Scripting News: Debating health care in 2008 (Scripting News)
Brian Benz
· 1 year ago
Good post. Having experienced health care in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK I'm cautious of universal health care too - the devil is in the details. As long as it ends up as good care for all and not bad care for all, fine.
And I agree, automating health care and records is an extremely good thing, and would benefit any health care system in the world, all of which are woefully behind when it comes to IT - as long as privacy can be maintained.
My thoughts from a few years ago here. I still agree with most of what I wrote, though I like some of what I'm hearing form the democrats this year...: http://bbenz.typepad.com/softwaresoapbox/2005/0...
cshotton
· 1 year ago
Don't kid yourself. Businesses are not incentivized in any significant way to computerize healthcare records. There is a huge service industry based on medical transcription and the processing of reams of insurance forms, lab reports, and so on. I was involved in one of the first major attempts to automate clinical patient records in the early '90s, and even when it was only academic institutions involved with no commercial interests, it proved to be an intractable problem. Hillary's vision is a pipe dream. Her hoped for end state is admirable, but too many businesses would lose too much to let it happen in our lifetimes.
Cameron Barrett
· 1 year ago
I am currently working on the UI for a PHR (Personal Health Record) web application (funded by a large company in the health industry) and can confirm that the data interoperability issues are still far from being solved. There are several industry groups working towards information portability standards but nothing is really solid yet.
There are definite benefits to a consumer having a PHR as long as the data remains private, works well within the HIPAA laws, and the consumer is able to move data to and from one PHR to another. For instance, if you store your data in Microsoft HealthVault, you should be able to move it from there to Google Health or any other PHR-enabled service.
There are many scenarios where a populated PHR can save the lives of patients, by warning the user of a lethal drug interaction, suddenly rising blood pressure, weight gain, etc. The more health data you put in the more you are likely to get our of it - recommendations, suggested diagnoses, health considerations, and clean, printable pages of data you can take to every doctor and hospital visit.
Charlie
· 1 year ago
I understand the anger and upset over our supposed "free market" health care system, and I totally agree with you - we absolutely don't have a free market. I disagree with you in that I think we _should_ and that it is the only way to create an effective, ethical system.
We already have monopolies in health care - licensed doctors, the AMA, the FDA, government-funded/supported hospitals, etc. Fortunately there is _some_ freedom in associating with doctors since good ones generally do better than bad ones. However, if you bring the government - the biggest monopolist of all - into the action it will only make things worse. Unfortunately, no matter how charismatic the politicians are, they can't make force yield positive results.
Personally, I disagree with your politics (mainly because I disagree with political power in any form, not because I'm a conservative or anything =]), but I have a question - what do you think should happen if I refuse to pay taxes to support universal health care? Do you think I should be allowed to disagree in action as well as in thought?
Rob Safuto
· 1 year ago
Not all health situations are based on luck Dave. Some people are smokers. Some people consume a lot of fatty, sugary foods and exercise little. Some people drink alcohol and take drugs regularly. These are chosen activities that degrade a person's health over time. So my big concern is that when I'm paying for someone else's health care costs out of my paycheck that I'm also paying for people who aren't taking care of themselves. Do I owe these people a percentage of my paycheck to cover their health problems?
Strange that you mention that, "The Republicans have never been responslble about this issue." Who was the governor of Mass. that set up that "liberalized health insurance" plan you mentioned? What was his party affiliation? Just a question.
Some Democrats have already acknowledged that so called 'universal health plans' will destroy working people more than anyone. Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco called the proposed California program, "...a knife to the throat of the working poor." So this is not a cut and dry, evil republicans vs. angelic democrats issue as portrayed in your post.
The most frustrating thing is that I'm already paying plenty for other people to have access to free medical care via medicare and medicaid taxes deducted from my paycheck. This is in addition to monthly premiums and co-pays when myself, my wife or my daughter need care. So how much more should a working person have to pay? What percentage of my paycheck given to the government proves that I "have a heart" as you say?
BAM
· 1 year ago
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you for putting a voice to why (and how) it is 'ok' to say 'universal health care' just doesn't make sense....
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
Tell you what, Rob. Make some phone calls to dentists' offices, and try to find one who accepts medicare or medicaid patients. In most of the country, there are none.
But you're right. We shouldn't be using government money for health care. We shouldn't require doctors report cases of VD to a government agency so that epidemics can be stopped. We shouldn't require kids have innoculations before they attend public schools. We shouldn't give TB tests to people who work in restaurants, nor should we inspect restaurants to make sure they aren't making people sick. We shouldn't quarantine people who have typhoid fever.
We shouldn't arrest people who drive drunk. We shouldn't lock up people who are a threat to themselves or others, due to their mental health. We shouldn't do anything to addicts who trade their 4-year-old's sexual favors for a hit of crack. We should repeal OSHA, and eliminate all air and water quality standards.
If you lose the insurance that is keeping your wife alive by quitting your job and starting a new company that provides employment for 3000 people, well, your wedding vows said through sickness and health, until death do you part, and after all, she's only going to be sick a little longer before she dies, if you don't have good insurance.
Oh, and let's get rid of all the laws against assault. After all, it's no business of government whether you are healthy or not.
John Norris
· 1 year ago
Last week the Committee for Economic Development issued "Harnessing Openness to Transform American Healthcare” (http://www.ced.org/) It really gets into the various way healthcare can be free, as in freedom.
While I agree that some institutions may be hard pressed to find a monetary incentive, there are plenty others in healthcare that will benefit. Don't under estimate how many businesses are looking at leveraging electronic data. There are efficiencies and quality gained with Computer Physician Order Entry, and other data handling abilities. There is also a huge business opportunity in secondary use of the data collected (moral dilemmas withstanding.)
Alex G
· 1 year ago
The core of the issue is state mandated profiteering off of sick people. The only way for a corporation to make money is to deny them care. A corporation by law is first and foremost responsible to its stakeholders, not people in need.
Whenever government mandates businesses to make money from citizens, "free market" ceases to exist.
BAM
· 1 year ago
I can foresee this being written off or disagreed with by many, but I’m throwing in my 2 cents:
Everyone should not get 'equal access' to healthcare - it's a privilege just like driving a luxury car. It's expensive to drive a BMW, that's why only certain people get to do it. Getting tests, taking medicine, having a 'specialist' look at you, it's all expensive. We operate in a 'fee for service world,' why should healthcare be any different?
Is it 'fair' that people get sick? Of course not. Is it fair that I don't have the ability to play professional sports? Well, I guess not. Some people have a terrible immune system, some people probably go through their entire lives w/out getting sick. Life isn't fair, my mom told me that when I was 4 years old, let's buck up and do our best in spite of it all.
DaveD
· 1 year ago
Here's what's unfair... I went into the ER with tightness in my chest last October. This, after a couple of weeks where my doctor took chest x-rays and an EKG and bloodwork and I had high blood pressure, which I never have. In the end I stayed in a VERY good hospital one night in the cardiac unit (they are ranked as one of the top 50 here) and on my visit to my doctor afterwards he ordered a CAT scan of my chest.
Amount the various in-house "providers" billed my insurance:
17,791.00
Amount my insurance paid:
4,249.18
Amount I was liable for:
180.00
BAM, those are cold hard numbers. My ex-wife who works in a plastics shop has no coverage. That means when she suffers the same symptoms her choices are (a) not go to the hospital or (b) go in debt for the amount equivalent to what a cheap SUV costs.
Who do we blame? The doctors? They just received about 25% of what they billed. The insurance? They shouldn't have to pay $17000 for a single night in the cardiac unit and one other CAT scan. The government? I can see where Dave's coming from... and respectfully disagree with him. What exactly can they do?
One night, one CAT scan (along with a few EKGs, a stress test and an echogram). 5+ years of debts.
Now lets take this one step further BAM.
The company I work for just informed us that retiree medical coverage changes as of 7/1/2008. They are "cashing in" anyone still working there, making a one time payment to their 401(k). Since I don't turn 50 until mext month (2 months too late) I get all of $2700 and my COBRA. My buddy next to me who is under 35 gets $450.
And all of us here as of 7/1/2008 have to find our own way for medical coverage until we get qualify for medicare. Coverage that means costs are based on "pre-existing conditions".
----
Here's what concerns me BAM. Like Dave said yesterday, the stalemate with the Democrats may be the worst thing that can happen.
Hillary cares about he state of healthcare in this country. But she is also part of that Democratic machine that put her husband in office. Worse, she's already had one chance to do something about it!
That leaves Obama. He instills hope. Hope for change. Hope for turning many things around in this country. But his biggest asset in this election is also his biggest weakness come January 21, 2009.
The best chances of any combination of Obama and Hillary making it to the White House is if they do it together on the same ticket. But - the best chances of changing healthcare (IMHO) is if Hillary serves in the cabinet for President Obama.
And realistically? Objectively? Right now it looks more likely that neither will be in the cabinet of President McCain. Yes. It's 9 months until the election. SO I'm hoping I'm eating a couple of the words I just said come November 5.
mattlkelly
· 1 year ago
Buck up and do our best in spite of it all. Gee, thanks. Having lost a child with chronic illness, and having a spouse that is chronically ill and disable, having been forced into bankruptcy will a never ending stream of medical bill, having had to fight insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and various other medical service for proper care, I was really having a tough time. But your post has turned my life around.
And compared to your inability to play football, my life has a whole new perspective.
I have always thought the health care debate has been between those who are ill or have a family member that is, and those who haven't got a clue and don't give a shit.
eyeonwiner
· 1 year ago
That's what the debate in most of politics is: people who want the government to give them money vs. the people who will have to pay for it. This isn't any different.
Anon
· 1 year ago
I don't drive a car, why should my tax money be used on giving you a road? Why should I pay for your kids education?
Why should I have to pay for police services, when I could just buy a shotgun? If you are unlucky enought to get robbed, it's your problem. And if someone murders your family, and you can't seek justice on yourself, why should I have to pay the police to help you?
Why do you want to pay for some services, but choose not to pay for health care? A captialist world doesn't work without the poor and the rich. For each Bill Gates, there are thousands of people working for minimum wage. The next time you pay for your burger at McDonalds, look a the workers behind the counter. Without them, you wouldn't get your burger. Or at least the price would be higher. They have a full time job and works just as hard as you do.
lemonobrien
· 1 year ago
i think we can't afford it; and they talk'n give-away programs for votes; it's like democrats 101.
Zane Condren
· 1 year ago
I just don't understand why liberals think it is a good idea to give the government more control over our lives. Government is the problem not the solution. Acess to "free" or cheap healthcare is not a right, its a benefit to working hard and being a sucess in life. I should not have to scarifice things my family needs or wants because others are sick and government is making me pay for it. If liberals want to help those people then fine, donate to charities. If we want more people covered then offer tax breaks to corporations and small business if they offer health insurance to the lower end of the wage earners. America needs to get off the Government teat, as we head into a slower economy this is especially impoortant. The Great depression lasted as long as it did because of the socialism that FDR forced down the throats of the American people. Universal healthcare will be the downfall of the American economy.
Derek
· 1 year ago
Speaking of platitudes, try this on:
"I'm the presidential candidate who's going to lower the cost of health care by bringing together Republicans and Democrats."
That's straight from a Barack Obama commercial running in Massachussetts.
Could somebody on this board enlighten me as to how bringing Republicans and Democrats together is going to lower the price of my health care?
AJ Fish
· 1 year ago
"And I think our country would do better with a healthy population"
Agreed.
Wouldn't accessibility to affordable health care will free up entrepreneurs to take risks and start companies? I think GM spends more on employee health care than they spend making cars.
And with access to preventative medicine we'll cut down on what we spend.
And what about tuberculosis? I've heard three cases in the last year of people traveling via plane, train, auto while infected with this infectious disease. Imagine how many could have it but are laying low, or don't know they have it because they can't afford treatment. I would rather pay taxes and allow them access to treatment so I don't have to worry about this.
Of course there are always counterexamples. It's a big world so everything you can imagine happens.
I would add that people with health insurance also get misdiagnosed, mistreated, and killed by medical professionals. Can you agree with that, or do I need a citation?
I'm not advocating the use of emergency rooms as primary care facilities, but it does happen and the uninsured get care.
At risk of extending this, at my local community hospital (250 beds, suburban population of under 25,000), evenings in the ER are office hours for illegal immigrants. Wow, a double whammy.
Scobleizer
· 1 year ago
lemonobrien: right, but we can afford the money to host a needless war. Or buy a new football stadium, as has been done in many communities.
Why can Europe afford to do this and we can't? I thought we were the richest country in the world.
eyeonwiner
· 1 year ago
Lots of people don't think the war is so "needless", Robert. And the reason they can afford it is because they have insanely high effective tax rates.
The question is: can the government do it cheaper or better than the private sector? Is the answer for the government to just take the reins, or would it be better for them to fix the private sector?
fdsa
· 1 year ago
If Congress would just stop funding the war, I would love to put that war dividend back into my pocket. Who knows, maybe I'd buy health insurance with it.
I guess you want the government to keep my money, though.
If your government didn't build that football stadium, would they fund healthcare? Just because your politicians have been bought to serve one minor special interest, doesn't mean that they would serve the public otherwise.
Bob K
· 1 year ago
In a sense, we already have a form of socialized medicine. If you have a good job with a health plan, that is.
Look what it gets us: everyone who pays 'taxes' (insurance) puts in a disturbingly large percentage of his paycheck, he has to wait in line to get anything done, access to health care must be approved by the insurance company, and the real price paid to the doctor is negotiated behind the patient's back. If the patient wants better health care he has to go outside the system and pay for it himself, a privilege available only to the wealthy.
Universal health care is going to have the same problems, only bigger.
Tyler
· 1 year ago
The second to last refuge of a liberal..."but we are the richest country in the world." We are the richest country in the world because we don't let the government run things (relatively of course, we'd be richer if they ran less than they already do. See deregulation of airlines, trucking industry, telecommunications, etc.)
The last refuge..."if you have a heart, and think about it, I don't see how anyone could be against universal health care and still sleep at night." That is right. If you don't believe in universal health care you have no heart. Man how do I sleep at night?
dave
· 1 year ago
Oh come now, that's silly. The "conservatives" rip up the Constitution and spend us into oblivion and you say the liberals want to let the government "run things." If government running our lives is what it means to be a liberal then Dubya is the most liberal president we've had in decades.
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
The "but we are the richest country in the world" argument isn't true. Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, and Iceland, in that order, have higher per-capita GNI, GNP, and GDP than the US of A, according to the World Bank.
Why is it that so many self-described Christians think that only the unborn have a right to life? We have the highest infant mortality rate of all developed nations.
Spencer Whetstone
· 1 year ago
Paul,
Your comparison of the US to these postage stamp countries is invidious for the following reasons. Their combined land mass is approximately three quarters that of the State of Texas. The same goes for their combined populations. They do not have the same issues of indefensible borders with a neighboring country which seeks, as a matter of national policy to export their jobless, and fiscally depend upon the remittances of their expatriates.
Dave,
I have to agree with Tyler about your comments about the heartlessness of people who do not hold your political views. The demonization of political thought is no more attractive when it comes from your point of view than when it comes from mine.
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
Invidious? You take offense at the truth, Spencer? Is that why you're trying to change the subject from the *richest* country, to the "country with the most land"?
The migration rate of Luxembourg is 7.78 per 1000, versus only 3.05 for the US. The US *used* to have a higher migration rate - it was 14.03 per 1000 residents a century ago - but the xenophobes made it virtually impossible for someone to migrate *legally* to the US, with only 5000 permanent resident visas being issued to Mexicans last year.
The free market has made it a policy to import people who want to work because kids in the US are too lazy to even make babies.
W^L+
· 1 year ago
Paul, most Americans are hardworking and idealistic, just like their Mexican counterparts. Until they see that they get no reward for their labor. Wages in the US have dropped slightly over the past twenty years when adjusted for inflation, and that's even with the excessive pay going to CxOs.
I think that the best solution to illegal immigration is to raise Mexico's quota to 50,000 per year, with a 12-month maximum waiting time. But those who apply should demonstrate some understanding of English and our laws (ESPECIALLY OUR LABOR-PROTECTION AND MINIMUM WAGE LAWS). Now, this also requires going after the employers who benefit from under-paid labor.
None of this, though, changes the fact that American workers cannot afford medical insurance--that our people are sick and dying of ailments that could easily be treated if caught early enough. And pretending that we have a free market in health care / health care financing is not going to change that. Rather than continue to subsidize the insurance cartel, we really need a "basic care" plan with a single-payer. Then, if insurance companies want to stay in the field, let them offer "extra care" on top of the basic plan for those who are willing and able pay for it.
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
Why only 50,000? Why shouldn't Mexicans be allowed to enter the US today in the same manner that the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Hungarians, the Irish, etc., entered?
Why should we demand that they demonstrate some understanding of English, which, after all, is a *European* language? If we're going to demand that they show proficiency in some language, shouldn't it be an *American* language like Iriquoian, or Ooglala? Here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, we have 40,000 residents whose primary language at home is a dialect of German, even after living here for nearly 200 years. It's not a problem.
I think you'll find that most first-generation immigrants, no matter where they are from, keep on speaking the language they grew up with, whether it be greek, or italian, or vietnamese, or yiddish. Their kids learn the dominant language where they are growing up.
I'm in favor of everybody learning labor-protection and minimum wage laws. About 70 years ago, John L Lewis won the right for miners to be paid from the time they arrived at the mine, not from the time they made it to the bottom of the shaft. My wife works in schools and home as a therapist - and she does NOT get paid to travel between clients. Isn't that illegal? And I'd like everyone to understand the Bill of Rights, for instance that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee free speech, only freedom from the government interfering with it, and as another example, that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to possess weapons for hunting, only to possess assault-type weapons.
As far as health care goes, I'd settle for opening up Medicare to everyone. That'd leave the door open for insurance companies to sell supplemental coverage plans.
don
· 1 year ago
get Fidel Castro's advice. I'm sure he can teach any American politico including the president of usa how to fix the health system and provide Universal Health coverage at 1/20th of the cost that amercia currently spends on health care.
fdsa
· 1 year ago
I would support a candidate on universal health insurance if they included the end of tobacco support in this country. I'm not talking simply about the end of agribusiness support, I mean the criminalization of tobacco.
I'd like to see a 10 year plan to kick the habits, retool local economies, and convert the agriculture over to different crops (perhaps corn for ethanol and biofuels) set in motion. I'd see this criminalization and conversion sort of like the downfall of asbestos.
You can slippery slope me and talk about diet, fats, exercise, sleep, prescription drugs, and so on. I would just like to see one major poison eliminated for the sake of sanity.
Stewart
· 1 year ago
And yet the US pays a whole lot more than any industrial nation for health care...so you're happy to pay through the nose for services you don't get value of money for...some fiscal conservative...
mfraase
· 1 year ago
From where I sit, you and the remaining Democrat candidates (Kucinich was the only candidate to support universal, single-payer) are missing the point. Universal coverage without a single-payer component gets us very little. As Obama rightly points out, the uninsured don't have insurance because they don't want it.
Here's an example. I'm an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patient -- that's permanent kidney failure. I require dialysis several times a week to stay alive. Interestingly, Medicare covers ESRD regardless of age. Moreover, Medicare actually publishes the price it pays providers for dialysis services: US$200-US$250 depending mostly on geographic location. But I've stayed on private insurance for a variety of reasons, none of which are pertinent to this discussion. What private insurance pays for dialysis has always been a closely held secret. Until now. In a Georgia lawsuit, a dialysis provider revealed those numbers: US$2,000-US$9,000 per treatment. It's safe to assume that other health services are billed at a similar discrepancy.
Healthcare is a basic human right and it's high time we recognize that. We can do better.
Chris Love
· 1 year ago
Dave, you are discounting yourself and your accomplishments. You are just 52 and have accomplished so much and that is why you have earned enough money to pay for an overpriced health insurange policy. Give yourself some credit man! That is not luck, that is just being smart. The free markets decided what you put your energy into was worthwhile, not some government entity. If we had a liberalized Internet then most likely we would not have RSS. Your Twitter Friend Chris Love :>
All Comments
And I agree, automating health care and records is an extremely good thing, and would benefit any health care system in the world, all of which are woefully behind when it comes to IT - as long as privacy can be maintained.
My thoughts from a few years ago here. I still agree with most of what I wrote, though I like some of what I'm hearing form the democrats this year...: http://bbenz.typepad.com/softwaresoapbox/2005/0...
There are definite benefits to a consumer having a PHR as long as the data remains private, works well within the HIPAA laws, and the consumer is able to move data to and from one PHR to another. For instance, if you store your data in Microsoft HealthVault, you should be able to move it from there to Google Health or any other PHR-enabled service.
There are many scenarios where a populated PHR can save the lives of patients, by warning the user of a lethal drug interaction, suddenly rising blood pressure, weight gain, etc. The more health data you put in the more you are likely to get our of it - recommendations, suggested diagnoses, health considerations, and clean, printable pages of data you can take to every doctor and hospital visit.
We already have monopolies in health care - licensed doctors, the AMA, the FDA, government-funded/supported hospitals, etc. Fortunately there is _some_ freedom in associating with doctors since good ones generally do better than bad ones. However, if you bring the government - the biggest monopolist of all - into the action it will only make things worse. Unfortunately, no matter how charismatic the politicians are, they can't make force yield positive results.
Personally, I disagree with your politics (mainly because I disagree with political power in any form, not because I'm a conservative or anything =]), but I have a question - what do you think should happen if I refuse to pay taxes to support universal health care? Do you think I should be allowed to disagree in action as well as in thought?
Strange that you mention that, "The Republicans have never been responslble about this issue." Who was the governor of Mass. that set up that "liberalized health insurance" plan you mentioned? What was his party affiliation? Just a question.
Some Democrats have already acknowledged that so called 'universal health plans' will destroy working people more than anyone. Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco called the proposed California program, "...a knife to the throat of the working poor." So this is not a cut and dry, evil republicans vs. angelic democrats issue as portrayed in your post.
The most frustrating thing is that I'm already paying plenty for other people to have access to free medical care via medicare and medicaid taxes deducted from my paycheck. This is in addition to monthly premiums and co-pays when myself, my wife or my daughter need care. So how much more should a working person have to pay? What percentage of my paycheck given to the government proves that I "have a heart" as you say?
health care' just doesn't make sense....
But you're right. We shouldn't be using government money for health care. We shouldn't require doctors report cases of VD to a government agency so that epidemics can be stopped. We shouldn't require kids have innoculations before they attend public schools. We shouldn't give TB tests to people who work in restaurants, nor should we inspect restaurants to make sure they aren't making people sick. We shouldn't quarantine people who have typhoid fever.
We shouldn't arrest people who drive drunk. We shouldn't lock up people who are a threat to themselves or others, due to their mental health. We shouldn't do anything to addicts who trade their 4-year-old's sexual favors for a hit of crack. We should repeal OSHA, and eliminate all air and water quality standards.
If you lose the insurance that is keeping your wife alive by quitting your job and starting a new company that provides employment for 3000 people, well, your wedding vows said through sickness and health, until death do you part, and after all, she's only going to be sick a little longer before she dies, if you don't have good insurance.
Oh, and let's get rid of all the laws against assault. After all, it's no business of government whether you are healthy or not.
While I agree that some institutions may be hard pressed to find a monetary incentive, there are plenty others in healthcare that will benefit. Don't under estimate how many businesses are looking at leveraging electronic data. There are efficiencies and quality gained with Computer Physician Order Entry, and other data handling abilities. There is also a huge business opportunity in secondary use of the data collected (moral dilemmas withstanding.)
Whenever government mandates businesses to make money from citizens, "free market" ceases to exist.
Everyone should not get 'equal access' to healthcare - it's a privilege just like driving a luxury car. It's expensive to drive a BMW, that's why only certain people get to do it. Getting tests, taking medicine, having a 'specialist' look at you, it's all expensive. We operate in a 'fee for service world,' why should healthcare be any different?
Is it 'fair' that people get sick? Of course not. Is it fair that I don't have the ability to play professional sports? Well, I guess not. Some people have a terrible immune system, some people probably go through their entire lives w/out getting sick. Life isn't fair, my mom told me that when I was 4 years old, let's buck up and do our best in spite of it all.
Amount the various in-house "providers" billed my insurance:
17,791.00
Amount my insurance paid:
4,249.18
Amount I was liable for:
180.00
BAM, those are cold hard numbers. My ex-wife who works in a plastics shop has no coverage. That means when she suffers the same symptoms her choices are (a) not go to the hospital or (b) go in debt for the amount equivalent to what a cheap SUV costs.
Who do we blame? The doctors? They just received about 25% of what they billed. The insurance? They shouldn't have to pay $17000 for a single night in the cardiac unit and one other CAT scan. The government? I can see where Dave's coming from... and respectfully disagree with him. What exactly can they do?
One night, one CAT scan (along with a few EKGs, a stress test and an echogram). 5+ years of debts.
Now lets take this one step further BAM.
The company I work for just informed us that retiree medical coverage changes as of 7/1/2008. They are "cashing in" anyone still working there, making a one time payment to their 401(k). Since I don't turn 50 until mext month (2 months too late) I get all of $2700 and my COBRA. My buddy next to me who is under 35 gets $450.
And all of us here as of 7/1/2008 have to find our own way for medical coverage until we get qualify for medicare. Coverage that means costs are based on "pre-existing conditions".
----
Here's what concerns me BAM. Like Dave said yesterday, the stalemate with the Democrats may be the worst thing that can happen.
Hillary cares about he state of healthcare in this country. But she is also part of that Democratic machine that put her husband in office. Worse, she's already had one chance to do something about it!
That leaves Obama. He instills hope. Hope for change. Hope for turning many things around in this country. But his biggest asset in this election is also his biggest weakness come January 21, 2009.
The best chances of any combination of Obama and Hillary making it to the White House is if they do it together on the same ticket. But - the best chances of changing healthcare (IMHO) is if Hillary serves in the cabinet for President Obama.
And realistically? Objectively? Right now it looks more likely that neither will be in the cabinet of President McCain. Yes. It's 9 months until the election. SO I'm hoping I'm eating a couple of the words I just said come November 5.
And compared to your inability to play football, my life has a whole new perspective.
I have always thought the health care debate has been between those who are ill or have a family member that is, and those who haven't got a clue and don't give a shit.
Why should I have to pay for police services, when I could just buy a shotgun? If you are unlucky enought to get robbed, it's your problem. And if someone murders your family, and you can't seek justice on yourself, why should I have to pay the police to help you?
Why do you want to pay for some services, but choose not to pay for health care? A captialist world doesn't work without the poor and the rich. For each Bill Gates, there are thousands of people working for minimum wage. The next time you pay for your burger at McDonalds, look a the workers behind the counter. Without them, you wouldn't get your burger. Or at least the price would be higher. They have a full time job and works just as hard as you do.
"I'm the presidential candidate who's going to lower the cost of health care by bringing together Republicans and Democrats."
That's straight from a Barack Obama commercial running in Massachussetts.
Could somebody on this board enlighten me as to how bringing Republicans and Democrats together is going to lower the price of my health care?
Agreed.
Wouldn't accessibility to affordable health care will free up entrepreneurs to take risks and start companies? I think GM spends more on employee health care than they spend making cars.
And with access to preventative medicine we'll cut down on what we spend.
And what about tuberculosis? I've heard three cases in the last year of people traveling via plane, train, auto while infected with this infectious disease. Imagine how many could have it but are laying low, or don't know they have it because they can't afford treatment. I would rather pay taxes and allow them access to treatment so I don't have to worry about this.
I would add that people with health insurance also get misdiagnosed, mistreated, and killed by medical professionals. Can you agree with that, or do I need a citation?
I'm not advocating the use of emergency rooms as primary care facilities, but it does happen and the uninsured get care.
At risk of extending this, at my local community hospital (250 beds, suburban population of under 25,000), evenings in the ER are office hours for illegal immigrants. Wow, a double whammy.
Why can Europe afford to do this and we can't? I thought we were the richest country in the world.
The question is: can the government do it cheaper or better than the private sector? Is the answer for the government to just take the reins, or would it be better for them to fix the private sector?
I guess you want the government to keep my money, though.
If your government didn't build that football stadium, would they fund healthcare? Just because your politicians have been bought to serve one minor special interest, doesn't mean that they would serve the public otherwise.
Look what it gets us: everyone who pays 'taxes' (insurance) puts in a disturbingly large percentage of his paycheck, he has to wait in line to get anything done, access to health care must be approved by the insurance company, and the real price paid to the doctor is negotiated behind the patient's back. If the patient wants better health care he has to go outside the system and pay for it himself, a privilege available only to the wealthy.
Universal health care is going to have the same problems, only bigger.
The last refuge..."if you have a heart, and think about it, I don't see how anyone could be against universal health care and still sleep at night." That is right. If you don't believe in universal health care you have no heart. Man how do I sleep at night?
Why is it that so many self-described Christians think that only the unborn have a right to life? We have the highest infant mortality rate of all developed nations.
Your comparison of the US to these postage stamp countries is invidious for the following reasons. Their combined land mass is approximately three quarters that of the State of Texas. The same goes for their combined populations. They do not have the same issues of indefensible borders with a neighboring country which seeks, as a matter of national policy to export their jobless, and fiscally depend upon the remittances of their expatriates.
Dave,
I have to agree with Tyler about your comments about the heartlessness of people who do not hold your political views. The demonization of political thought is no more attractive when it comes from your point of view than when it comes from mine.
The migration rate of Luxembourg is 7.78 per 1000, versus only 3.05 for the US. The US *used* to have a higher migration rate - it was 14.03 per 1000 residents a century ago - but the xenophobes made it virtually impossible for someone to migrate *legally* to the US, with only 5000 permanent resident visas being issued to Mexicans last year.
The free market has made it a policy to import people who want to work because kids in the US are too lazy to even make babies.
I think that the best solution to illegal immigration is to raise Mexico's quota to 50,000 per year, with a 12-month maximum waiting time. But those who apply should demonstrate some understanding of English and our laws (ESPECIALLY OUR LABOR-PROTECTION AND MINIMUM WAGE LAWS). Now, this also requires going after the employers who benefit from under-paid labor.
None of this, though, changes the fact that American workers cannot afford medical insurance--that our people are sick and dying of ailments that could easily be treated if caught early enough. And pretending that we have a free market in health care / health care financing is not going to change that. Rather than continue to subsidize the insurance cartel, we really need a "basic care" plan with a single-payer. Then, if insurance companies want to stay in the field, let them offer "extra care" on top of the basic plan for those who are willing and able pay for it.
Why should we demand that they demonstrate some understanding of English, which, after all, is a *European* language? If we're going to demand that they show proficiency in some language, shouldn't it be an *American* language like Iriquoian, or Ooglala? Here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, we have 40,000 residents whose primary language at home is a dialect of German, even after living here for nearly 200 years. It's not a problem.
I think you'll find that most first-generation immigrants, no matter where they are from, keep on speaking the language they grew up with, whether it be greek, or italian, or vietnamese, or yiddish. Their kids learn the dominant language where they are growing up.
I'm in favor of everybody learning labor-protection and minimum wage laws. About 70 years ago, John L Lewis won the right for miners to be paid from the time they arrived at the mine, not from the time they made it to the bottom of the shaft. My wife works in schools and home as a therapist - and she does NOT get paid to travel between clients. Isn't that illegal? And I'd like everyone to understand the Bill of Rights, for instance that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee free speech, only freedom from the government interfering with it, and as another example, that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to possess weapons for hunting, only to possess assault-type weapons.
As far as health care goes, I'd settle for opening up Medicare to everyone. That'd leave the door open for insurance companies to sell supplemental coverage plans.
I'd like to see a 10 year plan to kick the habits, retool local economies, and convert the agriculture over to different crops (perhaps corn for ethanol and biofuels) set in motion. I'd see this criminalization and conversion sort of like the downfall of asbestos.
You can slippery slope me and talk about diet, fats, exercise, sleep, prescription drugs, and so on. I would just like to see one major poison eliminated for the sake of sanity.
Here's an example. I'm an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patient -- that's permanent kidney failure. I require dialysis several times a week to stay alive. Interestingly, Medicare covers ESRD regardless of age. Moreover, Medicare actually publishes the price it pays providers for dialysis services: US$200-US$250 depending mostly on geographic location. But I've stayed on private insurance for a variety of reasons, none of which are pertinent to this discussion. What private insurance pays for dialysis has always been a closely held secret. Until now. In a Georgia lawsuit, a dialysis provider revealed those numbers: US$2,000-US$9,000 per treatment. It's safe to assume that other health services are billed at a similar discrepancy.
Healthcare is a basic human right and it's high time we recognize that. We can do better.
Your Twitter Friend Chris Love :>