US Health Care Reform

[Ten-96]

This may have been covered previously but I'll post it anyway: There is nothing wrong with our "Health Care." The problem lies in Health Insurance coverage for those that cannot afford it. The solutions to the insurance problem can be solved in a number of ways without adding further burden to our already sky-rocketing debt. Not to mention the inflated number being touted by those in favor of universal coverage.

 

1. Allow consumers to cross state lines to purchase plans. This will inevitably reduce the cost of insurance due to interstate competition.

 

2. Tort Reform. In all honesty, is a cut on the lip from a dental drill really worth 2 million dollars?

 

3. Expand Medicaid to those that really need it; ie. current, legal citizens or those with valid, current Visas. Those who aren't covered by their parents or their current employer. Those on public assistance as well as the recently unemployed.

[urluckyday]

Right or wrong. Reform or not. The debate will split the country more than anything in recent memory. I have never seen so much outward anger by both sides of an argument in my lifetime.

 

I personally don't want it to be reformed at this time (I think there are more important things that should be fixed first) and I don't really trust our president to do a good job reforming the system...that's just me. It's just one of those things...in a perfect world, and if people were perfect, the kind of reform that Obama wants would be great...the same way communism looks on paper...but in real life...not possible.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^You mean like if the economy is reportedly doing well now, could we please stop adding stimulus spending? That's one thing I'd like addressed about our system. Just saying...

[vanir]

Our healthcare system in Oz rocks. It's awesome. I don't know how we do it. I didn't get that much work last financial year and earned a basic 33, yet still got well over a thousand back in a return and am fully covered (elective surgery has a long wait but even that's often covered), plus individual pay packets are taxed very conservatively, I'll pay about a hundred on seven, and about one-fifty on thirteen hundred. Even at a relatively high hourly rate I get to spend nearly all the money I make and still get great tax returns and full coverage. On top of this the economy seems pretty good.

For a regular working stiff it's great news, even a minimum wage earner gets full coverage, even if it's a relatively bad deal as far as small luxuries and weekly standard of living goes (rent is high). I'm about midway on the scale of basic wages I guess, management might get 43, but then my hours are mostly part time.

 

Dunno how we do it.

[jonathan7]

I leave the debate of Universal Health Care in the US to the Americans, I did however want to destroy the lies of several Politicians. If you are a Republican i can only press upon you that these lying politicians are a disgrace to your party, and you should be very worried in an argument when someone has to resort to lies to support their argument. Matters were not helped when a British MEP went on US television and lied about the system (he did so for financial gain).

 

It would seem to me, it is only best in an informed debate to have all the facts, and lies and distortions about the NHS, is a slander against the UK, and is a dishonour to all our Healthcare profesionals who work very hard for our health.

 

David Blunkett, one of the UK's most senior politicians, and one of the few modern members of the Labour party I have respect for, and who wonderfully articulates my feelings on this matter had the following to say;

 

Sir, The row about the intervention by the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan in the healthcare debate in the United States raises issues besides the question of whether or not he has “betrayed” the NHS (report, TimesOnline, Aug 14).

 

While it is certainly true that the adverts put out by those campaigning against Barack Obama’s proposals are packed full of lies and distortions, it is also true that anyone visiting the US would also appreciate one other, rather important, fact: that the tens of millions of Americans not fully covered by health insurance are being betrayed by foreigners intervening in the debate.

 

It is not the damage to the reputation of the NHS (important as that is), but the terrible harm to the most disadvantaged in the US — the poorest men and women, those who have just lost their jobs — with which we should be most concerned.

 

It was, therefore, deeply unfortunate to hear the Shadow Health Secretary on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme on Aug 14 suggesting that politicians in this country intervene to stop cancer drugs being prescribed to those who need them. Andrew Lansley knows perfectly well that, as with the adverts in the US, he was choosing to dissemble and distort the reality of how decisions are made here about prioritisation and clinical need.

 

Those who tell untruths about our own system in order to deny others the benefit of even modest improvements in health coverage in another country need to examine deeply their conscience and their morality.

 

David Blunkett, MP

 

House of Commons

 

I wish to go on further and quote a US Workers site, which is attempting to debunk several of the lies with regards the NHS.

 

Opponents to President Obama’s healthcare reform plan have circulated a number of serious lies and gross distortions about the UK’s National Health Service to defend their own interests and scupper plans that will help the 47 million Americans currently without healthcare cover.

 

What is the NHS?

 

The UK’s National Health Service provides a wide range of healthcare services - everything from antenatal screening and routine treatments for coughs and colds to open heart surgery, accident and emergency treatment and end-of-life care to the whole UK population of 60million people.

 

Most importantly it is free for people to access healthcare and 1 million patients are seen every 36 hours.

 

The NHS funded by general taxation and is organised and run at a local, regional level. It is one of the most efficient, most egalitarian and most comprehensive in the world, looking after everyone from their birth to their death. It is an institution supported by every major political party in Britain and the British population, who have been responding to the Republican attacks on the NHS on Twitter, at #welovethe NHS by posting their own stories of how the NHS has saved and improved the lives of them and their loved ones, for free.

 

LIE 1: that older people do not receive treatment on the NHS

 

Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old (Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa)

 

In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed, (an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email).

 

THE TRUTH

 

There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment – indeed, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age when providing services. Professor Peter Weissberg, the medical director of the British Heart Foundation, an independent charity, says that “Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery”. Additionally, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.Decisions over whether to recommend and perform surgery or prescribe drugs are clinical decisions, taken on a case by case basis on what is best for each patient.

 

An 81 year old member of my family recently recieved treatment :|

 

LIE 2: officials decide the ‘worth’ of each person’s life, denying treatment to those who are deemed ‘worthless’.

 

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking [who has Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative illness] wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." (Investors Business Daily)

 

Government health officials in England have decided that $22,750 (£14,000) is what six months' life is worth. Under their socialised system, if a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck (Club for Growth)

 

THE TRUTH

Professor Stephen Hawking lives and works in Britain and received NHS treatment as recently as April 2009. He has responded to the above claim by saying that he “wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived”.

 

In Britain, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) decides whether new drugs represent value for money for the NHS. There has been a gross misrepresentation of its role; Nice assesses new drugs by looking at the amount and quality of extended life it is hoped the patient will gain by looking at the medical evidence. The current ceiling is £30,000 for a full course of treatment but exceptions are made.

 

What really, really irks me about the above, is actualyl the above seems a lot more like the US system were your either rich enough to get insurance health care or your not. Medicare does not cover everyone as I have American friends who are not covered. It seems to me that in the US some people are deemed "Worthless" because they don't earn enough. Which seems a lot more akin to choosing who gets treatment or not.

 

Further more the quote on Hawking can only of been said by a moron, considering he is so ignorant of facts that the fact Hawking is British and is treated by the NHS seems to ahve escaped him.

 

LIE 3: rationing means people are not able to access the treatment they need for serious conditions.

 

In Britain, 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. (Conservatives for Patients' Rights)

 

The British NHS "does not allow" women under 25 to receive screening for cervical cancer (Jim DeMint, Republican senator from South Carolina)

 

THE TRUTH

There is no ‘rationing’ for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery or end of life care.

 

The above claim about cancer is from an out of date, 15 year old study. In 2000 a 10 year programme was launched, setting key targets for improvement. The National Audit Office, which is responsible for analyzing how effectively the government spends money, reported in 2005 that 99.2%of people who are referred by their doctor with suspected cancer see a specialist within 2 weeks and 89.9% of patients diagnosed with cancer begin treatment within 31 days.

 

There is an ‘End of Life Care Strategy’ that “aims to improve access to high quality care for adults approaching the end of life. This care should be available wherever the person might be, ie at home, in a care home, in hospital, in a hospice, or somewhere else.”

 

All women over 25 are routinely and regularly invited for a cervical smear. Any woman, at any age, who presents symptoms of cervical cancer will receive a smear test if their doctor thinks it is appropriate.

 

There has never been rationing in the NHS!

 

The NHS does have problems, of that I'm not denying, but until the coming of the Scandinavian countries in the 70's and 80's. The NHS was the best Health Care System in the world. And funnily enough Sweden which has the best Health Care system in the world, is Universal Health Care - it is a copy of the NHS, but is much more efficiently run.

 

Regardless the NHS still today remains one of the best health systems in the world. Just a personal example - My Grandmother and mum, have both had breast cancer and been treated for it, my cousin David twice had cancer - and was treated at one of the top 5 cancer treatment centres in the entire world it did unfortunatly get him the second time. My grandfather recieved treatment for his Altzheimers and recieved free nursing care home when he was too bad to stay at home.

 

I leave the rest of you to debate the merits of Universal Health Care. But please leave lies about the NHS out of the discussion. Suffice to say I was extremely angry about some of the American politicians claimsl and they are lucky they aren't in the same room as me, as I'm that angry at their lies that I'd make hellraiser seem like a film suitable for small children after I'd finished with them.

[mimartin]

1. Allow consumers to cross state lines to purchase plans. This will inevitably reduce the cost of insurance due to interstate competition.[/Quote] Great idea, but one question: Who would regulate these cross state policies? Right now, the insurance companies are regulated by the state department of insurance. However, which state will have jurisdiction in what you advocating?

 

Or are you advocating the Federal Government regulate Health Insurance Companies?

 

2. Tort Reform. In all honesty, is a cut on the lip from a dental drill really worth 2 million dollars?[/Quote] Yes, you can find silly cases to make your point. How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?

 

 

 

As a friend point out to me I over simplified this:

 

If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

 

Or at the very least, have your family member’s death mean something by being a deterrent to others not to make the same mistake that caused that loved ones death?

[Web Rider]

I haven't been part of the debate, but I thought I'd throw this wonderful gem out. Not only have Democrats allowed Republicans to completely undermine Obama's ideas, but now they're doing it too. Under these new proposals, people could be fined almost $4k for not having health insurance. Because really, people who can't afford it are totally hiding away money in secret.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

[Totenkopf]

Matters were not helped when a British MEP went on US television and lied about the system (he did so for financial gain).

 

What gain and from whom? The "fee" paid by news/entertainment shows to have guests? A book deal? Source?

 

I did find the charge of "betraying" the NHS by the other pol somewhat over-the-top.

 

@mimartin--well, that's pretty much the argument about guns, right? The feds take precedence over the state on matters crossing state lines? It would certainly defang the govt's claim that you need a public system to introduce the concept of competitive pricing.

 

As to the whole lawsuit deal, yes. There needs to be a limit as to what people can sue for in the end. We are talking about other peoples' jobs and welfare too. Right now there are limits on how much you can sue a nursing home for, so there's no reason that that shouldn't extend elsewhere. Besides, aren't actuarial tables used to determine what fair compensation is anyway? You don't get as much money for someone that's 70 as you would for someone that's 25-30 and at the beginning of their earning years, right?

 

Frankly, tort reform is absolutely essential to help this economy recover on a number of fronts. I can sysmpathize with the desire to see people punished for wrongdoing/incompetence. Unfortunately the legal system has become a lot like the national lottery b/c there are too many lawyers and they aren't regulated nearly enough. Like locusts set loose upon America's financial landscape.

 

......Under these new proposals, people could be fined almost $4k for not having health insurance. Because really, people who can't afford it are totally hiding away money in secret.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/..._care_overhaul

 

Yeah, it might be ineresting to see someone actually squeeze blood from a stone. Likely those people would be forced onto Medicaid or some other govt run program. No doubt this will be primarily aimed at people who can afford it but won't buy it. Even MA apparently has a segment of its population that isn't covevered despite the state mandate for insurance(2-3% or so).

[mimartin]

There is an easier solution than fining those that choice not to purchase health insurance, do not provide emergency care to those that choice not to purchase insurance and cannot afford the service required. If you can’t pay, you can’t play. Simple, inhumane, but simple.

 

So we get rid of punitive damages. Then we can use the most “cost efficient” forms of health care and not necessarily what is best for the patient. Got it. Just like the auto manufacturer that decided it was cheaper to leave the exploding gas tank in the trucks rather than to recall the problem.

[Totenkopf]

Your jumping to conclusions. I implied a cap, not an absence. No matter how you cut it, though, $$ is limited. There are going to be solutions that leave someone unhappy. The only other solution is quicker insolvency and across the board suffering for ALL. A public option is especially irresponsible when the govt can't even run the systems it does have without runnng deficits. Would you let someone control your finances if they kept spending you into the ground and beyond? W/o ever higher taxes to cover it's expenses, the govt plan would only go deeper into the red. History has proven that. How much of your $$ to you want to give to a dishonest and inept group of politicians that promise the stars and can't even deliver the moon....

 

As to the car thing....caveat emptor springs to mind. Also, are you referring to the rigged ABC experiment about unsafe gas tanks? Regardless, the solution is to go after the people who run the company, not sue the company into the ground...unless the govt intends to expand welfare roles eventually.

[mimartin]

Regardless, the solution is to go after the people who run the company, not sue the company into the ground...unless the govt intends to expand welfare roles eventually.

 

Uncertainty kills an economy. So are you advocating we redefine the very definition of what a corporation is at this time? Otherwise this goes against the very definition of what a corporation is and why companies incorporate.

[Totenkopf]

In a word, no.

[jonathan7]

What gain and from whom? The "fee" paid by news/entertainment shows to have guests? A book deal? Source?

 

Educated guess work, plus as I will show his charachter is extremely suspect anyway; however seeing as you wished for sources, here we go...

 

Click Me

 

Furthermore something you should know about this charming politician.

 

Daniel Hannan's hero is one of the worst racist politicians in UK history - and you want to listen to this man?

 

'In the British context, Enoch Powell ... as somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small-government Conservative.'

 

I find it curious how someone understand the "importance of national democracy" while wanting to deport the none white members of the electorate. Living in an independant country presumably means you can deport who you want.

 

I did find the charge of "betraying" the NHS by the other pol somewhat over-the-top.

 

Well he lied (and I can go out and proove what he said was BS if you really want ), as well as saying it had been a bad idea for 60 years - given that every Doctors I know (and my dad's one so I know a lot), are in favour of the NHS, I don't care what some pretentious racist toff, who is all probability fiddling his MEP expences thinks, and I like it even less when he airs stupid views which are not in keeping with the general views of his electorate.

 

He's an elected official - and I guarantee that every Brit I've so far spoken to thinks he should be sacked. We're outraged by his comments because they are false, and the options are he's a) Stupid or b) A Liar. Given he's a politician the latter is far more likely to be true; though given he's ignorant enough to liek Enoch "Hitler" Powell, it's probably a mixture of the two.

[mimartin]

In a word, no.

Then you are not advocating this,

the solution is to go after the people who run the company,

, because by the current definition of corporation this is impossible.

[Totenkopf]

Educated guess work, plus as I will show his charachter is extremely suspect anyway; however seeing as you wished for sources, here we go...

Click Me

Furthermore something you should know about this charming politician.

Daniel Hannan's hero is one of the worst racist politicians in UK history - and you want to listen to this man?

 

Ok, thanks for links. I'll research this Enoch charachter. Hopefully the scorn is not somehow misplaced. By which I mean, if one opposes illegal immigrants in the US they are branded by our left as bigots and haters b/c of the disproportionate number of latinos amonst that group.

 

He's an elected official - and I guarantee that every Brit I've so far spoken to thinks he should be sacked. We're outraged by his comments because they are false, and the options are he's a) Stupid or b) A Liar. Given he's a politician the latter is far more likely to be true; though given he's ignorant enough to liek Enoch "Hitler" Powell, it's probably a mixture of the two.

 

Nice to see that political cynicism is universal. However, how popular is he among the general electorate that votes him into the EP and not just w/in specific portions (ie Tory/Labour/etc..).

[jonathan7]

Ok, thanks for links. I'll research this Enoch charachter. Hopefully the scorn is not somehow misplaced. By which I mean, if one opposes illegal immigrants in the US they are branded by our left as bigots and haters b/c of the disproportionate number of latinos amonst that group.

 

Well Enoch was for throwing out all the none whites, i.e. the legal ones, though he never went as far as that in public life; he was however eventually forced out after his infamous "Rivers of Blood speech"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

 

Nice to see that political cynicism is universal. However, how popular is he among the general electorate that votes him into the EP and not just w/in specific portions (ie Tory/Labour/etc..).

 

He's not popular at all, he's only in the MEP because he comes from a strong Tory area...

 

Anyways, I feel we're somewhat off-topic here

[Jae Onasi]

Obama is speaking to a joint session of Congress right now about healthcare. I'll post a link to the transcript when it's posted on the news sites.

[Totenkopf]

Cool, reading the transcript will take MUCH less time than actually listening to it.

[Web Rider]

Cool, reading the transcript will take MUCH less time than actually listening to it.

 

You mean the all of 45 min it took to listen to it?

 

Honestly, it was worth it to see the Republicans look pathetic. I mean god, they held up signs and shouted at the president. WTF is wrong with these people?

 

EDIT: OMG, the Republican response is sooooo lame. It completely ignores everything Obama said and resorts to the same "More taxes, rationing, more debt, reduced care."

[Totenkopf]

You mean the all of 45 min it took to listen to it?

 

Yep, there are better ways to waste my time than watch political theatre like that.

[Jae Onasi]

Text of speech

 

Some analysis by Chicago Tribune in this article. I'm sure we'll see a lot more tomorrow.

[Web Rider]

Yep, there are better ways to waste my time than watch political theatre like that.

 

By reading it? That's like reading Shakespeare, interesting, but kinda flat.

[Totenkopf]

Seeing as how it took less than 15 minutes to read, it was time well saved for other activities.

[Ping]

Honestly, it was worth it to see the Republicans look pathetic. I mean god, they held up signs and shouted at the president. WTF is wrong with these people?

 

I ask myself that quite often. The Republicans don't seem to realize that they're digging their own grave, but for all I care, they can. If they won't cooperate with the government, then what use are they? I'm not saying the U.S. should be a one party nation or anything like that, I'm just trying to think of this in a practical manner.

[Totenkopf]

EDIT: OMG, the Republican response is sooooo lame. It completely ignores everything Obama said and resorts to the same "More taxes, rationing, more debt, reduced care."

 

It must surprise you that not everyone takes BO's word as "gospel", which is surprising coming from you. Even the NYT and other sources have since expressed doubts about BO's grasp of math. He's mostly made speeches that are long on surface and short on substance.

 

@Ping--you do realize that it's not only the reps that question this president but also independents and even democrats? He's even having problems w/in his own party. Will be interesting to see if they can muster the numbers and will to cut out the reps and other opponents. Frankly, it's a bit too early to write the obit for either party at this point.