Healthcare "reform"?

[Theory5]

Obama wants to help those in need by adding a government healthcare option for everybody. But if the companies in America run the government by means of money and clout with the congressmen and senators, how would this play out? Would doctors aligned with these companies refuse to treat government healthcare patients? What would happen? This would take money away from Healthcare companies, and put it into a government system, which would be managed by government employees (just like the post office! and we know how great of a system that is). This would most likely be an option for people who dont have enough money for an HMO or anything like that. If this goes through would companies cancel their employee health plans and say "go on government healthcare"?

Worried that the government will screw up even worse,

Theory

[Southtown]

I'm no economic expert, so I can't comment on the monetary repercussions. But I know that the bill proposes a bit of bureaucratic influence toward the medical professionals in order to lower costs. I happen to believe that there's already too much influence as it is. Doctors' decisions should not be influenced by anything other than their education. Am I wrong?

[Turtle]

I'm no economic expert, so I can't comment on the monetary repercussions. But I know that the bill proposes a bit of bureaucratic influence toward the medical professionals in order to lower costs. I happen to believe that there's already too much influence as it is. Doctors' decisions should not be influenced by anything other than their education. Am I wrong?

 

yes you're wrong again of course. :D sorta wrong if that puts some sugar on the bitter pill.:) your implicatiuons are wrong at any rate. for example, all this business about "pulling the plug on grandma" and "obama's death panel." what is actually proposed, and mind you there are still at least 5 versions of bills just in the house, is to authorize medicare to pay doctors for their counseling patients on end of life decisions. such counseling includes explaining hospice care, helping to fill out a living will, making your desires known to doctors and family before you are too incapacitated to make them known, and other such medical cares & costs associated with end-of-life medicine.

 

as it is now,medicare patients can get that from doctors but they have to pay out of pocket. without the counseling, and also as it is now, doctors tend to err on the side of caution to avoid malpractice and they apply any and all means to keep a patient alive. studies have shown that in many cases these efforts do not extend either the length or quality of life and that they are costly is obvious.

 

in no case, in no proposed bill, is the couseling required.

[Theory5]

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

[Turtle]

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

 

again, there is no "one" bill yet. no i have not read "them"; i have instead listened to the authors on reputable news sources discussing what they are planning.

[Southtown]

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

Which version?

[Southtown]

yes you're wrong again of course. :eek: :hyper: sorta wrong if that puts some sugar on the bitter pill.:Nurse: your implicatiuons [sic] are wrong at any rate. for example, all this business about "pulling the plug on grandma" and "obama's death panel." what is actually proposed, and mind you there are still at least 5 versions of bills just in the house, is to authorize medicare to pay doctors for their counseling patients on end of life decisions. such counseling includes explaining hospice care, helping to fill out a living will, making your desires known to doctors and family before you are too incapacitated to make them known, and other such medical cares & costs associated with end-of-life medicine.

 

as it is now,medicare patients can get that from doctors but they have to pay out of pocket. without the counseling, and also as it is now, doctors tend to err on the side of caution to avoid malpractice and they apply any and all means to keep a patient alive. studies have shown that in many cases these efforts do not extend either the length or quality of life and that they are costly is obvious.

 

in no case, in no proposed bill, is the couseling [sic] required.

So, help me understand. Is there bureaucratic meddling to save costs, or no?

[Turtle]

So, help me understand. Is there bureaucratic meddling to save costs, or no?

 

that is a loaded/rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an expository answer. not even wrong. :hyper:

[Southtown]

You said I was wrong, but did you even get my point? I didn't say anything about end of life counseling. And is that indicative of some fundamental change or what?

[Turtle]

You said I was wrong, but did you even get my point? I didn't say anything about end of life counseling. And is that indicative of some fundamental change or what?

 

i said 'not even wrong'* , and i got the point. you implied that any/all government involvement is meddling. if all you want to do is take shots at the government, there's facebook for that.

 

i earlier mentioned your own state's new government program when you lamented your lack of insurance, and i recall you replied you didn't read the paper. actually, i first saw the story on local tv news. do you watch tv then? where do you get your news on the healthcare reform effort?

 

Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively, theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything.

[Southtown]

i said 'not even wrong'*

You said, "yes you're wrong again of course. sorta..."

 

...where do you get your news on the healthcare reform effort?

Mainly from Obama's news conference. My concern is regarding the two-thirds of the bill's funding that is said to come from reducing waste some of which is coming from healthcare.

YouTube - President Obama's Primetime Press Conference on Health Reform http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNGKxgHJ2iU

[Turtle]

You said, "yes you're wrong again of course. sorta..."

 

 

Mainly from Obama's news conference. My concern is regarding the two-thirds of the bill's funding that is said to come from reducing waste some of which is coming from healthcare.

 

my bad. i should have said not even wrong then too. i don't think you want a reasoned discussion, i think you want to vent some anti-government feelings. have at 'er. :shrug:

[Essay]

My concern is regarding the two-thirds of the bill's funding that is said to come from reducing waste some of which is coming from healthcare.

 

What concern do you have about that portion which comes from "reducing waste?"

:shrug:

[lawcat]

Arguments against the end of life treatment are ridiculous. For one, the current medicare already has it. But, most importantly, all end-of-life patients need to be informed about end of life treatment, will, and options. I want to be informed. Doctors have a duty to inform. And, when the government provides care it must inform. We have a fundamental right to refuse treatment and to make an informed decision. The end of life treatment must be in the bill. It is crazy not to have it in the bill.

Nonetheless, here is one of the bills, and the provisions under scrutiny are at pages 425-30. Nothing, absoultely nothing, is in there that I would not want, except that the provision is an amendment to the current text of medicare law, and I would like it expaneded to all terminally ill patients regardless of age. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

As far as the funding goes, I trust the process this time. I opposed the bailout because the bill was drafted by the executive branch and shoved down the throat of the legislators as a life/death emergency. And the Bailout gave discretionary power to the executive to invest in equity of all global corporations. (We all know corporations are not fraudulent and wasteful)

 

Here, the president is not drafting the bill but setting the guidelines. The guideline is that the bill must fit the budget. The legislators worked, the Office of Budget found that it was over the budget and the legislators recessed. Once they can fit it in the budget, they will submit it for approval and if it passes the president will sign it. That works for me.

 

In my opinion this is not a financial issue. It is more about whether you are fundamentally for or against the governmental insurance option.

[lemit]

If we could create a system that works, even with great imperfection, but as a system with structure and authority, that would be great for me.

 

Right now, I probably need back surgery. The decision and responsibility are entirely mine. There is nobody who will coordinate my care. My doctor sent me to an orthopedic surgeon, who sent me to a pain specialist, who gave me a failed cortisone injection and then left the practice, so my case was given to the nurse practitioner, who recommended that I see an orthopedic surgeon. All of these people have asked about imaging. I have repeatedly had to explain to them the images on file and available to all of them are the only ones available to anybody. Apparently they can't read the dates or figure out what the images are, because they seem to accept images that are decades old and of the wrong part of my body. (Dates are important because post-polio changes things.) If I say those are the best available, those are the ones they use. If I decide new imaging is necessary, it is up to me to schedule it and tell the hospital what specific imaging I want. Although I have worked in a hospital--in radiology--it wasn't as a prescribing physician. I developed film.

 

Once that imaging is done, I will need to schedule the surgery, explain to the orthopedic surgeon what I'd like to have done, and make sure I'm anesthetized properly. (I found out about that last one a couple years ago during endoscopic surgery; it's really quite a funny story.)

 

I've spent several thousand dollars to get back to where I was in the beginning, except that the pain is much worse. I still have the same prescriptions I've been taking the last five years. I've cut back on them to make them work better and to avoid the liver problems with NSAID's.

 

I haven't heard from any of my doctors for a couple months now, so it's probably time for me to start trying to schedule appointments. I think I forgot to get some bloodwork. I should call the lab and see if I need some, except that I can't remember what it's for and that's something they'll want me to tell them. Maybe I'll just do a regular panel with liver function, what with the NSAID's.

 

In a few years I'll be able to have government bureaucrats run my healthcare for me (Medicare). I hope I can hold out till then. So, I guess if you use the theory "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," I'll be happy with whatever they do to the current system as long as they don't do what that current system is doing for me--nothing.

 

--lemit

[Southtown]

What concern do you have about that portion which comes from "reducing waste?"

:(

What concerns me is the ambiguity of relying upon Congressional action resulting from some as of yet nonexistent commitee to meet a certain monetary quota as covering two-thirds of the bill's cost. And my anxiety was just reinforced this evening during Obama's town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado. He said at the end that all the budgetary obligations combined were negligible (accompanied by the thumb and forefinger) compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid... all of which being Democrat contrived. Kindof negates his "inherited the defecit" argument, doesn't it?

[lawcat]

Southy,

 

We went through this in the past 100 years. In the thirties, millions were loosing homes. Private sector did nothing. Banks were evicting people. It was a nightmare. We are not going back to that.

 

The money that social security provides is an insurance to economy for the segment of the population, the retirees, who have worked long and hard to contribute to our overall wealth. The crisis of 2000's, when millions of pension funds were wiped out shows how people can lose their life savings due to capital markets extravagant spending and growth. We are not removing social security.

 

The same thing with medicaid. We can not have eldrely who are on social security lining up at hospitals uncovered. We already went through this and have the medicare and medicaid.

 

The defence budget we obviously need.

 

So to say that somehow republicans are better because the country would be better off without all the spending on medicare, social security, defense, is crazy.