# free our health care now



## ZECH (Jun 23, 2009)

If you don't want nationalized health care, sign the petition.

Online Petition


----------



## Arnold (Jun 23, 2009)

so this nationalized health care reform, would this mean I no longer have to pay out the ass for my insurance and prescriptions and maybe I will actually be able to use it?

our current health insurance sucks, we pay $200/month (family coverage) and have a $2400 annual deductible, so unless one of has surgery we pay 100% for everything all year, i.e. doctor visits, prescriptions, etc.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> so this nationalized health care reform, would this mean I no longer have to pay out the ass for my insurance and prescriptions and maybe I will actually be able to use it?
> 
> our current health insurance sucks, we pay $200/month (family coverage) and have a $2400 annual deductible, so unless one of has surgery we pay 100% for everything all year, i.e. doctor visits, prescriptions, etc.



and die waiting six+ months for a surgery you could have gotten immediately as of now.  Or contract a disease that the government deems not worth the monetary risk of treating... let them make your personal medical decisions for you.

seriously... the government can't do anything right & people want them in charge of our health care? WTF?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> and die waiting six+ months for a surgery you could have gotten immediately as of now.  Or contract a disease that the government deems not worth the monetary risk of treating... let them make your personal medical decisions for you.
> 
> seriously... the government can't do anything right & people want them in charge of our health care? WTF?



How is all of that not already happening with the insurance companies?  Once you are no longer profitable this is precisely what happens


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> and die waiting six+ months for a surgery you could have gotten immediately as of now.  Or contract a disease that the government deems not worth the monetary risk of treating... let them make your personal medical decisions for you.
> 
> seriously... the government can't do anything right & people want them in charge of our health care? WTF?



Do you really trust the insurance companies any more?


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

I want to add  that *one* of the reasons companies go overseas is because of health care, again I keep talking about my old Company Motorola, the rising cost of health care was one of the reasons they decided to sub-contract us.
Then once we were sub-contracted the new management would lay off those who used their medical plan too often.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

I would like to hear or read a single first person account of how someone waited 6 months for healthcare or was refused service from a nationalized healthcare.  This is often one of the primary reasons people cite against nationalized healthcare.  Find 1 person who is currently getting nationalized healthcare that would rather be here getting what we currently get.  There has to be millions in England alone.  Find one person that finds our way to be better that is actually from a nationalized healthcare providing nation, and not just a conservative talking head.


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 23, 2009)

I am a proponet of fixing what is broken, and our healthcare system is broken!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

We have a healthcare system that claims to cover “everything,” then conducts most of its rationing by coercing doctors to act against the best interests of their patients. Under some kind of national plan, at least some of the rationing decisions will be made away from the bedside,and will be less destructive of the doctor-patient relationship. ( Right now when insurances don't want to cover a procedure or test or medicine they blame us, even though we have spent hours on the phone providing clinical information, faxed office notes, provided all the ICD-9 codes etc.) We have not had a free market in medicine during my career. Our current medical insurance industry runs current rationing, and patients have no real role in making informed cost-effective decisions. 


as for efficiency, I only have to hire one person to deal with medicare and medicaid billing, and an army ( full benefits mind you) to deal with the private insurance paperwork ( precerts and prior authorizations, coding, collections, )

 By the way, not a single medicare or medicaid patient has to "wait" to get elective surgery, I schedule them with the first available surgical spot.  Many of the private insurers demand a swath of paperwork to "prove" why elective cholecystectomy is needed with a person's gallstone, or why neurosurgery is needed for a grade 4 spondylysis with loss of reflexes and bowel incontinance... and it can take weeks or over a month.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

There was some data recently released, maybe Bandaidwoman has it, where we ranked something like 15th in terms of health care system performance.  How is that good when we spend the most money?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

Yes, I know they compare things like infant mortality but ther is a caveat.  Not to diminsh the accomplishment of other countries very real problem we have here......but let me tell you how statistics can be skewed to make the statistics such as how  US infant mortality look bad and why it is not a good measure of health care in the UnitedStates.

The United States easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. 

The US is only one of a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation. 


"
Thus, in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted this would recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics!!! "


The above paraphrased from medical site discussion board.




Take Cuba (which has a better infant mortality)..... they do not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included. But guess what, we do!


Cuba looks better than the united states but in fact what is probably true is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

The above are probably confounding variables along with decreased prenatal care in the poor of course 


In summary, I would not use our infant mortality data to show what a sucky job we are doing compared to the rest of the world. Data that show how countries with national health insurance kicks our butt in terms of managing chronic, long term diseases would have more solid ground to stand on in my book.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> In summary, I would not use our infant mortality data to show what a sucky job we are doing compared to the rest of the world. Data that show how countries with national health insurance kicks our butt in terms of managing chronic, long term diseases would have more solid ground to stand on in my book.



I thought that was what it was discussing, QoL of disabled people, disease treatment outcome, etc.  I think it was done in 2000, though,it was around when I started at Penn.


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 23, 2009)

Are these politicians really looking out for YOUR BEST INTEREST?!


Put Single Payer Health Care On The Table Now


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

IronAddict said:


> Are these politicians really looking out for YOUR BEST INTEREST?!
> 
> 
> Put Single Payer Health Care On The Table Now



Don't politicians get a huge amount of money from them already?

Me thinks these crooks will lose a lot of money if there is any type of reform.


----------



## Built (Jun 23, 2009)

I live in Canada and I will go in on Monday next week for the 4th MRI in the last few years. 

I had to wait three days for the first one, a few months for the second one (I told them I could wait that long, it wasn't acute), about a month for the third one (also an old injury and thus not acute) and two weeks for this one (doc sped it up because it's a follow-up for a nerve conduction test).

Not one of them cost me a dime out of pocket. Neither do checkups, follow up appointments to see my GP or any specialist, x-rays, or blood tests. If I want to switch to a different GP or request a particular specialist, I do. I've had emergency surgery for my appendix, an ovarian cyst, and a broken arm. All covered by my national health plan.

You'll have to pry socialized medicine out of my cold dead hand. And because getting regular checkups and excellent health care is a luxury I'm afforded through socialized medicine, you may have to wait a long time to do that prying - I fully intend to make it to a hundred. 

My .02 CDN.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

Built said:


> I live in Canada and I will go in on Monday next week for the 4th MRI in the last few years.
> 
> I had to wait three days for the first one, a few months for the second one (I told them I could wait that long, it wasn't acute), about a month for the third one (also an old injury and thus not acute) and two weeks for this one (doc sped it up because it's a follow-up for a nerve conduction test).
> 
> ...



Oh my, how do you live with that kind of coverage?  I'm surprised with all of that horrible coverage that you are still alive.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> I thought that was what it was discussing, QoL of disabled people, disease treatment outcome, etc.  I think it was done in 2000, though,it was around when I started at Penn.





The WHO uses infant mortality and life expectancy as the major gauges of world ranking which is why I commented on it.  

The upshot is that if I have a heart attack, statistically I have a better outcome if I am treated in America vs Canada, however, if I have diabetes and high cholesterol etc, Canada does a better job than us preventing the complications ( such as a the heart attack).


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I want to add  that *one* of the reasons companies go overseas is because of health care, again I keep talking about my old Company Motorola, the rising cost of health care was one of the reasons they decided to sub-contract us.
> Then once we were sub-contracted the new management would lay off those who used their medical plan too often.



False, companies move overseas for one reason only, the corporate tax rate, nothing else factors in to the equation.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> I would like to hear or read a single first person account of how someone waited 6 months for healthcare or was refused service from a nationalized healthcare.  This is often one of the primary reasons people cite against nationalized healthcare.  Find 1 person who is currently getting nationalized healthcare that would rather be here getting what we currently get.  There has to be millions in England alone.  Find one person that finds our way to be better that is actually from a nationalized healthcare providing nation, and not just a conservative talking head.



My grandfather who lives in Canada came to the US for his open heart surgery and paid cash for it because of Canada's free national health care


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Don't politicians get a huge amount of money from them already?
> 
> Me thinks these crooks will lose a lot of money if there is any type of reform.



This is truly atrocious!

Business as usual, greed and malfeasance always seems to prevail. Will this trend ever be reversed!?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> I would like to hear or read a single first person account of how someone waited 6 months for healthcare or was refused service from a nationalized healthcare.  This is often one of the primary reasons people cite against nationalized healthcare.  Find 1 person who is currently getting nationalized healthcare that would rather be here getting what we currently get.  There has to be millions in England alone.  Find one person that finds our way to be better that is actually from a nationalized healthcare providing nation, and not just a conservative talking head.



I moved to the US from Canada partially because of the taxes.  I don't get healthcare from my employer.  It is much cheaper to just buy my own healthcare than it is to pay the extra taxes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> My grandfather who lives in Canada came to the US for his open heart surgery and paid cash for it because of Canada's free national health care



How much was that?  Again, I am looking for an experience.  Was it because he had to wait so long?  Why did he come here instead of staying there?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

Built said:


> I live in Canada and I will go in on Monday next week for the 4th MRI in the last few years.
> 
> I had to wait three days for the first one, a few months for the second one (I told them I could wait that long, it wasn't acute), about a month for the third one (also an old injury and thus not acute) and two weeks for this one (doc sped it up because it's a follow-up for a nerve conduction test).
> 
> ...



I have lived in both the US and Canada.  I had an MRI in the US.  I made the appointment and was in the next day.  I had broken bones in Canada and they handled that well.  I was hospitalized in the US for 3 days with pnemonia.  I have also watched as a close friend of mines child went through leukemia treatments over the last year.

There are some issues in the US but they aren't about the treatment or the fact it isn't paid for by the government.  They are about the business practices of the insurance companies and the fact that this country is completely sue happy over any little thing.

Given the differences I would much rather pay my $200 a month in healthcare than have GST (national sales tax) and a higher tax bracket.  Not to mention all the taxes on things like beer, tobacco, gas.  People in the US think their's is expensive.  Go live in Canada for a while.

Oh, I can also write off my mortgage interest on my taxes... you can't do that in Canada.  

After paying my healthcare in the US, I am saving at least $1500 a month living here compared to Canada.  And Canada only spends a fraction (percentage wise) of what the US does on the military.

Where do you think all this Canadian tax money goes?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> I have lived in both the US and Canada.  I had an MRI in the US.  I made the appointment and was in the next day.  I had broken bones in Canada and they handled that well.  I was hospitalized in the US for 3 days with pnemonia.  I have also watched as a close friend of mines child went through leukemia treatments over the last year.
> 
> There are some issues in the US but they aren't about the treatment or the fact it isn't paid for by the government.  They are about the business practices of the insurance companies and the fact that this country is completely sue happy over any little thing.
> 
> ...



So, what are the primary issues, in your opinion, on the business issues from the insurance companies?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> How much was that?  Again, I am looking for an experience.  Was it because he had to wait so long?  Why did he come here instead of staying there?



I'm not sure how much it cost but yes, he came here because he could get in the same week rather than wait three months that he had to wait in Canada.  He wasn't taking any chances.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> I'm not sure how much it cost but yes, he came here because he could get in the same week rather than wait three months that he had to wait in Canada.  He wasn't taking any chances.



That certainly qualifies, IMO.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> So, what are the primary issues, in your opinion, on the business issues from the insurance companies?



As someone that has to pay for my insurance (my company doesn't provide it), I am subject to whatever plan I am on going up every year.

I find a plan for $200 a month and then the next year it goes up about $50 a month.  Than trend continues indefinitely.  So after a year or two on a plan I have to seek out another plan that starts over at $200 a month.

Here's the catch.  If I ever got sick, no other insurance company would pick me up and I would be stuck with the rising costs of my insurance plan.  Before long, I would be paying $500+ a month for insurance.

If your company doesn't provide insurance and you pay it out yourself, don't get any serious illness.

I don't think it is right that companies can deny you insurance based on your health history or that there is a lifetime max that they will pay out.  I realize that this keeps the cost down for others but it is discriminitory against people that happen to get ill.

This problem doesn't happen with group plans you get from companies though.

I also think there is a lot of red tape and waste that happens with the insurance companies here but there is in Canada too.  I am not really an expert on this and I don't have the answers.

I remember growing up in Canada.  My dad's girlfriend was a nurse and she would often complain about the bed closings even though everything was full, the strikes and all the other BS that happened there.

Personally, with my direct experiences with dealing with hospitals in both countries, I have been completely satisfied.  It's just been much cheaper for me here in the US... but I haven't been ill for any length of time either


----------



## Doublebase (Jun 23, 2009)

I have been working full time since I was 20 years old.  I always have had health insurance.  If I need to go to the doctors I pay a co-pay.  Usually between 10 - 20$.  20 - 40$ for a specialist.  I can get a doctors appointment the same day I call.  I can get an MRI scheduled within a week.  I just started to have to pay out of my pocket for health insurance.  It costs me 68$/month for my whole family to be covered.  Not to bad.  My buddy has to pay 150$ or so.  If I went freelance or started my own business then thats where you pay out the nose.  I understand this is an issue but it hasn't really affected me personally yet.  Other then having to pay for benefits.  Again the major issues that everyone complains about have not yet hindered me.  The only way they will is me having to pay more taxes.  I don't mean to sound pompous, I'm just stating my point as a middle classian.  I do care about this country and think something needs to happen with the health care system.  I'm just afraid its going to be me that has to pay.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale to answer your question:

When I was up at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical center( in New Hampshire) we had some canadians seek health care at our facility for care that they otherwise would have had to wait or denied. 

 At the same time, I've had Blue Cross deny repairing a torn achilles tendon in an athlete of mine so he flew to India to have  it done.  Another  private insurer refused to cover cancer treatment  to a 42 year old with cutaneous T  cell lymphoma that was newly diagnosed by  myself ( so I  got her on medicare medicaid by getting her to quit her job and has had continuous, lifesaving treatment for the last ten years), another patient needed a bone marrow transplant which would have provided a cure for her type of leukemia, her insurance would not pay since she had met her lifetime usage of one million ( she had had lymphoma when she was in her twenties and needed treatment over the years that cured her but gobbled up her private insurance maximum usage) so I had her put her assets in a trusting ex husband's name and put her on medicaid which paid for the treatment, she is now leukemia and lymphoma free

Both sides of the equation ration care, but in the latter, the private insurers give a pretense that they will take care of you as long as premiums are paid in.....


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

I like the low cost healthcare I get in the US... at the same time I like the fact I am a Canadian citizen and I know that if I ever became seriously ill and my medical bills started to get out of control here, I could run back to Canada and have them look after me


----------



## Chubby (Jun 23, 2009)

I am not so sure if nationalized healthcare is better or worse than corporate run healthcare.  One thing I know for sure is that uncle sam is not as greedy as these corporations.  So I am willing to give this nationalized healthcare a chance to prove that it is better than corporate run healthcare.  If it turns out to be worse, we can always go back.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 23, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> I am not so sure if nationalized healthcare is better or worse than corporate run healthcare.  One thing I know for sure is that uncle sam is not as greedy as these corporations.  So I am willing to give this nationalized healthcare a chance to prove that it is better than corporate run healthcare.  If it turns out to be worse, we can always go back.



uncle sam is just as greedy... and way more irresponsible with money


----------



## nkira (Jun 23, 2009)

I have been thinking about getting a health care plan.....<Notes Down as weekend project>


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> False, companies move overseas for one reason only, the corporate tax rate, nothing else factors in to the equation.



Think so? I don't know, like I said I think it's *one *of the reasons.
Not saying it was the main reason.
I do know the bosses at Motorola and later when they became private this was one of the complaints they had.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

NeilPearson said:


> I find a plan for $200 a month and then the next year it goes up about $50 a month.  Than trend continues indefinitely.  So after a year or two on a plan I have to seek out another plan that starts over at $200 a month.



My old company it changed every year, which was rather annoying. They said it was cheaper us but it turns out it was only cheaper for the company and not us.

I don't want to veer off subject but one year we had this health care rep come over and sit with us to explain about the new policies, so I grilled him and it turns out we were going to pay more.
I told him before I sign anything let me talk it over with my spouse, he told me to take my time.
2 days later I call him and he tells me the dead line was that day, I talked to my bosses and his supervisor and they tell me there was nothing I could do till next year.

Luck would have it I broke my clavicle and tore tendons a week later, no freaking medical......my shoulder was so swollen that they couldn't tell through the X-rays whether it was broken or not.

I didn't find out till a year later it was indeed broken. I couldn't afford my own medical....sheesh I think we almost paid $200.00 a month for medical through our company...I can't imagine how much it would be here to get it yourself.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

Even if companies are not moving oveseas many small and medium size businesses are no longer offering health care as a benefit due to expense. It is my second highest overhead and if I wasn't in the business, it would be the first thing I would drop and it would lower my overhead significantly.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

Can someone list 10 good things and or 10 bad things on both sides of this subject.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 23, 2009)

The Health Care issue is very complicated.

One of the biggest problems is the annual rising costs.  These costs increases have to be contained.

As Bandaidwoman noted, more and more medium sized business are hiring full time workers and not offering any health insurance plance to pay into because of the high costs.

These people are left to insure their _families_ and the costs can be very high in monthly premiums.  I know a couple of these families.  They work full time, pay taxes, etc., etc.,

What is said is that the Health Care issue should not be as political as it is.  

It's been turned into a political partisan issue with propganda, lies, and false information spewed out by both sides.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Can someone list 10 good things and or 10 bad things on both sides of this subject.




Here is top ten reasons for:

http://pdamerica.org/misc/10 Reasons - FINAL.pdf

could not fine ten against.

for those who don't think adminstrative costs are huge, just know that Duke university is a 900 bed hospital, it has 900 billing specialists , they don't have one nurse per bed, but they have one billing specialist per bed.... obscene..


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> Here is top ten reasons for:
> 
> http://pdamerica.org/misc/10 Reasons - FINAL.pdf



Thank you.



> *TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT H.R. 676,
> THE U.S. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT*
> *1. Everybody In, Nobody Out.* Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
> *2. Portability.* If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.
> ...


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

PRESCRIPTIONS
Bringing Down the House
The sobering lessons of health reform in Massachusetts.
By Darshak Sanghavi
Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 6:45 AM ET
The debate over achieving universal health care can seem hopelessly confusing. But the issues are actually pretty simple when you consider the lessons of Massachusetts.

In 2006, state lawmakers seeking to broaden health coverage made it illegal to be uninsured. It works like this: Employers have to offer you a health plan. If you are jobless or don't like your employer's plan, you must buy your own. If you don't get one, you pay a stiff fine. This strategy—known as an employer and individual "mandate"—forms the backbone of the national health reform bills now making their way through Congress.

On paper, the experiment was a resounding success. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the number of uninsured residents quickly fell from 13 percent to 7 percent following the law's passage.

And yet, something strange happened. Despite having health insurance, roughly one in 10 state residents still failed to fill prescriptions, ended up with unpaid medical bills, or skipped needed medical care for financial reasons. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to insure more Massachusetts citizens, but many people still weren't getting necessary care. What happened?

Assume you're looking to buy insurance. The state has a handy Web site where you can find the cheapest plan. For a young family of four, that plan costs roughly $9,500 per year, which doesn't include a minimum annual deductible of $3,500 before many benefits kick in. (The state helps cover some of the premiums for those who make very little money, but many still have to pay the other fees.) And if anyone is hospitalized or needs a lot of specialized care, you also pay 20 percent of that bill. In this relatively cheap plan, the family can be liable for an extra $10,000 per year of medical costs. This sort of "high deductible" health plan is clearly structured to discourage medical care.

Imagine, for example, that your homeowner's insurance had a $1,000 deductible. If the faucet leaks, you'll try to fix it yourself instead of calling the plumber. The same thing applies to health care. If your newborn has a fever, you might give her Tylenol and just hope there's no serious infection rather than head to the emergency room and face a hefty co-pay.

Why does a progressive state like Massachusetts strong-arm many individuals and businesses into buying expensive insurance plans that don't encourage actual visits to the doctor and hospital? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average person consumes more than $5,000 per year in health care resources. No matter how you slice it, some entity—government, business, or the individual—owes a boatload of cash for medical expenses. The annual costs for the 500,000 or so uninsured Massachusetts residents would run more than $2.5 billion, far in excess of the original state subsidy of $559 million.

That left billions to be paid by businesses and individuals. So for them, a high-deductible plan was a rational gamble. You (or your employer) front just enough money to get some coverage in case of catastrophe and then hope no one actually gets sick. But someone invariably does. As a result, out-of-pocket medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies—even though of most affected families actually have health insurance.

The expensive Massachusetts plan is not well-designed to systematically improve anyone's health. Instead, it's a superficial effort to clear the uninsured from the books and then clumsily limit further costs by discouraging care.

This brings us to the real task facing health reformers in our nation. Atul Gawande recently observed that for too long we've been "arguing about whether the solution to high medical costs is to have government or private insurance companies write the checks." What's more important are the doctors who write the bills. The more procedures they do, the more money they make. To fix medicine, he argues, we have to create better incentives for doctors to do right by patients instead of their own bank accounts.

But that's not the whole story. Health care costs are rising everywhere, even in places like Minnesota, which Gawande cites as a prime example of low-cost, high-quality care that should be replicated nationwide. (Per capita health spending is actually 25 percent higher in Minnesota than in Texas, which has a hospital system that Gawande criticizes for profiteering.) In Massachusetts, some employers offering high-quality plans have annual rate increases of 10 percent to 15 percent. These jumps are certainly due to some overuse of services but also indicate increasingly high-technology care.

The lesson of Massachusetts is that really good health care is also really expensive. The concern isn't who writes the checks or who writes the bills. The real question is who makes the tough decisions about the limits of the checks and bills—in other words, who ultimately rations the money. Not everybody can have everything, and the sooner we admit that, the sooner our health care debate will get realistic.

In the haphazard Massachusetts plan, rationing fell to individuals, who then skimped on important prescriptions and routine visits. Gawande would leave rationing to properly incentivized doctors, but we have no data about whether this can be done widely. Others advocate for bodies like the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (an impartial medical Federal Reserve Board), which can make the hard calls to promote and limit certain kinds of medical care. Britain, for example, has a national institute that makes precisely these decisions, like limiting drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease and certain pricey drugs for kidney cancer. And health insurance executives here are again talking about "capitation," or fixed global budgets in which a group of health providers gets fixed monthly fees to handle all of a person's health needs.

In the meantime, one thing is sure: Without a smart plan to ration our resources well—that is, stick to a budget—and improve health, simply mandating that employers and individuals buy health insurance will only worsen the mess.

Darshak Sanghavi is a pediatric cardiologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He is the author of A Map of the Child: A Pediatrician's Tour of the Body.
Article URL: The sobering lessons of health reform in Massachusetts. - By Darshak Sanghavi - Slate Magazine


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> ,*simply mandating that employers and individuals buy health insurance will only worsen the mess.*
> 
> [/url]



That was the problem with the massachusetts plan, employers purchased sub par insurances as well as the individuals, it was not a true "national health insurance".

The cardiologist overlooked a successful experiment that is ongoing.. Taiwan



> Taiwan's Single Payer System: A Phenomenal Success!
> PRINT PAGE
> EN ESPA??OL
> 
> ...



One of the medical students I had in last month's rotation, has a dad who is a taiwanese dermatologist.  He is doing just as well after the changes. He had to implement electronic medical records but otherwise is doing well.

The national health insurance also made bankrupcies due to medical costs a thing of the past ( something that also plagued the taiwanese) Bureau of National Health Insurance-Insurance bureau heralds success


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 23, 2009)

good stuff !


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Think so? I don't know, like I said I think it's *one *of the reasons.
> Not saying it was the main reason.
> I do know the bosses at Motorola and later when they became private this was one of the complaints they had.



Do you not know me by now min0, I was being facetious.  Ya know, how all of the people who complain about their taxes cite how foreign countries have a lower corporate tax rate as being the only reason why companies move overseas.  It has nothing to do with minimum wage being 15 cents a day or healthcare being provided.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

Doh!


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

*1. Everybody In, Nobody Out.* Didn't we have this at one time? 
*2. Portability.* Doesn't COBRA already do this?
*3. Uniform Benefits.* Good.If you want to be treated better then pay for it out of your own pocket...not mine.
*4. Prevention. * Sometimes I think most of these medications out there are just to keep you defendant on them and not really cure you. I love how those commercials where the medication they promote has 10 more deadly side affects.
*5. Choice*. This is great, some of the places they refereed me too were hellholes or just too far.
*6. No Interference with Care.* This is good, I never even knew there was any interference.
*7. Reducing Waste.* Won't there be lost jobs...duh, this would actually lower cost, let's see them outsource that.
*8. Cost Savings.* 
*9. Common Sense Budgeting.* 
*10. Public Oversight*----When the CEO's get their greedy hands on our money it's never a good thing.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 23, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> I would like to hear or read a single first person account of how someone waited 6 months for healthcare or was refused service from a nationalized healthcare.  This is often one of the primary reasons people cite against nationalized healthcare.  Find 1 person who is currently getting nationalized healthcare that would rather be here getting what we currently get.  There has to be millions in England alone.  Find one person that finds our way to be better that is actually from a nationalized healthcare providing nation, and not just a conservative talking head.



I speak to radiology directors and chiefs of radiology throughout north america every day as part of my job. I have spoken to multiple radiologists in canada that prefer the healthcare system we have here in the united states compared to what canada offers. I know this is second hand for you, so take it or leave it, but in multiple conversations i've had they state that there have been times when the wait for a non-emergency MRI or CT was months long.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> I speak to radiology directors and chiefs of radiology throughout north america every day as part of my job. I have spoken to multiple radiologists in canada that prefer the healthcare system we have here in the united states compared to what canada offers. I know this is second hand for you, so take it or leave it, but in multiple conversations i've had they state that there have been times when the wait for a non-emergency MRI or CT was months long.



First of all radiologists have no clue how many xrays, cat scans mris are denied on a daily basis by private insurers.  When asked to help with prior authorizations say for followup cat scans , they refuse.  Not a single one lifts a finger to help with the prior auths even thought they recommend followup cat scans etc.  They don't have to deal with one iota of the paperwork the ordering physician, surgeon or internist does.

 I can order a MRI for a medicare patient the next day but it can take  me weeks to prior authorise  one for the private plans. 

 I had an torn achilles tendon ( loss of ankle reflex) where blue cross HMO outright denied it because they wanted the person to have physical therapy for 8 weeks before getting one. Needless to say after 8 weeks, no better and by then the scar tissue was so bad the surgeon said operating would be useless and it was completly torn by the way.

It's interesting that in the JAMA  and other polls where specialties across the board ( including surgical specialties) favor a national health insurance but the radiologists are the first ones to refuse.  They,  of all the medical specialties are over paid ( for the time).  A radiologist _gets paid more _for a *five minute read of a pelvic and abdominal cat scan then a vasular surgeon spending five hours in the operating room repairing a dissecting aneurysm. * Thye get paid more for a five second  read of a chest xray after a defibrillator is put in by the vascular surgeon. ( the latter takes about 45 minutes)

The irony, the vascular surgeon still has to look at the same cat scan and chest xray since he is the one that has to act on it, not the radiologists and he gets nada.

I'm just defending the surgeons who I believe should be paid more than a radiologist ( by the way vascular, general and even neurosurgeons can't come close to touching a radiologist's salary and the latter work half the hours the others do.)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/498508_7



> *Interventional radiologists are reported to be the most highly paid physicians, having the highest median compensation in 2002 at $401,000.[12] *Interventional radiologists also received the highest percentage salary increase among specialties, at 33.7% from 1999 to 2002. Cardiac surgeons earned only a 2.8% increase. Interventional radiologists also received the highest percentage salary increase, with a 12.64% increase from $356,000 to $401,000 ( Table 1 ).



The top of a very unbalanced food chain is going to defend the status quo.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 23, 2009)

Again thanks Bandaid for taking the time give us your input.

Special note.....must send kids to become radiologists, it this plan doesn't go through


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 23, 2009)

Average Radiologist - Diagnostic Salary. Radiologist - Diagnostic Job, Career Education & Unemploym

radiologist median salary 360,000

Average Vascular Surgeon Salary. Vascular Surgeon Job, Career Education & Unemployment Help

vascular surgeon 330,000

you should probably use figures that a little more accurately show whats happening right now.  The DRA has has had a hell of an effect.


A new survey by the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) shows diagnostic radiologists in group practices remain among the highest-paid specialists in the United States. Not only did diagnostic radiologists enjoy strong compensation increases in 2003, but also, over the past four years, they have seen larger percentage and dollar increases than any of the other 27 medical specialties studied.

In 2003 the median compensation for a diagnostic interventional radiologist was $410,250—the second highest in the survey. Cardiac/thoracic surgeons took the top spot at $416,896. In 2002, median income for a diagnostic interventional radiologist was at $401,000, slightly higher than the $400,500 reported for cardiac/thoracic surgeons.

Diagnostic non-interventional radiologists maintained fifth-ranked status in median compensation in 2003 at $345,619, behind catheter lab cardiologists ($368,938) and orthopedic surgeons ($354,495).


Surgeons seem to be doing pretty good for themselves. even by numbers that are from 2003


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Again thanks Bandaid for taking the time give us your input.
> 
> Special note.....must send kids to become radiologists, it this plan doesn't go through



If your kids don't mind hundreds of thousands of dollars for school debt, years upon years of schooling, and then spending all day in a dark room staring at a computer screen then this is the job for them.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 23, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> If your kids don't mind hundreds of thousands of dollars for school debt, years upon years of schooling, and then spending all day in a dark room staring at a computer screen then this is the job for them.



Sounds like a comp sci degree but with more money.  Where do I sign up?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 23, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Sounds like a comp sci degree but with more money.  Where do I sign up?



Med school. good luck


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> If your kids don't mind *hundreds of thousands* of dollars for school debt, years upon years of schooling, and then spending all day in a dark room staring at a computer screen then this is the job for them.



What? It's welfare for them bastards then!


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 24, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Can someone list 10 good things and or 10 bad things on both sides of this subject.




I got a better question for you, can someone name one program that the government has ever run that worked, didn't cost billions of dollars more than the same program run by private corporations and didn't get tied up in years of beaurocratic red tape?

The U.S. government is good at ONE thing, feeding itself.  I want them out of as many different programs as is humanly possible.  I sure as HELL don't want them "managing" my healthcare.  I'm sick enough as it is.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Average Radiologist - Diagnostic Salary. Radiologist - Diagnostic Job, Career Education & Unemploym
> 
> radiologist median salary 360,000
> 
> ...




The *average *vascular* surgeon,* general and cardio thoracic surgeon  works *90 or more hours a week* here in my hospital, the *radiologist half that*, _yet their salaries are comprable._  Per hour worked, the radiologist is cleaning up house.  When a stent placed by an interventional radiologist goes bad at midnight, they call the surgeons ( or myself if they are my patient), they ( or I )  come in at all hours of the night. It's pulling teeth to get the interventional guys to come in to clean up their mess if the mess doesnt' happen between 9 and 5.  Those are just the fact from the trenches.  

per hour worked, the  surgeons put in far more sweat and agony than any radiologist. They also have longer years of training vs a radiolgist and have to accrue higher amounts of debt and defer repayment for a longer period of time.  Of course my hours are close to 85 a week but in a system that rewards procedures vs thinking, I knew my salary would not come close to any of those specialties.  Luckily my business ventures ( I own and rent commercial real estate ) more than quadruples my physician salary.

And really think about the 90 hours or more if you worked six am to six pm 7 days a week that is only 84 hours a week.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> I got a better question for you, can someone name one program that the government has ever run that worked, didn't cost billions of dollars more than the same program run by private corporations and didn't get tied up in years of beaurocratic red tape?
> 
> The U.S. government is good at ONE thing, feeding itself.  I want them out of as many different programs as is humanly possible.  I sure as HELL don't want them "managing" my healthcare.  I'm sick enough as it is.



The NIH National Institute of Health where top of the line, ground breaking medical research happens.  Drug companies are now so busy making "me too drugs or copycat drugs" to turn the quick profit and make share holders happy, they no longer gamble on any real ground breaking ( and cost gobbling research and development) to bring any new revolutionary drug to market.


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 24, 2009)

i know a Canadian that is waiting for a call to start a medication and therapy for debilitating anxiety and agoraphobia. 16 weeks and still no call from the clinic where they are on a waiting list. to me that sounds fucked up.

and as for the U.S. all i want to know is what is going to stop the damn trend of having our kids pumped full of medications to make them docile little zombies from the time they're 2. it's a bullshit money making racket.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 24, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> The NIH National Institute of Health where top of the line, ground breaking medical research happens.  Drug companies are now so busy making "me too drugs or copycat drugs" to turn the quick profit and make share holders happy, they no longer gamble on any real ground breaking ( and cost gobbling research and development) to bring any new revolutionary drug to market.



I can't really fault Big Pharma for that.  Look at what they go through, they spend millions upon millions of dollars researching a drug and then have to deal with companies like Cipla that essentially copy the drug and sell it at a steep discount because they never had to put forth the upfront investment.  They go through all of the bullshit red tape in dealing with the FDA and these other companies just pounce once their is an indication.  What incentive is there to even bother any more considering most insurance providers hardly cover any name brand stuff anyway?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> I can't really fault Big Pharma for that.  Look at what they go through, they spend millions upon millions of dollars researching a drug and then have to deal with companies like Cipla that essentially copy the drug and sell it at a steep discount because they never had to put forth the upfront investment.  They go through all of the bullshit red tape in dealing with the FDA and these other companies just pounce once their is an indication.  What incentive is there to even bother any more considering most insurance providers hardly cover any name brand stuff anyway?




very true, which is why I no longer look to them for any "revolutionary' meds, the medical periodicals are full of groundbreaking stuff done in europe, and china is coming along ( they used stem cell research technology to cure an american of her congenital blindness...)


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 24, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> The *average *vascular* surgeon,* general and cardio thoracic surgeon  works *90 or more hours a week* here in my hospital, the *radiologist half that*, _yet their salaries are comprable._  Per hour worked, the radiologist is cleaning up house.  When a stent placed by an interventional radiologist goes bad at midnight, they call the surgeons ( or myself if they are my patient), they ( or I )  come in at all hours of the night. It's pulling teeth to get the interventional guys to come in to clean up their mess if the mess doesnt' happen between 9 and 5.  Those are just the fact from the trenches.
> 
> per hour worked, the  surgeons put in far more sweat and agony than any radiologist. They also have longer years of training vs a radiolgist and have to accrue higher amounts of debt and defer repayment for a longer period of time.  Of course my hours are close to 85 a week but in a system that rewards procedures vs thinking, I knew my salary would not come close to any of those specialties.  Luckily my business ventures ( I own and rent commercial real estate ) more than quadruples my physician salary.
> 
> And really think about the 90 hours or more if you worked six am to six pm 7 days a week that is only 84 hours a week.



whats your point?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> whats your point?




You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. _ My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary,_ and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.

 A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter)  *so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. *  Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours.  (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.).   Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that).  _Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India  since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. _Can't blame them. *So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.*......

The reason I have some problems with radiologists is that  in the ICU, where I overread xrays all the time, close to 20% of the readings by radiologists, even in the academic setting are wrong.,,( the patient has a pneumothorax when the official reading was none, or the patient has fulminant ards and chf, when it was read as clear etc.  ) And since most laymen don't believe this there are numerous studies that support my experience..

For instance, there are studies that show our overreads by primary docs are usually more accurate

Radiology (Position Paper) -- Policy & Advocacy -- American Academy of Family Physicians



> Studies of discordance between radiologists for readings of chest x-rays have shown disagreements* for 18 to 57 percent of readings.*58-65 Disagreements between radiologists for a variety of radiographs have been reported to occur between 3-4.4 percent of readings.66-68 Bergus and colleagues* found that 35 percent of discordant readings were ultimately determined to have been correctly interpreted by the family physician*...



I don't see surgeons making mistakes 18-57% of the time, can you imagine his malpractice...

another study
JAMA -- Cranial Computed Tomography Interpretation in Acute Stroke: Physician Accuracy in Determining Eligibility for Thrombolytic Therapy, April 22, 1998, Schriger et al. 279 (16): 1293



> In conclusion, it appears that while some members of each of these physician groups are capable of identifying hemorrhage with perfect or near-perfect sensitivity, the majority of those tested are not. *Board certification in emergency medicine, neurology, or general radiology is an inadequate marker for such competence*.



in other words, have your doc look at your xray, which is why every neurologist looks at every MRI, why a pulmonologist looks at every cat scan and cxr, ans I tell all my medical students to look at the xray, mri etc, themselves, always... and yeah, radiologists are way overpaid sorry radiologists.....


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2009)




----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2009)




----------



## maniclion (Jun 24, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. _ My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary,_ and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.
> 
> A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter)  *so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. *  Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours.  (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.).   Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that).  _Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India  since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. _Can't blame them. *So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.*......
> 
> ...


I know exactly what you're saying.  I had a bone scan in the same hospital my doctor was in, but I had to wait a week and a half for the results to finally be reported on by the radiologist and sent to my doc via the computer network only to have the radiologist say he didn't see anything yet my doc saw a difference in a facet joint and then I ask him if I should be worried about the thinner white area that was the right side of my L5/S1 disc and he said in the future it might.  I asked him why the radiologist didn't see this if I can see it.  He just looked at me and then said 'He was probably only looking where I had first suspected the diagnosis would be in the Sacroiliac and saw nothing."  I was just stunned that he didn't even glance a few inches up and see what we were seeing, and for it to take 10 days for him to look at a tiny area of a whole picture...jeez.  I f my doctor thought in such a linear fashion I might have had to go back and get a second scan so he could have the radiologist look at the next area up.....that's like having an architect draw plans for each floor of a high rise once the floor below it was completed instead of drawing up plans for the whole thing.....

If they have the whole picture why not take a quick scan of the whole thing, who knows what preventative measures could be taken from something that they find else where than just the suspected area......


----------



## KelJu (Jun 24, 2009)

I have hated most doctors I have been to. On the other hand, my neurologist might have saved my life by taking an extra time and effort into investigating the issue.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2009)

Ask him for referrals. One good doctor knows another.


----------



## quadluver (Jun 24, 2009)

dg806 said:


> If you don't want nationalized health care, sign the petition.
> 
> Online Petition



Nationalized healthcare is the only way to go. We just need to get some competent people to run it.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 24, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> You post salaries for a surgeon and radiolgist that are comprable but have no idea the much longer hours one speciality is putting in to make the same amount of money. _ My point is that radiologists make more than any other specialty because the work some of the least amount of hours and rack up the same salary,_ and when they do dabble in surgery via interventional, they don't step up to the plate to handle the complications like the other doctors and specialists.
> 
> A radiologist makes more per hour than most surgeons ( or any specialty for that matter)  *so they are the highest paid doctors in the field. *  Which is why , radiology and not neurosurgery is the hardest fellowship to get into, follwed by dermatology, both highly paid with the least amount of work hours.  (and it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a dermatologist..sorry.).   Why insurances pay a radiologist more for looking at a cat scan ( that a surgeon is equally adept at looking at ) than intricate complicated surgery that lasts an hour is one of the many reforms that is needed. ( In fact the AMA is looking into that).  _Insurances are starting to look at outsourcing radiology readings to say India  since many radiologists are not coming down on their prices and sees that as a quick way to reduce medical cost. _Can't blame them. *So remember this, soon your private insurance carrier may be having your wife's mammogram read by someone in calcutta.*......
> 
> ...


dont start your post with stupid assumptions. 

just because you have a soap box against radiologists doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 24, 2009)

quadluver said:


> Nationalized healthcare is the only way to go. We just need to get some competent people to run it.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> dont start your post with stupid assumptions.
> 
> just because you have a soap box against radiologists doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.



I don't see where I have made assumptions, just facts, along with being chief of medicine at two hospitals I am privey to all that juicy information.

Radiologists have the most to gain by keeping the status quo.  The overcomenpensated specialties do. * They pander to the wingnuts by stating it takes months to get an MRI in canada but fail to point out that private insurers in this country will outright not pay for an MRI. * They are 100 % compensated because all the doctors make sure the insurance will pay for the mri or cat scan.  If the insurance denies it, the patient just doesn't get their MRI. *  I am pointing out the rationing of MRIs in this country can be just as bad, but the radiologists don't see it because they have never had to beg an insurance to get one, we do..* 

Asking a radiologist about the state of denial of health insuranace for getting mris is a fallacious data harvesting.  They have never had to deal with it, on the other hand, ask every family doc, internist, general surgeon that orders the test.  They will tell you rationing by private insurance is rampant. 

Just letting you know why the radiologists as a whole are adverse to national health insurnace. *the irony, medicare, national health insrurance for the elderly has never denied a MRI I have ordered....*_ in other words, their fears are unfounded._


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 24, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> dont start your post with stupid assumptions.
> 
> just because you have a soap box against* radiologists* doesn't mean it benefits the conversation dealing with nationalized healthcare or not. im not sure how it relates.



It's called first hand experience.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 24, 2009)

Anyway cliff notes summary 





Under any system, any consumer good in demand is going to be rationed, whether by the government or by market forces.

 would you rather get shortchanged by the profit motive, or shortchanged in an effort to provide a level of healthcare for everyone of your fellow citizens?

 in both situations, of course, you'll have the option of supplementing basic coverage with more expensive private coverage. so what'll it be? healthcare for all, or profits for a few?

That is the primary question, to hell with all the other back and forth...


----------



## maniclion (Jun 24, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> Anyway cliff notes summary
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Under nationalized I thought the Hospitals would get a Budget and they could make the decision of how to ration everything.  I would rather have the institution who realizes the importance of certain medical procedures deciding than them having to see each procedure as a gamble because the Insurance company may or may not pay for it........


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 25, 2009)

No, what you are talking about is socialized medicine, medicare, a national health insurance for the elderly does not "give" a hospital x amount of dollars to ration for the year.  It will eventually ration by not allowing say $30,000 dollar defibrillators to be put in a 95 year old......



This is how private insurance "rations"



Health Insurance Insider: 'They Dump the Sick'

Retired Health Insurance Executive Blows the Whistle on His Former Industry

Frustrated Americans have long complained that their insurance companies valued the all-mighty buck over their health care. Today, a retired insurance executive confirmed their suspicions, arguing that the industry that once employed him regularly rips off its policyholders
.
"[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said during a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations." 

"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "…(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line." 

snip

ABC News - ABC News

As a business owner the real benefit in a national health insurance
 provides huge  economic benefits in terms of relieving the burden on employers, which promotes competitiveness. ( that is why I don't understand why small to medium business owners are against national health, providing health insurance is one of our biggest overheads).  Also promoting entrepreneurship since people aren't chained to their jobs due to fear of losing their health care


----------



## ZECH (Jun 25, 2009)

1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.


----------



## Chubby (Jun 25, 2009)

dg806 said:


> 1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
> 
> And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
> Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.


Well.. it looks like we are all screwed. There are robbers on both sides: on one side, these greedy corporations who take away every profit they make as bonus for themselves. On the other side, unemployed fake poors who are determined to live in welfare money.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 25, 2009)

As for illegals, we can do what costa rica does ( has universal health insurance only for citizens and foreigners pay a small monthly fee to join ).  Right now the illegals get free treatment under the EMTLA laws, and we all indirectly pay for it with higher premiums and the hospital jacks up the price of every service to recover the cost of treating the  uninsured.  ( the ten dollar asprins).  

wake up, we already are paying for the uninsured.

USATODAY.com - Study: Uninsured add $900 to premium cost for families



> *The problem affects everyone, most say, because the insured subsidize the cost of care given the uninsured*. Most economists agree that some amount of subsidizing occurs, but the question has been how much.
> 
> The study, prepared by Ken Thorpe, a professor at ...


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 25, 2009)

same as here, with out my OHIP card, fees are charged.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 25, 2009)

dg806 said:


> 1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
> 
> And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage. Your cost will at least quadruple. Then the problems come with waits and denial. With 300+million people in this country, there are simply not enough doctors to cover everything.
> Like Albob said, The US government will completely ruin this.........you expect them to run a business? They can't even keep their own affairs in order. If it is ever passed, our quality of life is over.



but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 25, 2009)

Prince said:


> but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?



yes,as an employer who purchases health insurance for my employees, a resounding yes...( according to humana part of my huge increase in premiums included covering the uninsured.)

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs



> Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. *Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.*



*Why on earth should employers continue to provide health insurance? *  It suppresses your wages , it contributes to my sky rocketing overhead,   If I wasn't in the business I'd ax this as a benefit and I would cut my overhead by a huge amount.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 25, 2009)

Prince said:


> but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?



So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 25, 2009)

Interesting take I heard last night on O'Reilly. 






YouTube Video


----------



## ZECH (Jun 25, 2009)

Prince said:


> but aren't we already paying for all of the uninsured?



Sure we are. But from what I've heard Obama wanting for everyone, I think it will get worse.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 25, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???



Isn't that exactly what you are saying about the current health care system?  I think we can all agree that our current system is fucked, 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills and 75% of those people are insured.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 25, 2009)

dg806 said:


> 1)Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
> 
> And this is the number one problem. You think healthcare is expensive now??? Wait until you have to pay for every non working person in the US, every illegal immigrant and every other person who does not pay on their own to have health coverage.



We already do that now, it pissed me off when immigrants and people on welfare have better coverage or an easier time getting one than I did.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 25, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> As for illegals, we can do what costa rica does ( has universal health insurance only for citizens and foreigners pay a small monthly fee to join ).  Right now the illegals get free treatment under the EMTLA laws, and we all indirectly pay for it with higher premiums and the hospital jacks up the price of every service to recover the cost of treating the  uninsured.  ( the ten dollar asprins).
> 
> wake up, we already are paying for the uninsured.
> 
> USATODAY.com - Study: Uninsured add $900 to premium cost for families



This.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 25, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> So, instead of seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed, you're suggesting we embrace it as the norm and make it BIGGER???



it seems to work in Canada, and the way it is here now is NOT working, the average worker's medical benefits SUCK, and as stated above employers are paying out the ass, so I guess the way I look at it is it can't get any worse when most of us that pay a high premium for health coverage yet still have to pay everything out of pocket.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 25, 2009)

Prince said:


> so this nationalized health care reform, would this mean I no longer have to pay out the ass for my insurance and prescriptions and maybe I will actually be able to use it?
> 
> our current health insurance sucks, we pay $200/month (family coverage) and have a $2400 annual deductible, so unless one of has surgery we pay 100% for everything all year, i.e. doctor visits, prescriptions, etc.



What you are really saying is you want someone else to pay for your expenses.

What a fucking novel concept.  Whats yours is mine, right?  If you get a publicly funded dermatology appointment, why can't I have a publicly funded motorcycle.  Lets all just dip our hands into the public treasury.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 25, 2009)

Prince said:


> it seems to work in Canada, and the way it is here now is NOT working, the average worker's medical benefits SUCK, and as stated above employers are paying out the ass, so I guess the way I look at it is it *can't get any worse* when most of us that pay a high premium for health coverage yet still have to pay everything out of pocket.



80% of Americans are happy with the quality of health care they receive.

Trust me, it can get much, much, much fucking worse.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 25, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> What you are really saying is you want someone else to pay for your expenses.
> 
> What a fucking novel concept.  Whats yours is mine, right?  If you get a publicly funded dermatology appointment, why can't I have a publicly funded motorcycle.  Lets all just dip our hands into the public treasury.



You know your unto something here.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 26, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> What you are really saying is you want someone else to pay for your expenses.
> 
> What a fucking novel concept.  Whats yours is mine, right?  If you get a publicly funded dermatology appointment, why can't I have a publicly funded motorcycle.  Lets all just dip our hands into the public treasury.



What about a publicly funded liberation of the Iraqi people?  I assume you have no problem with that.  No one is taking anything away from you, you already pay for people without health care and will be allowed to use your private insurance.  What we are talking about is a gov't policy to compete.

And I would love to hear the logic you use to go from publicly funded healthcare to a publicly funded motorcycle.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> You know your unto something here.



Meaning I want a free motorcycle.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 26, 2009)

We already have publicly funded food, publicly funded unemployment, publicly funded financial aid...What is it about publicly funded health care that will get the gov't saying, "Fuck it, you know what, let's give away motorcycles."?

What I would also like to know is how Prince, who has already said he pays for private insurance, is looking for a handout.   Obviously he sees a problem and is looking for a solution, he's not looking for a handout.  Even better, the problem affects him very little, if at all, and he is looking for a solution.  Hell, I didn't use my health insurance once last year and my premium went up $50, how the fuck is that just?  How is that a fluidly working system?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 26, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> What you are really saying is you want someone else to pay for your expenses.
> 
> What a fucking novel concept.  Whats yours is mine, right?  If you get a publicly funded dermatology appointment, why can't I have a publicly funded motorcycle.  Lets all just dip our hands into the public treasury.



Is that what I said? Of all the people and posts in here you quoted me, it seems that you just wanted to attack me personally, many others are saying the same thing I am in this thread.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 26, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> 80% of Americans are happy with the quality of health care they receive.
> 
> Trust me, it can get much, much, much fucking worse.



nice statistic, yeah I am sure that is 100% accurate. 

Built is Canadian and she seems to be happy with the health care they have.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 26, 2009)

Prince said:


> nice statistic, yeah I am sure that is 100% accurate.
> 
> Built is Canadian and she seems to be happy with the health care they have.



Ditto.

However I like that we are starting to see a two tier system happening, where if you have the money you can get looked at quicker.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 27, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> We already have publicly funded food, publicly funded unemployment, publicly funded financial aid...What is it about publicly funded health care that will get the gov't saying, "Fuck it, you know what, let's give away motorcycles."?



This logic has baffled me since time began.  Yeah, we're already paying for shit, so what?  That doesn't make it RIGHT.  It's exactly the same as another hot button issue; "The illegal aliens are already here so let's just go ahead and give them all the benefits of citizenship".  Sorry, in my mind that's moronic.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> Ditto.
> 
> However I like that we are starting to see a two tier system happening, where if you have the money you can get looked at quicker.



this right here i wish was more of a wake up call to the US.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> this right here i wish was more of a wake up call to the US.



Why?

No one is saying either system is perfect.

However, when medical care is bankrupting people, there is a serious problem


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> This logic has baffled me since time began.  .



I heard you were ancient but I always thought it was just a gag.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 28, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> Ditto.
> 
> However I like that we are starting to see a two tier system happening, where if you have the money you can get looked at quicker.



Isn't this what it is all about anyway. You have money, no problem. 
No money, you are screwed either way.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 28, 2009)

Prince said:


> nice statistic, yeah I am sure that is 100% accurate.
> 
> Built is Canadian and she seems to be happy with the health care they have.



We pay for everything now. Don't people realize that is why we are in this mess now, and looking for the government to fund everything? When will people realize this can't go on. It's got to get to a point where people pay for their own just like you do. And I also think employer based insurance needs to go private. Most pay high premiums anyway and could just as easily pay for private insurance. And for those who don't work, they won't have any. Sorry. Days of the free ride is over. Handicapped or really disabled people should be provided for, but not lazy people who want handouts.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 28, 2009)

dg806 said:


> Sorry. Days of the free ride is over. Handicapped or really disabled people should be provided for, but not lazy people who want handouts.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 29, 2009)

dg806 said:


> Isn't this what it is all about anyway. You have money, no problem.
> No money, you are screwed either way.




How are you screwed?

I can go to the Doc anytime.  Certain things have longer timelines.

I don't have to worry about insurance dropping me, cause I am too big of a liability.  Or ridiculous increases to my premium


----------



## maniclion (Jun 29, 2009)

dg806 said:


> Sorry. Days of the free ride is over. Handicapped or really disabled people should be provided for, but not lazy people who want handouts.


Are we really giving handouts to people just because they are lazy?


----------



## maniclion (Jun 29, 2009)

This Rubiks Cube thing is easier than that durn'd Health Care Issue, good luck with that one ObaOne The Chosen.....hehe, it's like the gift I left for you in the master turdlet.....


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 29, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Are we really giving handouts to people just because they are lazy?



Are you really saying you've never heard of welfare???  Obama's idea of healthcare is nothing more than an extension of that.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 29, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I heard you were ancient but I always thought it was just a gag.



Which is exactly why people should listen to me more.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 29, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> Are you really saying you've never heard of welfare???  Obama's idea of healthcare is nothing more than an extension of that.


A handful of individuals may take advantage of welfare programs, but many of the recipients are in need of it, not everyone in our nation can get a high paying job.  I've known people who should have been on welfare who were too proud to accept it (my father was one of them) then there are people with no shame in milking their welfare for all they can, even cranking out more children to stay eligible.  Some may say my cousin in Texas is just lazy because he has PTSD, and his family is receiving welfare, it's just shell shock right, thousands of men came back from WWII with it and went right into working normal jobs and taking care of their own families.  But back then men could make good wages doing low stress labor work, we had a lot of factories and other jobs that paid enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> This logic has baffled me since time began.  Yeah, we're already paying for shit, so what?  That doesn't make it RIGHT.  It's exactly the same as another hot button issue; "The illegal aliens are already here so let's just go ahead and give them all the benefits of citizenship".  Sorry, in my mind that's moronic.



That's not the logic at all.  The logic is that the system is broke, so the gov't needs to fix it.  With 60% of bankruptcies coming from med bills and 75% of those people having insurance, the system is obviously broken.  If we can liberate and bring democracy to Iraq, we can take care of our own.  What baffles me is that people are just stonewalling it even though there are obvious solutions.  BAW says her clinic would save a chunk on administrative costs and the gov't wouldn't profit off of it, so there is a huge chunk of change that can be passed on to the consumer.  What is wrong with a gov't plan that competes with the insurance companies or a 2-tier system.  This pro/con on the healthcare issue could not be any more down partisan lines.  You have the wack jobs on one side that want everything provided to them, then you have people on the other side who are adamantly against this "entitlement program" that haven't said word one about the $5 trillion we have spent on Iraq.  This doesn't have to be welfare, it can be something competitive with the insurance companies that everyone who uses pays in to, but instead it has to be either extreme so nothing gets done.    Of course some people are going to abuse the system, but that already happens and is one of the primary reasons premiums go up every year.  People who will be using this plan are people who pay taxes, but can't afford their premium going up 20% every year or the risk of being dropped for not being profitable.  The people who state the gov't can't run anything are correct in some respects, but more of an impediment to progress than anything else.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 30, 2009)

Albob doesn't care because he can always go get free health care at the VA......


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 30, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Albob doesn't care because he can always go get free health care at the VA......



It _is_ usually those that have it provided to them (Union workers, cops, firemen, military, politicians) that raise the biggest stink.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> It _is_ usually those that have it provided to them (Union workers, cops, firemen, military, politicians) that raise the biggest stink.



We have it now and I can honestly say it's way better than the crap we had before. 


Guess who pays for the Union workers, cops, firemen, military and politicians health care.....the tax payers do, but we do work for it at least.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> That's not the logic at all.  The logic is that the system is broke, so the gov't needs to fix it.




And that right there boys and girls is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.  

My view, as a conservative, is that the government can't fix shit.  Every single thing they stick their fingers in they fuck up.  The government needs to stay the hell out of healthcare because if they get involved they'll only make it worse.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Albob doesn't care because he can always go get free health care at the VA......



And I worked damn hard to EARN that so you can go fuck yourself with your righteous indignation.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> It _is_ usually those that have it provided to them (Union workers, cops, firemen, military, politicians) that raise the biggest stink.



And you're another one who can go fuck yourself.  It's isn't PROVIDED, it was EARNED.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And that right there boys and girls is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> My view, as a conservative, is that the government can't fix shit.  Every single thing they stick their fingers in they fuck up.  The government needs to stay the hell out of healthcare because if they get involved they'll only make it worse.



How well are the insurance companies running health care?

Are there any stats comparing how medicaid(gov plan) and the insurance run the health care?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And that right there boys and girls is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> My view, as a conservative, is that the government can't fix shit.  Every single thing they stick their fingers in they fuck up.  The government needs to stay the hell out of healthcare because if they get involved they'll only make it worse.



So, if it's broke, don't fix it?  I'm not a liberal or a conservative, but that is retarded no matter which side you are on.  Isn't that why the gov't is ineffective as it is?  I don't really agree with the assumption that the gov't is completely ineffective.  When I was a kid, my republican parents needed gov't assistance and they were too proud to take it until they absolutely needed it.  Without that shitty gov't cheese and the checks, my family would have starved.  Then, if I wasn't able to take out student loans and grants, I would have never gotten a Bachelor's degree and would be pumping gas for $5 an hour right now.  As a result of the "entitlement program food" my father had to use for 6 or so months, we lived on, my father has a fat gov't contract making over half a mill a year (I don't know what the taxes are on that, but the gov't got more than they put in on that entitlement program in taxes about 100 fold).  Almost $200k of it every year goes to Dr.'s bills that he was insured for but got dropped because they considered the rheumatic fever he had when he was 4 was a pre-existing condition.  They had no problem taking his money for 10 years before dropping him, and he didn't get a refund of that money.  So you tell me, if you were in that situation, would you just want the status quo?



ALBOB said:


> And I worked damn hard to EARN that so you can go fuck yourself with your righteous indignation.



You certainly earned it, but at the end of the day, you have a safety net few have, so your decision is easier.  People are already taking advantage of the system, and that's not going to change.  Those people are taken care of no matter what, why not give people who would benefit and pay into a program like that the option?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And you're another one who can go fuck yourself.  It's isn't PROVIDED, it was EARNED.



Shitty choice of wording, I apologize.  Of course I respect the sacrifice of our servicemen.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And I worked damn hard to EARN that so you can go fuck yourself with your righteous indignation.





ALBOB said:


> And you're another one who can go fuck yourself.  It's isn't PROVIDED, it was EARNED.



Why waste a valuble opportunity Albob, can't they just go fuck each other?


----------



## ZECH (Jun 30, 2009)

I think the main thing is this..........It's bad now and getting worse as far as expenses goes for the average person. The obama plan is unknown and that is what scares everyone. Is everyone willing to take the chance that things get double worse when this thing passes? I would like someone to explain to me how we can cover every illegal and everyone else right now that currently has no insurance (remember the liberals say that most americans don't have insurnce) without costing us more via premiums or tax increases. I don't think anyone can.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

Our plan was horrible, having 4 kids.

My hospital bills were astronomical, thank god we now have better coverage.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 30, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I think the main thing is this..........It's bad now and getting worse as far as expenses goes for the average person. The obama plan is unknown and that is what scares everyone. Is everyone willing to take the chance that things get double worse when this thing passes? I would like someone to explain to me how we can cover every illegal and everyone else right now that currently has no insurance (remember the liberals say that most americans don't have insurnce) without costing us more via premiums or tax increases. I don't think anyone can.



That's my thing, I agree that it will be difficult to figrue this out, but it needs to be figured out, and soon.  Do I believe this thing is going to get passed any time soon?  Nope, we can't afford it right now, but that doesn't mean we can't work towards it ASAP.  The same thing is going on with alternative fuels, we can't keep putting it off, we need to get away from our dependence on the middle east.  I find it hard to believe that we can make it to the moon, but we can't fix health care.  There are some smart mofos in this country.  Unfortunately, very few smart people  in politics, not to mention the pay offs from industry and such to prevent it from happening.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And you're another one who can go fuck yourself.  It's isn't PROVIDED, it was EARNED.


What about the rest of us doing our petty chores in the world to make the whole machine keep churning?  Shouldn't we be able to earn more than massive debt because we can't afford the inevitable?  We all get sick or have accidents right?  

   And lest you forget I was in the military I know about the earning of medical care, I know that many view the VA as a last resort to civilian medicine, but at least they have something to fall back on when the bills start to stack up.  I think every working American and their family should have a similar safety net.  

And for someone with so little faith in the government you sure did spend a lot of time in the service of them and gambling on their ability to fund you through old age......


----------



## Arnold (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And I worked damn hard to EARN that so you can go fuck yourself with your righteous indignation.



so just because you had a military career you have special rights that civilians don't? many people bust their asses for 30 years in this country and pay their taxes and get no "lifetime health care", why are you special?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 30, 2009)

*ALBOB,*

My dad is 66 years old, he has worked since he was 16 years old (full time since 18 without a break), he spent 4 years in the US Airforce, that is 50 year of paying taxes, he spent 25 years as a FIREMAN, HE SAVED MANY LIVES PULLING PEOPLE OUT OF FIRES, DID YOU? and you know what he gets now...$700 month from Social Security, so he still has to work full time at the age of 66, not just for money to live, but also for medical benefits, he can't use Medicaid because he works full time and has medical coverage. He wants to retire next year at 67 but does not see how he will be able to live, so I am sure he will be working full time until at least 70. On top of that he has chronic bronchitis from spending 25 years fighting fires and this year he was diagnosed with skin cancer, he has already had 4 operations to remove it. BUT he still works full time and does not ask for any handouts.

*EDIT:* he has not collected any SS yet, he would have to quit his day job, if he quits his day job he will get the $700/month from SS.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

They don't provide pensions for firefighteers in Denver?

At 66 he is lucky to have a job nowadays, years ago it was a little easier but most of the jobs a senior can do went overseas.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 30, 2009)

There's been a trend lately of laying off people who are a few years away from retirement which I think is very despicable or making changes in the company that make it nearly impossible to remain for those close to retirement.  My GF's work did something like that, she's in a union and senior members had the most lucrative shifts but then they closed the Restaurant where they were and now they have to start at the beginning to wait for someone to quit, get fired or die to get better positions again......some have had reductions of 60% of the income they had been making......


----------



## Arnold (Jun 30, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> They don't provide pensions for firefighters in Denver?
> 
> At 66 he is lucky to get a have nowadays, years ago it was a little easier but most of the jobs a senior can do went overseas.



yes, but his "pension" was money that was put away in an account managed by an investor that worked for his fire dept, once he retired he was given control of it, he left it with the same investor and was pretty conservative with it, but unfortunately he still lost quite a bit after the market crashed as most seniors did the past few years, so he does not draw much out of it...he is hoping that it will regain value in a few years so he can start drawing a decent amount of money from it, but it would only be about $30k per year AND it is taxed, not clear. However, I think the cancer will take him before he ever gets a chance to retire.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

Prince said:


> yes, but his "pension" was money that was put away in an account managed by an investor that worked for his fire dept, once he retired he was given control of it, he left it with the same investor and was pretty conservative with it, but unfortunately he still lost quite a bit after the market crashed as most seniors did the past few years, so he does not draw much out of it...he is hoping that it will regain value in a few years so he can start drawing a decent amount of money from it, but it would only be about $30k per year AND it is taxed, not clear. However, I think the cancer will take him before he ever gets a chance to retire.


That really sucks, a lot of people don't realize how much the stock market screwed seniors out of their money.

Taxed out of his money he earned unreal.
This is the reason many New yorkers in the past and present moved to the swamp...er I meant Florida. No state tax!


----------



## Arnold (Jun 30, 2009)

yup, and pensions are a thing of the past for most.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

Prince said:


> yup, and pensions are a thing of the past for most.



I worked at Motorola for 21 years...all I got was my 401k and half of it is gone...what little there was.

Now that we work for the State and City we can look forward to something when we retire.

20 years and nothing to show for it.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 30, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> At 66 he is lucky to have a job nowadays, years ago it was a little easier but most of the jobs a senior can do went overseas.



he works for Douglas County public schools making $15/hour helping the special ed kids, he has been doing this for almost 10 years, he gets summers off so he uses that time to work another full time job until school starts back up.


----------



## lola1182 (Jun 30, 2009)

done and done. our healthcare needs help..


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2009)

Health-Care Market Characterized By Consolidation, Not Competition




> But the notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.
> 
> The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2009)

First and foremost to Dale and Maniclion, I'm sorry.  As you can probably tell that's a very touchy subject for me, but that doesn't excuse me acting like an ass.  Please accept my appology.

To the OP, it's true I've never dealt with the issues of public healthcare and/or insurance for myself.  But that's not to say I'm completely ignorant on the subject.  I know very well how messed up the system is, having had to deal with it for over a decade with my father who fought a losing battle with cancer.  

Look, I know the system is broken.  It absolutely SUCKS.  But, as I said before, I don't think having the government run it is the answer.  When the government takes over costs go through the roof and quality goes through the floor.  

Should the government get involved?  Sure, I don't have a problem with that.  But I absolutely HATE the idea of the government running ANYTHING that involves healthcare.

And I'm kind of surprised at the number of people on here that like the idea and WHO those people are.  Tell me, how has the government handled the bodybuilding supplement industry?  And they're not even running it.  Is that what you want them to do with healthecare?


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 30, 2009)

Ohhh shit, now, I am a retired Marine. I didn't do 20 years, but I was retired due to my injuries acquired in combat in Iraq in 1991, but my injuries were critical, a 100%  retired  disability rating I have incurred. But I will never seek  medical advice from the VA. 

I, and eveyrone reading this message should realize this is not what you want, we are Americans, we are humans, we deserve the same medical treatment our elected officials have, why is this so hard to fathom ?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 30, 2009)

Perhaps you should look at the physicians for national health insurance web site.

Doctors,  who have the most to gain or lose by this have put some thought into it without all the rhetoric.

_ As a whole, we are a conservative group so when a *very conservative group starts to advocate something that seems non-conservative* it may mean we have looked at this issue upside and down and come to the conclusion that this will be best, in the end for most people._

Physicians for a National Health Program | Single Payer Resources



> Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, *but delivery of care remains largely private. *
> 
> ...... Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
> 
> ...



once again,not a single doctor on this website advocates socialized medicine, hence the bold type.  We are not going to be government employees like the docs in the VA system. 

 And remember, a majority of doctors are in favor of this as many recent polls show especially JAMA and the annals of medicine OpEdNews » Survey: Support for national health insurance grows among physicians.  I can gaurantee you that these majority are not democrats or liberals , majority docs are still republicans yet a majority advocates a single health insurance system.

by the way , the link I provide surveyed showed 55% of general surgeons advocated a national health insurance system, and they are some of the most politcally conservative group I know.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> But I absolutely HATE the idea of the government running ANYTHING that involves healthcare.




The FDA is such an entitiy, it is imperfect , but without it we would be selling contaminated copy cat inferior prescription medicines and have melamine tainted foods and contaminated heparin intravenous drugs that come out of a country like China which has taken a libertarian hands off approach to the regulation of foods and drugs.

Also, without federal tight regulation of medical  licenses anyone can hang up a shingle and claim to be a doctor and do surgery as they do in some  countries without ever having to go to medical school, residency or board certification.


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 30, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> Perhaps you should look at the physicians for national health insurance web site, doctors, who have the most to gain or lose by this have put some thought into it without all the rhetoric. As a whole we are a conservative group so when a very conservative group starts to advocate something that seems non-conservative it may mean we have looked at this issue upside and down and come to the conclusion that this will be best, in the end for most people.
> 
> Physicians for a National Health Program | Single Payer Resources
> 
> ...




Yes maam, this is all a game, and I for one am tired of playing this game. I've played by the rules for too many years now, a change must come. Isn't that what we elected Obama for ?

Money is the issue, money is the key.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 30, 2009)

I am afraid there may not be much change. The insurance companies have such a rich and powerful lobby.  Do the 45 million uninsured or the underinsured have a lobby?  No.

Realistically, a plan that does away with private health insurance is going to face intense opposition from the insurance and the for-profit health care industries. A plan that creates a huge government  program without private sector involvement also is not going to be popular up on capital hill.


In the end, my prediction is that Obama is currently  playing a brilliant game of poker, he is going to convince the insurance lobby that he will forge ahead with some public option that he will finally get private insurance to recind or "reform" some of their abusive practices like dropping a cancer patient newly diagnosed with cancer or financially devastating penalties for previous conditions etc etc.  In the end, we will hopefully achieve some insurance reform that is much needed in this country. That is my prediction.



.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 30, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> Should the government get involved?  Sure, I don't have a problem with that.  But I absolutely HATE the idea of the government running ANYTHING that involves healthcare.
> 
> And I'm kind of surprised at the number of people on here that like the idea and WHO those people are.  Tell me, how has the government handled the bodybuilding supplement industry?  And they're not even running it.  Is that what you want them to do with healthecare?


I favor gov. supported healthcare, not gov. run nor managed health care.  I've been the recipient of Gov. Medical service and I know the differences.


----------



## IronAddict (Jun 30, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> I am afraid there may not be much change. The insurance companies have such a rich and powerful lobby.  Do the 45 million uninsured or the underinsured have a lobby?  No.
> 
> Realistically, a plan that does away with private health insurance is going to face intense opposition from the insurance and the for-profit health care industries. A plan that creates a huge government  program without private sector involvement also is not going to be popular up on capital hill.
> 
> ...



I just feel smarter reading your posts!

Agreed. We've to make a change, this is the one constant !

In my life, I've never thought a black man as pres. 

That has transpired..

why stop there ?

National health care...we have models...?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 1, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> First and foremost to Dale and Maniclion, I'm sorry.  As you can probably tell that's a very touchy subject for me, but that doesn't excuse me acting like an ass.  Please accept my appology.
> 
> To the OP, it's true I've never dealt with the issues of public healthcare and/or insurance for myself.  But that's not to say I'm completely ignorant on the subject.  I know very well how messed up the system is, having had to deal with it for over a decade with my father who fought a losing battle with cancer.
> 
> ...



Good, then I rescind my previous apology and commence shunning you.


----------



## ALBOB (Jul 1, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> The FDA is such an entitiy, it is imperfect , but without it we would be selling contaminated copy cat inferior prescription medicines and have melamine tainted foods and contaminated heparin intravenous drugs that come out of a country like China which has taken a libertarian hands off approach to the regulation of foods and drugs.
> 
> Also, without federal tight regulation of medical  licenses anyone can hang up a shingle and claim to be a doctor and do surgery as they do in some  countries without ever having to go to medical school, residency or board certification.




I PARTLY disagree.  The FDA does do a good job of protecting us from dangerous/inferior producs, granted.  But they're also a roadblock to progress.  How many vital drugs have gone decades sitting on the FDA shelf waiting for approval while people who desperately needed those drugs died? 

It's ironic that you cite the FDA because they're a very good illustration of my exact point, who's going to monitor the monitor?  When the government takes over, who watches them?  The FDA is completely autonomous, they can do whatever they please and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  The EPA is another perfect example of this.


----------



## ALBOB (Jul 1, 2009)

maniclion said:


> I favor gov. supported healthcare, not gov. run nor managed health care.  I've been the recipient of Gov. Medical service and I know the differences.



Now we're starting to move toward the center and that's definitely something I can support. 

If the government moves in and helps those that can't help themselves, I don't have a problem with that.  But don't mess with those that CAN help themselves.


----------



## ALBOB (Jul 1, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Good, then I rescind my previous apology and commence shunning you.



I'm not seeing this as a negative.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jul 1, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> I PARTLY disagree.  The FDA does do a good job of protecting us from dangerous/inferior producs, granted.  But they're also a roadblock to progress.  How many vital drugs have gone decades sitting on the FDA shelf waiting for approval while people who desperately needed those drugs died?
> 
> It's ironic that you cite the FDA because they're a very good illustration of my exact point, who's going to monitor the monitor?  When the government takes over, who watches them?  The FDA is completely autonomous, they can do whatever they please and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  The EPA is another perfect example of this.



you asked for an example of a government run operation that wasn't completly screwed up. In a completely libertarian philosophy there would be no FDA, look at china.  That's all. 

 Yes, the FDA  is more conservative than its europen counterpart,  but that is due in part to the fear of approving problematic drugs in such a  toxic litiginous atmosphere against drug companies here vs europe and may prevent useful drugs from reaching the market at a much more expedient matter.  In europe , where the drug companies have a much freer reign, there have been numerous drugs that were freely available for prescription 5 years or earlier and post market analysis showed that they were highly dangerous. (ximelagatran, a  novel blood thinner comes to mind which caused fulminant liver failure, already being widely used in europe),  At the same time, europeans benefitted early from some useful drugs.

In europe, they see the novel new drugs earlier, but the general population play a greater part in being human guinea pigs.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jul 1, 2009)

In addition, *the general population has no idea what a failure the privatized medicare and medicaid plans are.*  Not a single doc in my county takes those plans, not because they don't pay us,* in fact they pay us more,* but the beaurocracy was so atrocious, we collectively decided that dealing with the lesser paying government plan was far better.  So I know how far worse things can be when private corporations try to run a government service.  

http://www.citizen.org/documents/pporeportfinal.pdf

Medicare Advantage Windfall Payments



> When lawmakers added private plans to Medicare, they claimed that such plans would save money and provide better care. Proponents of these plans, now called “Medicare Advantage” plans, argued that because they would foster “coordination of care” *and inject the “efficiency of the private market” into Medicare, *these plans would result in savings for taxpayers and better health care for beneficiaries. The truth is, these private plans have never saved money.* In fact, private Medicare Advantage plans now cost billions of dollars more than traditional Medicare—even though they may do little or no coordination of care.*



The upshot, the privatized industry is less efficient and more costly than basic government run medicare and medicaid.


----------



## min0 lee (Jul 1, 2009)

*Word has it he heal her with the wave of the hand.......*

With emotional hug of cancer patient, President Barack Obama pitches his health plan

WASHINGTON - President Obama played the comforter-in-chief Wednesday when a woman with kidney cancer, no insurance and little hope went looking for help at his health care summit.
Obama gave an emotional Debby Smith a hug and a promise, but she also may have given him a hand by making herself a living argument for his health reform.
"I'll try not to cry," Smith, 53, told Obama at a town hall-style forum in Northern Virginia, explaining how 11 years ago she skipped a more certain treatment for a kidney tumor so she could help her dying father.
She was left disabled, she said, and now has no job, no insurance and no Social Security.

With emotional hug of cancer patient, President Barack Obama pitches his health plan 

http://icanhashappy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/st-obama-of-assisi.jpg


----------



## ZECH (Jul 2, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> Yes, the FDA  is more conservative than its europen counterpart,  but that is due in part to the fear of approving problematic drugs in such a  toxic litiginous atmosphere against drug companies here vs europe and may prevent useful drugs from reaching the market at a much more expedient matter.



There is very little that the drug lobbiest do not get. There are too big and pay too much money to politicians. I'm sure some things get approved that shouldn't. Maybe not as much as Europe but............
Look at the role drug companies had in banning vitamin B (Biostratum claimed pyridoxamine a drug and the FDA granted it, basically giving them a monopoly on it)
Then they went after P5P. Nothing toxic with either form, they just wanted the right to it to make millions.
I'm sure people in the FDA get kickbacks from these things. Everyone in politics are crooked.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jul 2, 2009)

dg806 said:


> There is very little that the drug lobbiest do not get. There are too big and pay too much money to politicians. I'm sure some things get approved that shouldn't. Maybe not as much as Europe but............
> Look at the role drug companies had in banning vitamin B (Biostratum claimed pyridoxamine a drug and the FDA granted it, basically giving them a monopoly on it)
> Then they went after P5P. Nothing toxic with either form, they just wanted the right to it to make millions.
> I'm sure people in the FDA get kickbacks from these things. Everyone in politics are crooked.




So we should just have no regulatory agency at all and companies can inject melamine into their food supply, produce cheap tainted prescription drugs etc. as in China? A non -government privately run regulatory agency that ensures basic quality in foods and drugs would probably have more conflict of interests than the FDA.  It's about as much sense as privatly funded fire stations.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 2, 2009)

bandaidwoman said:


> So we should just have no regulatory agency at all and companies can inject melamine into their food supply, produce cheap tainted prescription drugs etc. as in China? A non -government privately run regulatory agency that ensures basic quality in foods and drugs would probably have more conflict of interests than the FDA.  It's about as much sense as privatly funded fire stations.



No, you get rid of lobbyist who pay big money to the FDA. There was nothing wrong with Vitamin B. No harm to the public existed. 
The FDA also needs to be stripped of some of their "absolute" power also. How that happens, I have no idea. 
How long has the FDA existed?? How did things run before that?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jul 2, 2009)

dg806 said:


> No, you get rid of lobbyist who pay big money to the FDA. There was nothing wrong with Vitamin B. No harm to the public existed.
> The FDA also needs to be stripped of some of their "absolute" power also. How that happens, I have no idea.
> How long has the FDA existed?? How did things run before that?



Look I dont agree with the FDA on everything either,  especailly when religious motivated politicians for the longest time prevented the FDA from letting the _day after pill _come out to prevent pregnancies after accidents.  the FDA is like our government, many negatives but comapred to every other regulatory agency in the world, ( or any other government system in the world) it keeps its citizens safe and is the best in the world.  Now I won't go into the FDA but until federal licenscing of physicians were mandated a doctor who had never performed surgery could declare himself a surgeon, ( probably in part why there was tremendous mortality in the days of old)

Now if you want me to bring up another government agency that suprasses any private owned operation its the NIH, also government funded, but all and I mean all physicians trust medical research funded by the NIH  more than drug or medical device company funded medical research.  The NIH, unlike private companies is the only agency that funds medical research for rare medical conditions that have such a low prevalence, drug companies know there is no profit providing a cure for those diseases.  They are also much freer of bias towards the product studied.

No one has come up with a good system to replace the NIH or the FDA.

What we do need is a regulatory agency that understands herbs and vitamins and to ensure quality control for the over the counter herbs like they do in germany. My past life as a chemist I used to extract compounds from many over the counter vitamins or herbs and found that a 1/3 did not have the drug in question or had dangerous contaminants like lead , aresenic, and one compund for weight loss had digitalis, which can cause heart block.  I don't favor the FDA taking over this duty since they just need to focus on prescription drugs.  The mindset for over the counter herbs has to be different, there won't be massive double blinded placebo control trials which cost exorbtant money and will make over the counters cost prohibitive.  But at least, good quality control chemistry to make sure the compound is pure and has what it states it has.


----------

