!"

 

(2) I think a well-designed single-payer system could keep down the additional costs that would result from (1) as well as some of the costs in the current system by doing some things such as:

 

(a) Having phone nurses available 24/7. We had this with Kaiser and, while I hated Kaiser, this prevented a lot of office visits that I might have made out of new-mother-fear, but that I learned were not necessary. I thought it was a win-win, but the current system dis-incentivizes this, since phone consults are usually not paid by insurance (or even private pay) but office visits are.

 

(b) Better data sharing, so docs won't do things "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because the drug rep convinced me it's the best, newest alternative" or "because I don't want to be sued" would bring costs down a lot.

 

© Tort reform. Average OB pays 100K *per year*. Lots of different alternatives to get this down . . .

 

(d) Medical check-lists. Don't laugh at this until you've read Atul Gawande's New Yorker article on the topic and the enormous potential for life and cost savings.

 

To sum a lengthy post:

 

--If we can proceed with something useful in this limited part of the conversation, we can take on the whole thing. Otherwise, I revert to my original position that I simply can't discuss politics with dangerdad but I will PM momsinlaw.

 

--Moral hazard is an enormous problem any time you mess with the market, but not in this case for the reasons outlined above, which mostly boils down to the fact that most health care is unpleasant, even when free. Yet I recognize that there will be increased costs in a single-payer system as people who had avoided needed care because of cost decide to seek that care. I believe that *those* costs can be offset (at least partially) by cost-saving measures as outlined above.

[Colleen in NS]

if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception.

 

If you are talking about free or perceived-as-free universal health insurance, there *are* exceptions. Not everyone under these systems demands more health care just because it's free or perceived as free.

 

EDIT: Oh, and Julie in Austin laid out why I think that, in the above post.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[Sherri in MI]

For the most part, :iagree:.

 

Why not prohibit outrageous malpractice lawsuits that drive up the cost of proceedures and increase unnecessary tests out of fear of being sued?

 

:iagree: Thank you! I'm so glad someone finally mentioned this - a huge factor in the high cost of healthcare along with insurance companies! I'm surprised no one mentioned it until now.

[Sherri in MI]

I respect your reasoning generally, but I disagree with every single point you made. I think the facts you cited are also wrong, though I'd be happy to stand corrected if you can back them up...

 

 

 

The same reasoning could be applied to anything. How much do you know about internal combustion engines? Airline maintenance? Food purity? Architecture and civil engineering?

 

All those markets are regulated for safety, just like medicine. But no body or expert tells you how much an engine rebuild costs, or how much an airline ticket costs, the price of a loaf of bread, etc. And it works just fine.

 

The free market works because of the decisions in the aggregate. The more important the cause, the more important it is to preserve the freedom of the individual to choose.

 

I hate the use of the passive voice here. Who has estimated it? From what I've read, only 2-3% of all health costs go to insurance companies.

 

This doesn't make sense. The current system is a stifled free market, to be sure. However, it's not because people can choose where to work based on benefits -- that's the definition of freedom. The real question is, why is health care tied to jobs at all?

 

 

 

We could have such a body to suggest prices right now, without abrogating freedom. In fact, what you propose is simply central planning, which never works precisely because it destroys the information that a free market expresses in prices (see Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", chapter 5).

 

What you describe is what Medicare is, and Medicare is a mess. Its costs have been rising faster than the private sector. Furthermore, Medicare keeps reducing reimbursements which cause doctors to make up their expenses by charging more to private insurers. To put it plainly: Medicare is what is ruining health care in the country, and more of it won't solve the problem.

 

 

 

Please back some of this up. Yes, prices have gone up, but why? A great deal of the cost increase has to do with improving technology that provides better care than in the past. If you want to eliminate CT and MRI scans, chemotherapy, etc. I guarantee you can bring costs down.

 

Bankruptcies due to health emergencies are a favorite anecdote for those who favor so-called "universal" health care, but it's a myth.

 

 

 

That's not slippery slope, that's socialism straight up. What you describe is central planning, is socialism.

 

 

But the insurance company can't take your money away by force. And to be frank, most decisions in congress are being made right now behind closed doors. At least with a market, you can turn to somewhere else. Not so with the government.

 

 

This is just handwaving. Government is designed for waste and fraud. Medicare fraud is estimated at $60 Billion / year in this story. Because decisions in government are made based on politics (favors, bribes, etc.) instead of results, it can only get worse when people can't choose anything else.

 

More handwaving. Basic economics shows how a scarce resource priced too low results in shortage. if something is free (or perceived as free), people will demand more of it. Without exception.

 

 

 

You're abusing the word "rationing" here, as well as overstating your case. The exchange of money for goods and services is the market, based on the principles of property and freedom. Rationing is done by government, to arbitrarily apportion goods and services. It is the opposite of freedom, favors the political and powerful classes, and destroys property.

 

Furthermore, there are many programs (S-CHIP, Medicaid & Medicare, Shriners hospitals, etc.) that provide free healthcare for those who have none.

 

 

 

Then read the statistics. The most comprehensive studies on Canada waiting times is called "Waiting Your Turn", done every year by the Frasier Institute. I've never seen criticism of their methodology. Here's a summary of one of the studies from a few years ago:

 

 

 

I work in health care, and have seen the damage Medicare does. I write software for medical imaging and radiation oncology, and it costs money. However, Medicare reimbursements explicitly discourage innovation and cost-cutting in favor of the status quo (there's your body of experts at work). I was horrified when oncologists and medical physicists choose procedures based on what Medicare will pay for over what works best.

 

Lastly, we have seen from Massachussetts that it simply doesn't work. Their costs have increased out of control, so much so that only three years after enacting it, they've decided to drop 30,000 legal immigrants from coverage. That's not what I call progress, cutting costs, or in fact anything good.

 

:iagree: Thank you for sharing some helpful information and arguements.

[usetoschool]

There already is abuse in the system and people do have tests and use services that are unneccesary because they are perceived as free when they never see the bill and the insurance pays for it. And it goes both ways, doctors order tests and patients request care that is expensive or unneeded. When things are "free" they are overused. When you have to pay for it yourself, suddenly a trip to the doctor for a cold or the flu doesn't seem so necessary. Setting price caps creates a shortage; supply and demand are irrefutable principles of economics. Using an uncomfortable procedure as the standard for not requesting unneccesary services is not a valid argument. If healthcare is perceived as free than people who tweek their back will go to the doctor when he can't really do anything more for you than you can do yourself with a hot pad and some aspirin. No one is going to go in for open heart surgery just because it is "free". That is a ridiculous and illogical argument.

 

We do not have a free market health care system and haven't since medicare, medicaid and HMO's entered the system. Even if you pay cash for your visit, your price is controlled by the insurance company because, in many cases, the doctor cannot charge you less than the insurance pays or the insurance then takes that price as the standard and pays the doctor less. There is no such thing as free. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

 

Centralized care is not going to provide you with any more information or better care than the current system. You will have one person telling you what's what, period. The answer is not to put a medical board in charge but to have an ongoing relationship with a family doctor that you trust and who knows you, and to do your own research and to have choices. If you don't trust the information you receive from your own local doctor, why in heaven's name would you trust a medical board run by the state or federal government? You are living in a utopian dreamworld if you believe a centralized system has your best interest in mind more than your local provider.

 

The solution to the financial problem is to have people pay for their own care. Health savings accounts are a good step in that direction. Where did we get the idea that medical care should be cheap or free? Unless you are indigent, in which case your family, church, or community should help you out, medical care is a matter of financial priorities in most cases. For people who have chronic or life threatening conditions, there are catastrophic care policies.

 

If health care is changed to a true free market system, the prices will come down.

 

Central planning never works, never has, never will and the socialists who answer with "well, we just haven't done it right yet" or "the right people haven't been in charge yet" are trying to sell you something.

 

There is no one in the US who has to go without medical treatment and a major percentage of the people without insurance have made that choice themselves. Statists are using a percieved crisis to make a power grab. Some people are honestly trying to help, but their help comes in the form of thinking you are to stupid to take care of yourself and they are more intelligent and better educated and just smarter and will take of you.

 

Life expectancy in other countries is not a valid arguement for centralized or government run health care. First, the difference in life expectancy for the 20 or so countries immediately above the US is statistically meaningless. The countries at the top of the list have significantly longer lives and healthier life styles in general and live longer lives even when they come to the US. The US has a high homicide/suicide/auto accident rate which factors into life expectancy averages. Averages are generally meaningless numbers anyway. If you don't die young from murder or accident, then your life expectancy is just as high in the US as in the countries with government care. And the long term life expectancy for cancer and other life threatening diseases is much higher in the US than other countries. Men with cancer in Europe have a 47% chance of living five years or more, while US men have a 66% chance. Most of the statistics come from the Natl. Center for Policy Analysis.

 

Finally, have you seen the costs? Even the government admits that the cost per citizen will go up, way up. Taxes to cover all of this will be through the roof and damage the economy as a whole. The tax, as most taxes are, will be regressive and affect the lowest levels of income the hardest. Have you seen the required taxes, premiums, and the penalties for not signing up? Common sense points to the fact that sending money to Washington, having them skim off their portion and then sending you back the portion they believe you are entitled to is going to be more expensive than keeping the money and using it locally. Central planning by bureaucrats is never more efficient or cost effective.

 

Yes, I do expect my (my, as in works at my request and for me) to read the bill and be completely familiar with every word of it and what it will do. If they are to busy, then they are passing too many bills and doing too many power lunches. As our good governor/senator Laxalt said, every time the congress is in session, you lose some of your liberty. Maybe they need to do less.

 

This whole business of so cavalierly giving away freedom, choice, and other peoples money really makes me sad for the direction this country is headed.

Edited July 22, 2009 by jcooperetc

[Alice]

 

I agree with what you wrote above in every single case and market I can think of--except health care. The reason for that, as I stated in the OP, is that health care is a PITA, and no one would get "extra" just because it is free.

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you've written and appreciate your first post as begin thoughtful, even on the points I didn't agree.

 

I have to disagree here though..I think lot of people do and will seek more health care if it is "free". I have a lot of patients who come in for things that are not really necessary because they have a small or no co-pay. An example would be someone I saw today with diarrhea for 2 days. The kid looked fine, the nurse talked to the parent over the phone and everything sounded fine and the nurse gave the standard advice. The parent wanted the child seen. I doubt if they were paying the full amount for the visit would they have come in "just to be sure." (I'm not complaining that they did come in...that's my job, if a parent is worried and wants to be seen it's fine. But it's an "unnecessary" visit and expense in the sense that the advice I gave was the exact same advice the nurse gave for free.)

 

On many occasions, I've had parents demand tests or specialists visits that I think were not really necessary but that they wanted just to be sure or just to rule out a remote possiblity. I think if they were having to pay for those, in many cases they would choose not to do them. However, if the test itself is low risk and there isn't a financial disincentive....most people still want them. I briefly referred to this in a previous post. It's very much our attitude in this country to want more and more health care. It's not a bad thing, nor am I blaming people for wanting to pursue every possiblity and do everything possible for themselves and their loves ones...however, it is not realistically sustainable for every single person to have this kind of care all of the time.

 

When I was in residency we had a lot of people who would come to the ER for care because the hours were convenient and they had no co-pay or no cost of their care. There were also a lot of people who would call 911 for a ride to the hospital as they didn't have to pay.

 

Those are anecdotes, which as it's been pointed out aren't necessarily helpful in making policy. And I'm more pointing out flaws in the current system than in the proposed bill. But I do think the idea that because health care is annoying or invasive or has long wait or is unpleasant that people won't use it more if free is wrong.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Alice

[LynneMcCormick]

There already is abuse in the system and people do have tests and use services that are unneccesary because they are perceived as free when they never see the bill and the insurance pays for it. And it goes both ways, doctors order tests and patients request care that is expensive or unneeded. When things are "free" they are overused. When you have to pay for it yourself, suddenly a trip to the doctor for a cold or the flu doesn't seem so necessary. Setting price caps creates a shortage; supply and demand are irrefutable principles of economics. Using an uncomfortable procedure as the standard for not requesting unneccesary services is not a valid argument. If healthcare is perceived as free than people who tweek their back will go to the doctor when he can't really do anything more for you than you can do yourself with a hot pad and some aspirin. No one is going to go in for open heart surgery just because it is "free". That is a ridiculous and illogical argument.

 

We do not have a free market health care system and haven't since medicare, medicaid and HMO's entered the system. Even if you pay cash for your visit, your price is controlled by the insurance company because, in many cases, the doctor cannot charge you less than the insurance pays or the insurance then takes that price as the standard and pays the doctor less. There is no such thing as free. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

 

Centralized care is not going to provide you with any more information or better care than the current system. You will have one person telling you what's what, period. The answer is not to put a medical board in charge but to have an ongoing relationship with a family doctor that you trust and who knows you, and to do your own research and to have choices. If you don't trust the information you receive from your own local doctor, why in heaven's name would you trust a medical board run by the state or federal government? You are living in a utopian dreamworld if you believe a centralized system has your best interest in mind more than your local provider.

 

The solution to the financial problem is to have people pay for their own care. Health savings accounts are a good step in that direction. Where did we get the idea that medical care should be cheap or free? Unless you are indigent, in which case your family, church, or community should help you out, medical care is a matter of financial priorities in most cases. For people who have chronic or life threatening conditions, there are catastrophic care policies.

 

If health care is changed to a true free market system, the prices will come down.

 

Central planning never works, never has, never will and the socialists who answer with "well, we just haven't done it right yet" or "the right people haven't been in charge yet" are trying to sell you something.

 

There is no one in the US who has to go without medical treatment and a major percentage of the people without insurance have made that choice themselves. Statists are using a percieved crisis to make a power grab. Some people are honestly trying to help, but their help comes in the form of thinking you are to stupid to take care of yourself and they are more intelligent and better educated and just smarter and will take of you.

 

Life expectancy in other countries is not a valid arguement for centralized or government run health care. First, the difference in life expectancy for the 20 or so countries immediately above the US is statistically meaningless. The countries at the top of the list have significantly longer lives and healthier life styles in general and live longer lives even when they come to the US. The US has a high homicide/suicide/auto accident rate which factors into life expectancy averages. Averages are generally meaningless numbers anyway. If you don't die young from murder or accident, then your life expectancy is just as high in the US as in the countries with government care. And the long term life expectancy for cancer and other life threatening diseases is much higher in the US than other countries. Men with cancer in Europe have a 47% chance of living five years or more, while US men have a 66% chance. Most of the statistics come from the Natl. Center for Policy Analysis.

 

Finally, have you seen the costs? Even the government admits that the cost per citizen will go up, way up. Taxes to cover all of this will be through the roof and damage the economy as a whole. The tax, as most taxes are, will be regressive and affect the lowest levels of income the hardest. Have you seen the required taxes, premiums, and the penalties for not signing up? Common sense points to the fact that sending money to Washington, having them skim off their portion and then sending you back the portion they believe you are entitled to is going to be more expensive than keeping the money and using it locally. Central planning by bureaucrats is never more efficient or cost effective.

 

Yes, I do expect my (my, as in works at my request and for me) to read the bill and be completely familiar with every word of it and what it will do. If they are to busy, then they are passing too many bills and doing too many power lunches. As our good governor/senator Laxalt said, every time the congress is in session, you lose some of your liberty. Maybe they need to do less.

 

This whole business of so cavalierly giving away freedom, choice, and other peoples money really makes me sad for the direction this country is headed.

 

:iagree:

[dangerdad]

If you are talking about free or perceived-as-free universal health insurance, there are exceptions. Not everyone under these systems demands more health care just because it's free or perceived as free.

 

This isn't what I claimed (I'll go into it more in a minute in my response to Julie's post). It's not the case that everyone will demand more, only that the total demand will be more.

[Julie in Austin]

Alice, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

However, I think a well-designed single-payer system could compensate for some of the problems that you name--and actually do a better job of it than the current system does.

 

For example, if your office person had said, "the govt health service will only pay for an office visit if your child has had it for 5+ days [or whatever a reasonable standard of care would be], or there are other symptoms, none of which you mentioned when I just asked you about them . . . so the office visit will be $150 . . . did you still want to come in?"

 

Same thing with the specialist: 'The health service covers the cardiologist visit when X, Y, and Z are present . . . since you don't have Z, the visit is $200 . . . did you still want me to schedule that?'

 

To the larger issue, however: I think I glossed over an important part of this argument in my response to dangerdad: the best evidence that free health resources don't create endless consumer demand for health care would be found in every single one of the other industrialized countries--all of which have universal health care and in none of which is the national past time lining up outside the doctor's office for freebies.

[Julie in Austin]

This isn't what I claimed (I'll go into it more in a minute in my response to Julie's post). It's not the case that everyone will demand more, only that the total demand will be more.

 

Maybe I should wait for your longer response before replying, but of course total demand will be more. People who ignore legitimate medical needs because they can't afford treatment will get that treatment if they are covered, and that will drive up costs. Two points:

 

(a) It isn't an endless cost increase--people will stop seeking care when the costs (not the financial ones, but the aggravation once) outweigh the cost of care

 

and

 

(b) There are lots of cost savings to be had in a single payer system that would offset these cost increases.

 

But if I've jumped the gun, ignore this comment.

[usetoschool]

Alice, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

However, I think a well-designed single-payer system could compensate for some of the problems that you name--and actually do a better job of it than the current system does.

 

For example, if your office person had said, "the govt health service will only pay for an office visit if your child has had it for 5+ days [or whatever a reasonable standard of care would be], or there are other symptoms, none of which you mentioned when I just asked you about them . . . so the office visit will be $150 . . . did you still want to come in?"

 

Same thing with the specialist: 'The health service covers the cardiologist visit when X, Y, and Z are present . . . since you don't have Z, the visit is $200 . . . did you still want me to schedule that?'

 

To the larger issue, however: I think I glossed over an important part of this argument in my response to dangerdad: the best evidence that free health resources don't create endless consumer demand for health care would be found in every single one of the other industrialized countries--all of which have universal health care and in none of which is the national past time lining up outside the doctor's office for freebies.

 

Actually, shortages and lining up outside the doctor's office, so to speak, are the major drawbacks of centralized care. Just a small quote from the annual study Waiting Your Turn -

 

Canada’s health care system is anything but the idyllic arrangement trumpeted by those who advocate importing Canadian-style “single-payer†health care into the United States. As this Fraser Institute report reveals in sharp detail, Canadian health care is plagued by systemic problems, not the least of which is its inability to deliver timely care for the full range of health care events. The result is what the authors call “a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric†and in need of “substantial reform.â€

 

The rest of the report can be read here Price controls create scarcity. And free does create overuse and abuse. Just because it isn't the extreme of lining up for free surgeries doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. You have created a false dichotomy.

[usetoschool]

Maybe I should wait for your longer response before replying, but of course total demand will be more. People who ignore legitimate medical needs because they can't afford treatment will get that treatment if they are covered, and that will drive up costs.

 

No one has to ignore legitimate medical needs. Everyone can be seen and cared for and if they can't pay there are already programs in place to take care of that.

 

Two points:

 

(a) It isn't an endless cost increase--people will stop seeking care when the costs (not the financial ones, but the aggravation once) outweigh the cost of care

 

and

 

(b) There are lots of cost savings to be had in a single payer system that would offset these cost increases.

 

There are NO cost savings in a single payer system. The only people saving money will be welfare recipients who recieve "free" care but there is a cost to everything and the high taxes paid by others who will then no longer be able to afford to hire additional employees, etc. will cost the welfare recipients in the long run. The economies of most single payer healthcare system countries are in a big mess with high unemployment and inflation. Socialism is expensive. There is no free lunch.

 

But if I've jumped the gun, ignore this comment.

 

I realize you were responding to dangerdad. Just my 4 cents (inflationary rate, even though it is still only worth 2 cents ;))

[Colleen in NS]

It's not the case that everyone will demand more, only that the total demand will be more.

 

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. Then nevermind my post. :D

[Julie in Austin]

Actually, shortages and lining up outside the doctor's office, so to speak, are the major drawbacks of centralized care. Just a small quote from the annual study Waiting Your Turn -

 

Canada’s health care system is anything but the idyllic arrangement trumpeted by those who advocate importing Canadian-style “single-payer†health care into the United States. As this Fraser Institute report reveals in sharp detail, Canadian health care is plagued by systemic problems, not the least of which is its inability to deliver timely care for the full range of health care events. The result is what the authors call “a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric†and in need of “substantial reform.â€

 

The rest of the report can be read here Price controls create scarcity. And free does create overuse and abuse. Just because it isn't the extreme of lining up for free surgeries doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. You have created a false dichotomy.

 

I think an ongoing problem in this conversation is that people who don't agree with me have lumped me in with the group that thinks that single-payer is all rainbows and kittens and unicorns. I have no such delusions. I have "low expectations" to start with and I fully expect that single-payer will create the same problems here that there are in Canada. And yet the data suggests that if we became "just like Canada," that would mean better health outcomes and lower bills.

 

In other words, I expect single-payer to stink. I just don't expect it to stink as much as the current system. ;)

[dangerdad]

I agree with what you wrote above in every single case and market I can think of--except health care. The reason for that, as I stated in the OP, is that health care is a PITA, and no one would get "extra" just because it is free.

 

Do this thought experiment: if you are up-to-date on your screenings, and your doctor was offering free colonoscopies today, would you go get one just because it was free?

 

Didn't think so. Aside from the, uh, . . . unpleasantness of the procedure, people realize (or: should realize) that there are risks (even if no financial cost) associated with all medical procedures, and so I wouldn't expect a significant number of people to get medical care that they thought was unnecessary just because it was free. Now, this certainly wouldn't be the case if the govt gave out unlimited free food--we can see very easily that rates of consumption would skyrocket. But it won't happen with health care.

 

I think your reasoning is flawed. You find health care to be a PITA, but not everyone does. People in a high-risk group for colon cancer might be willing to go through quarterly or semi-annual colonoscopies. Hypochondriacs or worry-warts would be expected to go see a doctor more often than they do now if there's no copay or doctor's fee.

 

Pharmaceuticals will have massive demand increase (think oxycontin, viagra, prilosec, etc.).

 

The only restriction on applying the laws of economics is that it applies to scarce resources that have multiple uses. Since this perfectly describes medical care, it is not an exception to what we know about economics.

 

Just because it doesn't make sense to you or me that people would use more health care, doesn't mean the aggregate won't increase. We'll also see a rise in demand of optional procedures (removal of skin tags and moles, vasectomies, gastric bypasses, etc.) which people kinda-sorta want but aren't willing to pay for right now. The result will be a shortage for everyone.

 

(1) There will be an increase in health services, because right now people delay needed treatment because it is expensive (even the copay, if they have insurance, and certainly the bill, if they don't). So, yes, there will be more health services sought initially. But the number would be capped at "genuine need" and not "sky's the limit--hey, it's free!"

 

People also don't get unneeded treatment now because it would add to their personal costs.

 

(2) I think a well-designed single-payer system could keep down the additional costs that would result from (1) as well as some of the costs in the current system by doing some things such as:

 

(a) Having phone nurses available 24/7. We had this with Kaiser and, while I hated Kaiser, this prevented a lot of office visits that I might have made out of new-mother-fear, but that I learned were not necessary. I thought it was a win-win, but the current system dis-incentivizes this, since phone consults are usually not paid by insurance (or even private pay) but office visits are.

 

(b) Better data sharing, so docs won't do things "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because the drug rep convinced me it's the best, newest alternative" or "because I don't want to be sued" would bring costs down a lot.

 

© Tort reform. Average OB pays 100K *per year*. Lots of different alternatives to get this down . . .

 

(d) Medical check-lists. Don't laugh at this until you've read Atul Gawande's New Yorker article on the topic and the enormous potential for life and cost savings.

 

All of these can (or do) exist in a free market system. Additionally, the president has stated unequivocally that there won't be any tort reform. That's unfortunate because it's a huge additional cost to medical care--especially in the OB field, as you note, where many doctors are getting out of the business or leaving areas with particularly bad rulings.

[Elaine]

No, I am not sick of them. I am, however, sick because of them. I am in the middle of reading the bill and if the American people read it they would all be outraged.

 

Page 425 is of special interest to me and if your parents are still alive, it should be to you, too.

[bairnmama]

 

I agree with what you wrote above in every single case and market I can think of--except health care. The reason for that, as I stated in the OP, is that health care is a PITA, and no one would get "extra" just because it is free.

 

 

 

 

I must confess I didn't finish reading the rest of your post... but I just had to stop and reply when I read this!

 

Yes, people will get extra just because it is free! We are a military family on Tricare Prime. Absolutely every medical (not dental) service we have is free to us. We pay no co-pays, nothing out of pocket for prescriptions if they're filled on base, and even have 6 free mental health visits w/o referral. Hosptal stays, emergency room visits, etc... all covered 100%. I can't tell you how many parents bring their kids in to see the doctor for every little fever, sniffle, cough, whatever. I'm talking about fever of just barely 100 or even 99 degrees and a clear runny nose or an upset stomach where the kid vomitted just once. They are all sitting in the waiting room talking and almost every time these are the words I hear:

 

"I know it's probably just a cold, but the govt is paying for it so I might as well use it. I don't have to pay."

 

This is just not the moms w/babies either. Many are well into school age.

 

The waits are horrendous in waiting rooms because the physicians constantly overbook. They've learned that they will see so many patients that don't really need to be there, they have to book 2 or 3 patients in the same slot just to get to the ones who truly have a medical need! It's absolutely ridiculous and I refuse to go unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

I apologize if this was already addressed, but I just had to share my experience.

 

ETA: We do have a call-in help line available toll free 24/7 staffed with registered nurses and I know in at least one of the geographic Prime areas, books are mailed to every enrollee that have medical checklists for just about every known medical problem from rashes to headaches to respitory problems. They are titled Taking Care of Yourself and Taking Care of Your Child.

Edited July 22, 2009 by bairnmama

[Elaine]

Pg. 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

 

Pg. 58 HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued

 

Pg. 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

 

Pg. 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

 

Pg. 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

 

Pg. 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in

the Exchang

 

Pg. 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps

2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

 

pg. 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

 

pg. 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

 

Pg. 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

 

Pg. 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

 

Pg. 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

 

pg. 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt

pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

 

Pg. 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income

 

Pg. 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

 

PG. 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that ( you can't deduct it.)

 

Pg. 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

 

Pg. 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have,

you'll all be paid the same

 

PG. 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally

value of humans.

 

PG. 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

 

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

 

 

Pg. 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

 

Pg. 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

 

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death

 

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

 

Pg. 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used frequently as

patients health deteriorates

 

Pg. 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

 

 

This goes beyond socialized medicine. If you want the government to take over total control of your life, then by all means, do nothing. Or take action and call your reps.

[Perry]

I'm not going to look all these up, but the few I have are taken out of context and are misrepresented. One example:

 

"Pg. 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have,

you'll all be paid the same"

 

What it actually says is this:

 

6 Service categories established under this paragraph

7 shall apply without regard to the specialty of the

8 physician furnishing the service.’’.

What this means is that the doctor is paid the same amount for a procedure (like a colonoscopy, for instance) whether it's done by an internist or a surgeon. Currently, that isn't the case, and it doesn't make sense.

 

It isn't talking about salary.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Perry

[usetoschool]

Thanks Elaine for posting all of those summaries. This is a huge, complicated bill. The rush to pass is makes me almost a nervous as the items contained in it.