This is a politically sensitive topic, and we will allow it to continue if people are considerate of other views and opinions. This will NOT become a Presidential bashing, and should not vear outside the realm of the Health Reform proposal and related subjects.

If you are not capable of contributing to this thread in a mature and adult manner, DO NOT POST.

RDT Staff will be monitoring this thread closely. We encourage you to provide your honest opinion and as much FACTUAL information as possible. If you don't have anything ideas to contribute, don't post. Any members that post content similar to, "NObama needs to be impeached" or "Obama is going to kill this country" or "Obama is the second coming of Christ" will be issued warnings for off-topic replies.

Keep this civil. Post your sources for information. This should be a method for all of us to learn about the Health Reform and the pros/cons associated.

If you have some information to contribute, please don't post just a link to a website. Give your ideas, an overview of the article, or point out your concerns/excitement.

The government has started this website for information: http://www.healthreform.gov . Now, of course, it's all positive because they want support.
Stocker has contributed this article that addresses many concerns people have related to the proposal: http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/07/whats-i...nd-liberty.html

 

This is a huge topic, something like 1/6th of the US economy is health care. We have the world's best health CARE, bar none. Nobody questions that "something" should be done to make health care PAYMENT more affordable. Nobody likes that there are 10-12 million Americans who really can't afford health care insurance. The problem is that the current proposed 'solution' takes this whole huge segment of our economy and turns it over to the government, or sets up the market in such a way as to make the government-run "public option" the only choice worth choosing.

To me, this is a Bad Idea, but then I am a big fan of Capitalism and individuals' rights.
I also wonder why this problem which was decades (centuries) in the making MUST be fixed within the month (revised to within the year) with ONE huge bill that it seems everyone who will sign it, refuses to actually read.

I hear from a lot of callers to talk shows that the Republicans have no ideas on health care (payment) reform. In one case the other day, it was after the host finished telling the same caller a bunch of ideas. No less a personage than the Governor of Louisiana is trying to get attention paid to a handful of reforms he is proposing:

Consumer choice guided by transparency
Aligned consumer interests
Medical lawsuit reform (President Obama already said he does not want punitive damage award caps, current bills apparently have more, not less, liability in them)
Insurance reform
Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others
Pay for performance, not activity
Refundable tax credits

I know we are not supposed to bash the President, but it is very hard indeed to discuss the proposed solution without going over his record (discussion of past actions = attack, to some people). Then-Senator Obama voted against every Republican-initiated health care reform bill during his tenure in the Senate, according to Senator DeMint.


Senator Demint comment transcript http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...plan_97572.html
Governor Bobby Jindal in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2236378974.html
47 vs 11 million: http://votefordavid.blogspot.com/2009/07/4...people-now.html

********

Speaking for myself, if I could get a health insurance policy for a reasonable number of dollars, that insured me and my kids against catastrophic problems, that would be great. A multi-thousand dollar deductible would be uncomfortable, but better than multi-thousand dollar premium payments. I am 100% sure I don't need to be in the actuarial table for substance abuse, mental health, or prenatal care.

 

I keep hearing this number of 46 million people who don't have health insurance. Personally, I know of at least 20 people who choose NOT to pay for health insurance. They're healthy 20-25 year olds who would rather pay $5,000 if something major happened to them, than $150/mo. "just in case." They are missionaries, and most travel to Africa, the Philippines, or Thailand every year. They are included in this "overwhelming" (sarcasm) number of people who don't have health insurance, but it's their choice.

What about those who waive health insurance through their company? It happens more than I thought. I'm involved in a payroll audit of our companies, and the data I have shows several people who chose not to have the company sponsored health care plan through Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It's a very good plan, great rates compared to most (didn't increase last year), but instead of losing $100+ per pay check, they actually receive money for NOT being part of the plan. Guess what? They're included in this as well.

How many people are eligible for the current government programs, but aren't taking advantage of it? I'm sure there will always be those who don't sign up.

The concern I have are the people who lost their job, and have no income right now, no employer sponsored plan, and can't get it through a spouse for a reasonable price.

Should this proposal pass, the biggest concern I have is the government regulating what can or can not be prescribed for certain illnesses. My wife has several medical problems, some are "unproven" as to which treatments work, but through trial and error she has found some that give her relief. So called "natural medicines" or "alternative treatments" aren't always covered by insurance, and I suspect once the government is involved, there will be tighter restrictions on available treatments.

My wife's grandmother has severe Rheumatoid Arthritis. There are multiple treatments for it, but some work much better for her than others. Insurance covers less for the better medicine because it's more expensive. Will the government only choose to cover the cheaper treatment, since it supposedly does the same thing?

Anything with government control over our health, lives, and private life scares me.

 

I do not think anything can really be done to fix said issues. There is to much dead wight and special interest groups. My mom is in midlife stride and my grandparents are in their 70's and it scares the crap out of me some of the things i have read that if they need some treatment that it would be weighted against the benefits.

Has anyone read the book Animal Farm? I don't remember who its by but there was a character that was a horse and did brunt work around the farm but as he got older and slowed down he was put out to pasture. I do not want a mandated health care that says when im no longer useful i get tossed aside.

I also think that we should have a reform on welfare first to get people in legit jobs paying into the system. The handout system has grown and grown and now is at a tipping point that the people working can not support the people who are not.
When the steel mills and factory's started being shipped over seas out leadership did not drive us in the world economy to something new, we fell by the wayside. The intertwining of businesses and government started and now we are here.

Are we saying doctors should work for walmart prices? Should drug companies that spend $$$ on research not be able to run a company for profit just like everyone else?

Capitalism says the market will dictate prices, so doctors and drug companies can charge what they want. Doctors spend 16 to 20 years of their life in school. So is it wrong for them to try to make money on all the education they spent on?

Are we as a nation hypocritical that we want affordable health care when that goes against the principal of capitalism?

 

Haste makes Waste. The problem with pushing something too fast without analyzing it (especially when it affects hundreds of millions of people over decades) can be related to this problem:

http://www.comcast.net/finance/forwhatitsw...nderfromtheirs/
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...204447,00.html

Cliff Notes: Obama's "Making Work Pay Credit" essentially gives everyone $400 over the year, in small incremental increases in each paycheck. However, not everybody should be getting this credit, and may get caught owing the IRS next April. The IRS actually put a memo out urging people to be careful, and to check their withholdings.

From the IRS website (link above):

 

You know, they tried this back in the 30s and again in the 60s (I think) We can all see that it worked out so well back then?

Some people obviously havent studied their histroy, and those who dont look to the past are doomed to repeat it...

 

I agree with you in theory, but I can tell you first hand that what hospitals charge for stuff is INSANE. A very minor surgery ended up costing my insurance over $12,000. To give you an idea, $1000 of this was for "recovery room services" which was me sitting in a chair for 30 minutes until the anesthetic wore off and eating a jello.. this can't be right can it?

And then CVS sucked my insurance for $300 for something which I later found out was $30 in reasonable pharmacies (both generics).. this isn't right either. In fact CVS has a heartburn medicine (Prilosec) which they sell OTC and it's like $20 but if you get it with prescription, it's $70. I called and asked them and they admitted it is the same substance, both were generics, and they don't know why it's more expensive with a prescription.. lol (could it be that with prescriptions they get to suck money from the insurance companies?)

 

Devil's Advocate
Doctors rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that takes them decades to pay off. Once they're in their 40s and 50s, they make tons of money, but they've put in their time and are essential to the country. We need doctors, and we need to provide incentive for people to become doctors.

Drug companies spend billions of dollars on research for new drugs. When they find something, they charge two arms and a leg for a 'magic' pill. Once they hit the limit (x years, or x revenue, don't remember what it is), it's available for a generic formula. We give them time to recover costs of R&D, and they need profits to be able to pour into more medical breakthroughs.

Hospitals have rooms that hold millions of dollars worth of equipment. I want them to have equipment to find out what's wrong with me, how bad the cancer is, or how to operate on a tumor. They need to pull money from somewhere, thus they charge $70 for two Loratab in the E.R. and another $120 for the nurse to "administer" it (hand it to you in a paper cup).

 

Is there a viable way to subsidize the cost of health care? sounds like the problem stems from the budget funds. Doctors and RD are expensive and trying to pay back the moneys in a reasonable amount of time fair but wages have not kept up with prices.

Does it not go against free market to try to dictate people that dedicate thier lives to medicine and companies that R&D only able to make X amount?


Can someone find the amount of money the government makes on taxes? I remember not to long ago there was a day where they announced that they had spend all the money they has projected to take in for the year. Anyone find that figure?

 

I agree with you majik but still it seems in practice the prices are still a lot higher than justified (at least IMO)

What also bothers me is that on many things the bill is (say) $4000 but the insurance pays only (say) $1500 (allowed amount), as a result of an agreement between insurance and hospital); but if I don't have health insurance - or the insurance won't pay for something (cause they already paid too much on a certain type of claim or w/e), I get to pay the full amount. I don't really understand that, if prices are justified there shouldn't be such a big discrepancy between the rate and the 'negotiated/allowed rate'