 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
University of Kentucky, this despite Coach Calipari's salary, but hey what a recruiting class ! I think health insurance co's should compete NATIONALLY because of this: Blue Cross, Blue Shield and UnitedHealth have 'near-monopoly' on health insurance in Florida -- OrlandoSentinel.com No choice and no competition is not "free market" - this is where the government needs to step in - OM did I just say that :p - see post #48's link. G&P |
||||
|
||||
|
Obama is still in campaign mode if you haven't noticed, he along with the DNC are organizing health care kickoff parties to push his agenda. I hope they're as successful as their last brown shirt campaign. |
||||
|
||||
|
Another dissent on socialized medicine in the UK...
Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands
Tuesday, May. 12, 2009 One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama's stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for "comparative effectiveness research" to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp. As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients -- and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive. It is easy to see the superficial attraction for the United States. Health-care costs are rising as an aging population consumes ever-greater quantities of new medical technologies, particularly for long-term, chronic conditions, such as cancer. As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children's Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system. If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons. There is a good reason NICE has attracted interest from U.S. policymakers: It has proved highly effective at keeping expensive new medicines out of the state formulary. Recent research by Sweden's Karolinska Institute shows that Britain uses far fewer innovative cancer drugs than its European neighbors. Compared to France, Britain only uses a tenth of the drugs marketed in the last two years. Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. We are stuck with Soviet-quality care, in spite of the government massively increasing health spending since 2000 to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries. Having a centralized "comparative effectiveness research" agency would also hand politicians inappropriate levels of control over clinical decisions, a fact which should alarm Americans as government takes ever more responsibility for delivering health care -- already 45 cents in every health-care dollar. In Britain, NICE is nominally independent of government, but politicians frequently intervene when they are faced with negative headlines generated by dissenting terminal patients. For years, NICE tried to block the approval of the breast cancer drug Herceptin. Outraged patient groups, including many terminally ill women, took to the streets to demonstrate. In 2006, the then-health minister suddenly announced the drug would be available to women with early stages of the disease, even though it had not fully gone through the NICE approval process. A more recent example was the refusal to allow the use of Sutent for kidney cancer. In January, NICE made a U-turn because of pressure on politicians from patients and doctors. Twenty-six professors of cancer medicine signed a protest letter to a national newspaper -- a unique event. And yet this drug has been available in all Western European countries for nearly two years. In Britain, the reality is that life-and-death decisions are driven by electoral politics rather than clinical need. Diseases with less vocal lobby groups, such as strokes and mental health, get neglected at the expense of those that can shout louder. This is a principle that could soon be exported to America. Ironically, rationing medicines doesn't help the government's finances in the long run. We are entering a period of rapid scientific progress that will convert previous killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer into chronic, controllable conditions. In cancer treatment, my specialty, the next generation of medicines could eliminate the need for time-consuming, expensive and unpleasant chemo and radiotherapy. These treatments mean less would have to be spent later on expensive hospitalization and surgery. The risks of America's move toward British-style drug evaluation are clear: In Britain it has harmed patients. This is one British import Americans should refuse. Karol Sikora, a practicing oncologist, is professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine, London, and former head of cancer control at the World Health Organization. |
||||
|
||||
|
Don't know about the Aussies .But I'm willing to bet that the Japanese diet is healthier than it's American counterpart.
Yesterday the AMA ;the largest organization of doctors in the country came out and stated that it was not happy with the idea of changing our health care system to a European style government run( can I say that Mr President ? No say public option). The NY Slime reports that While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” The new system as envisioned would offer a government run medical insurance, subsidized by the taxpayers, in competition with the private insurance industry .With the government dictating the terms and creating mandates and penalties like taxing of worker "benefits " .Supporters of this plan surmise that sooner or later the private coverage option would be driven out of business. Incrementally they will achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer system (but don't dare call it socialism the President advised yesterday). The President boldly declares without providing any evidence that this will improve the quality of care at lower cost while guaranteeing universal coverage. I would add that those in Congress who push for this plan are already covered by a gold plated insurance plan subsidized by the taxpayers. But ;what they envision for thee is different and substandard to what they receive. Do they expect us to believe that they will wait for critical treatment while some politburo hack from the “Ministry of Wellness” slowly sifts through the red tape before approval ? What is unstated is that the market and thus the cost of care is already distorted by government intervention. In 2007, Americans spent about $2.2Trillion on healthcare. Of that, about 20% was spent on Medicare, 18% was spent on Medicaid, and 7% was spent in other public programs. This means that about 45% of all healthcare spending was already controlled by government. The Federal Government sets its prices through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS). It establishes the reimbursement for doctors, physicians, drug companies, etc. Reimbursement rates set by CMMS do not cover the cost of healthcare. As a result, private payors effectively subsidize healthcare for Medicare and Medicaid users. Last year hospitals lost $30 Billion on Medicare and that only represents about a third of their businees. With the whole system operating under such inefficiency these losses would bankrupt the entire hospital sector. And the economics of Medicaid are much, much worse. The President said it was imperitive to fix the private medical care system because it is hopelessly broken and it is imperitive that it be done now. But what has he done to address the programs like Medicare and Social Security that the government already manages and are in far worse shape ? NADA ! And for the doctors; there is a certain compensation they merit for all the preparatory education and internship that is required to make a competent doctor. If doctors determine that they can get a better return on their investment and labor elsewhere then quality doctors will leave the profession for more fruitful plains . The only problem with the American health care system is the "gaps" ;the uninsured (no matter how many there are ) . That can easily be addressed without dismantling the system . The underlying premise in the debate as argued by those who want the government to run the show is that we the people are too stupid to make our own decisions. The nanny-state must satisfy our needs and wants. If you need a record of success in gaging performance just see what happened when the government decided that polices to address affordable housing should be implemented and imposed on the market. That really worked out well! |
||||
|
||||
|
To the extent that Medicare and Medicaid "works" now can only be attributed to the massive subsidization of the programs by private payers and future generations .There are unpaid bills now for the government run system that has created a crisis of the plans and snowballs into the costs of private care now . If partial public coverage subsidization doesn't work ,then how can a complete turnnover of the system to a subsidized plan work ? It doesn't make sense. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
We've been here before too. Maybe the righty koolaid makes you forget stuff. Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too. But, I'm just guessing. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me
That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too. But, I'm just guessing. Excon Second of all, what is the basis for your extrapolation? Are you taking into consideration any companies that LOST money? Third, what was the sources of income for these companies? Was it investment income or operating income? (I suspect the former, but I haven't seen the financial statements so I can't really comment.) Fourth, what is wrong with profit? When individuals or corporations make a profit, they usually plug that money back into the economy, either through investment in their own business, investments into other businesses, or via savings (the banks lend out the money that is held in savings accounts). When the GOVERNMENT makes a profit (if ever), it disappears into the black hole of government spending and doesn't go back into the economy. So what is wrong with a company making a profit? When did profitability become a crime? Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right? You're right, we can't sustain this half-and-half thing we have going now. That's why the government has to get out of trying to run healthcare. They can't do it, they have failed at it over and over again, and people have died because of it. In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay. In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients. Which do you prefer? Total insurance coverage with a lack of care, or total insurance care, with a lack of insurance coverage? I know which one I prefer. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I LOVE profit... And, if the insurance companies took some of their profits and attempted to cover the uninsured, I wouldn't want to be taking their business away... But, they sent their kids to private school instead. In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY. It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured. I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water. That's why the government controls the water. IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity.
Abe Lincoln He also said that no one was entitled to the rewards of the coerced sweat of another mans brow. He was talking about slavery but he might just as well have been talking about "entitlement". |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
And guess what, most insurance companies have programs for community assistance for the poor. But even if they didn't, who are YOU to mandate that they should spend THEIR money to cover the uninsured. You're pretty charitable with other people's money, aren't you, excon.
In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY.
It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured.
I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT.
And where do you find a right to health insurance in the USA?
Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water.
And why should I pay for someone else's water? What's in it for me? What obligates ME to pay for it? What did I do that makes me indebted to this other guy who is not paying for his own stuff? When did I incure this obligation? What is the other guy, who is not paying for his water or health insurance obligated to do for me? Or is it only a one-way obligation? Does he owe it to me to a) get a job, b) stay off drugs and drink, c) not be a criminal, d) do everything he can to become able to start paying his own way so that I don't have to pay for him?
That's why the government controls the water.
THANKS AGAIN FOR PROVING MY POINT. The government is incapable of taking care of people. The government cannot solve the problem. Government IS the problem.
IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it.
Excon By patients and doctors who scam the insurance companies in order to increase payments to doctors and benefits to patients, By slip-and-fall lawyers out to sue every doctor, hospital and insurance company with deep enough pockets to gain their clients (and themselves) a multi-million-dollar widfall, By governments that have regulated the hell out of them so that they lose their profitability entirely and are now trying to cap the premiums they can charge, and are now even trying to run them out of business. You have it so bass awkward, you can't even recognize where the inequity is coming from. You're blaming the victim for the crime and turning the guilty party (government) into the hero. You have SOOOO drunk the koolaid. You have become exactly what you claim to despise... a drone who is taking the word of the libs in GOVERNMENT as the gospel truth. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Beware Obama's words as I've said before. He's using innocuous sounding words like he just wants to provide a "public option." He's also using words that sound sweet to the ear, like "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down." Since when is the federal government supposed to be competing with the private sector? And since they make the rules isn't that a bit of an unfair advantage? So tell me, what's going to be the result to the private sector when the government starts competing - with taxpayer dollars, unlimited deficit spending capabilities and regulatory power? |
||||
|
||||
|
Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right?
In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay.
Now, you say that everyone has health CARE, not just health INSURANCE. Why do I hear about benefits to raise money so little Johnny can have the operation. Or those jars that are always in the convenience stores collecting money for some persons medical care. I am going to assume that this is just to help cover the huge amount still owed by the patient after the ins. Company pays their part. Anyway, this is the way it goes if someone does Not have INSURANCE but does get the CARE as you say everyone gets. They go in the hospital, get the care, can't pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, but passes it on to the consumer through higher health care cost. The next patient comes in, incurs an inflated hospital bill since costs were increased because of the last guy that couldn't pay. So, the hospital absorbs this non paid bill, by increasing health care cost again. This continues to happen. And with the job losses occurring during this recession more and more people are left without ins. So, now, more health care cost go unpaid and therefore go up. Which takes money from the private ins, which causes premiums to go up.. Vicious circle. A family without insurance will hesitate going to their doctor, IF they go at all. Then we have sick people running around, infecting healthy people, causing more people that can't afford a doctor visit and we are back to that vicious circle. A circle of disaster that could have been avoided with a simple visit and an antibiotic. Do you see where I am going with this. YOU and I STILL end up paying since our health care cost are out of control because of a patients inability to pay. And for families that go bankrupt from paying their full amount, we pick up the tab for that on the back end through welfare. Private insurance companies have a vested interest in DENYING claims. Some of the policies we have had through the years make you jump through hoops of fire to get something approved, go around the world to get a referral, have tight restrictions On what and how much of a drug you can have. They try every trick in the book to make it more difficult and therefore DISCOURAGE heath care because it eats into their profit. And as we have been shown, their profit is not suffering. When I was pregnant, my doctor ordered an ultrasound. He wanted it done in his office right away. The fine print on the policy said no. You have to drive over to abc clinic, get it done, and have it sent back to your doctor. My baby was in distress and it was needed right away. I paid it out of my pocket to have it done in my doctors office and I'm glad I did or I would not have my son today. A national plan would not involve coordinating Doctor A, that can practice only at Hospital B, and have to have ultrasounds done at clinic C. It would all be under one huge umbrella.
In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients.
Greed is factored into health care in this country, and therefore the best interest of a patients care is barely even on the radar. Greed for higher profits is effecting the number of people that can even purchase it at all. And you know where that leads us. Back to you, me, and the gov picking up the pieces. In a perfect world, national coverage would be in effect. The health of a person would be the first priority. Cost of care would come back down to earth. Good health care, yields healthier people yields less health care needed, yields less money spent on health care. It is a win win for all and not just super bonuses for the few. The tax payer would be tapped once up front, and not be involved in picking up the pieces AFTER treatment as in gov assistance or inflated health care cost. Meanwhile super bonus people over at private ins. Company are sitting in their 2nd home enjoying their ski vacation. You are going to pay one way or the other. I say pay up front, have a healthier population, have regulations to keep it all fair and above board, make it easier to obtain that care, cut out all the ifs, ands, buts, and loopholes of a policy, and get the greed of high profits out of the picture. I am not familiar with all the intricacies of economics or insurance. I do however know what makes logic sense to me. Putting health care decisions into the hands of people that will make more by not covering me is like letting the fox guard the hen house. One other thing. Since my husband and I started purchasing health coverage 29 years ago, the premiums have sky rocketed while the coverage has decreased. That is yet another problem caused by the lousy method in which health care is handled in this country. It definitely needs an overhaul. |
||||
|
||||
|
This is what we have in America. How many people die every day because they don't have health insurance? How many people die because their insurance won't cover the tests that might save them? How many Americans have died in the Midde-East because our leadership didn't equip them with the necessary protective equipment to go to war? Go watch the movie CHANCE and get a clue! I have spoken to regular citizens in Canada, England, Norway, and spent three years in Germany, and the only people who I hear complaining about those health care systems are Americans, who know nothing about those systems. I have yet to find someone in that country that dislikes their health care system, nor are they voting to trash it and go to a system like we have. Maybe if enough of the 40,000,000 people die because they don't have access to health care in America then you Pro-Life advocates will realize the hypocrisy of your thinking and will start supporting a system that promotes not only pro-life for the unborn, but pro-life for the children and adults in America. And, by the way, I am a retired officer who has free medical care for myself and my family, and am more than willing to sacrifice a delay in getting care so all Americans can have access to a system of health care. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
McCain Health Plan
[ 2 Answers ]
I know this topic is not as exciting as what is going on the Democratic side, but what do you think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html?ref=health I find it amazing that the NYT would have the misleading "higher tax" in their headline, when the article actually...
Loose the gut. Health plan needed.
[ 2 Answers ]
Does anybody know how you could loose your gut? And get pecs and abs? Like a health plan. How many calories a day you should have. Work out plan. If you could provide that information that would be great!
Senior health plan
[ 3 Answers ]
I am a senior. My wife is 60. I have a 16 yr old daughter living at home.Don't have a health plan. Is there help financially for me for health care
View more questions Search
|
