A good listen

[Four Suns]

You're referring to the senate bill, which has not passed, and is not the one I posted the link to. I think it'd be great if they agreed to sign up, will they? Probably not. They've already got the best health-care in the country - and you know what, under the proposal, they, just like you and me, can keep whatever coverage they have.

So... ummm... where do you get this dopey assumption that I can keep whatever healthcare insurance we have? Our health insurance provider is not a choice our family has... it's whatever my wife's employer chooses.. and if the "governement plan" is half the price for the employer, I know they will switch to it. My wife is a school teacher and the local government is broke so given the choice to whack this expense, it'll happen.

So where the hell is my "choice?". The employers make the choice... not the employees...

See... you have to be able to "connect the dots." It's not hard... really... They teach it in kindergarden... you drop out of school before that grade?

 

[kpetry]

Peter,
I read your posts. I appreciate your attempt to belay my fears regarding what our government is thinking of doing to healthcare. Unfortunately, it actually confirms them. Government involvement in my decisions for healthcare is extremely frightening to me. This is based on the government's long history of waste, fraud, abuse, innefficiency, and apathy to the individual.

What I see in these proposals is a green light for the government to take away my freedoms. Your assurances (or anyone else's) of the government's lack of bad intentions, or even good intentions is entirely unconvincing. You believe that makes people like myself ignorant or dupes for conservative rhetoric. Actually, it is just recognition of reality.
I didn't choose the reality, I just recognize it. The government is not competent enough or compassionate enough to handle my specific needs for healthcare, and it certainly does not have the money.

So you and I differ on the principle of government's involvement in healthcare. the specifics of the plan are irrevelant.

Think of it this way. Let's assume we are neighbors and a con man comes to each of our houses and offers to paint them. We agree. He takes our money and leaves without doing a thing. A year later that same con man comes back and offers to fix our roof. I say 'no' based on last year's episode. You say 'yes' based on his articulate explanation of how great of a job he will do and how lousy all the other roofers are. Then, you come to my house and criticize me for not taking the offer based on his great proposal. That's where we are, except I was compelled to agree to the painting. Otherwise, I would not have been ripped off at all.

+1!

 

[frankn88]

"They teach it in kindergarden... you drop out of school before that grade?"

Nope. You?

 

[Pseudomind]

You're referring to the senate bill, which has not passed, and is not the one I posted the link to. I think it'd be great if they agreed to sign up, will they? Probably not. They've already got the best health-care in the country - and you know what, under the proposal, they, just like you and me, can keep whatever coverage they have.
The point I'm trying to make here is, is that it's not helpful to just be spewing whatever fabrications you heard from Rush and Fred and whoever else yesterday and just trying to shut down the process completely. What does that accomplish? You really think the system we have now is so great? 40 million uninsured (or whatever the number is)? The USA is number 50 - F I F T Y on the list of life expectancy at birth. Just barely above CUBA! Canada, which everyone loves to say is socialized and just so scary and horrible, is number 8! France is 9. And no, I don't want to move to Canada or France right now, but not because of their health care systems.
It would just be nice to see people actually work TOWARD a solution, instead of just taking a knee-jerk reaction and slamming any possible effort because "it's the liberal agenda" or whatever. I'm not saying the bill I posted is the best possible solution, I'm sure it's not. I think the CO-OP idea sounds better than a public option. But you know what? I'm willing to let the people we voted for try and work it out because I DO BELIEVE that if given the chance they (either party for that matter) can come up with something that's far superior to what we have now. It's disappointing so many people, acting out of ignorance, are willing to just shut the whole process down because they've whipped into a frenzy by people who do not have their best interests at stake. It only hurts us (all of us).

Well I will just say this I have had to deal with the Veterans Administration (VA) for about 20 years, and until the Walter Reed fiasco hit the fan, It was basically non-service, maybe wait a year for a MRI scheduled appointment. So I do have some experience.

Waited three and one-half years just to hear the results of a VA appeal.

So to you and all others with your socialist ideas remember this, it did not work under communism either. Socialist medicine Baa Humbug!

The best answer I have ever heard is that no matter what type of gov-mint is used, "there will always be someone who has to shovel the sh!t and there will be someone to tell who to shovel the sh!t."

One problem is we have to many who just do not want to do anything or pay anything and our sorry excuse for legislative Branch kow-tow's to them for votes.

I prefer this, "if you don't work, you don't eat!"
:thumbsup:

 

[frankn88]

Pseudomind, thanks for expressing your opinion without resorting to insults. It's appreciated. I can certainly understand why you would be frustrated with "Government run health-care" based on your experience with the VA. As I stated before, I think the coop idea is better anyway.
So, if you're totally against (not saying you are, but that seems to be the prevailing opinion here) the bills being discussed, do you support any other ideas or do you think the current system is working wonderfully?

 

[skibum]

Insurance companies should not be allowed to make any decisions regarding the specifics of a patient's treatment. I have a huge problem with this. That being said, I think it would be 1000 times worse if the government did it...

Stop the insurance companies from practicing medicine. They should not be allowed to approve or deny any treatment. If
they are going to collect the premiums, they need to cough up the cash when treatment is needed. But in order for that to work, we need to lower the overall costs by getting the lawyers out of the loop. Doctors are doctors to make money (yeah, yeah, I hear people yelling "No... they are doctors so that they can help people", but I don't buy it.), the best incentive to provide quality service is to ensure that they have to provide good medical treatment in order to keep their license to practice. If a doctor is a "bad" doctor, stop allowing him to practice. Having a lawyer get 20 million for a client does not fix the problem, it simply helps that client. It doesn't do anything about getting a bad doctor out of the system.

The laywers should only be allowed to get involved after a panel of medical providers, teachers, and some "regular" people have determined that a doctor has been negligent or grossly incompetent.

Stop treating illegal immigrants. If they get hauled into an emergency room in a life or death situation, then by all means fix the problem at hand. For everything else, put them on a plane and take them back where they belong. As far as I am concerned, the paperwork that visitors to the US fill out when they get here entitles them to be treated in emergencies, and seen by any physician that they may choose to see while they are here as long as it is at their own expense. If they didn't fill in the paperwork on the way in, then they shouldn't be entitled to anything including public toilets. Every government agency that an illegal immigrant comes into contact with should be part of the deportation process. And do not misconstrue my intent. I am not racist (unless you are French) and have no other definition of "legal" other than the paperwork status.

 

[Pseudomind]

Stop the insurance companies from practicing medicine. They should not be allowed to approve or deny any treatment. If they are going to collect the premiums, they need to cough up the cash when treatment is needed. But in order for that to work, we need to lower the overall costs by getting the lawyers out of the loop. Doctors are doctors to make money (yeah, yeah, I hear people yelling "No... they are doctors so that they can help people", but I don't buy it.), the best incentive to provide quality service is to ensure that they have to provide good medical treatment in order to keep their license to practice. If a doctor is a "bad" doctor, stop allowing him to practice. Having a lawyer get 20 million for a client does not fix the problem, it simply helps that client. It doesn't do anything about getting a bad doctor out of the system.

The laywers should only be allowed to get involved after a panel of medical providers, teachers, and some "regular" people have determined that a doctor has been negligent or grossly incompetent.

Insurance companies should not be allowed to make any decisions regarding the specifics of a patient's treatment. I have a huge problem with this. That being said, I think it would be 1000 times worse if the government did it...

I agree with this also;

Insurance companies should not be allowed to make any decisions regarding the specifics of a patient's treatment. I have a huge problem with this. That being said, I think it would be 1000 times worse if the government did it..

I had a step daughter a few years ago who was diagnosed with bladder cancer, the option was to wear a urine collection bag for the rest of her life, but her doctor told her he could make a new bladder out of some intestine I believe i twas.

He did and she did not need to wear a collection bag, well when the bill came, payment was denied as it was considered by the insurance company as elective cosmetic surgery.

So I do not want Gov-mint Medicine, and I would like some changes to the present system, but something realistic and not something pushed through by a bunch of ignorant fools.

One place to start is to make every member of congress and the president have to use the same service as everyone else.

 

[wish2fish]

Pseudomind, thanks for expressing your opinion without resorting to insults. It's appreciated. I can certainly understand why you would be frustrated with "Government run health-care" based on your experience with the VA. As I stated before, I think the coop idea is better anyway.
So, if you're totally against (not saying you are, but that seems to be the prevailing opinion here) the bills being discussed, do you support any other ideas or do you think the current system is working wonderfully?

was there name calling in this thread? The closest was me stating I thought you might be Al Franken and that was because of you CSR user name being Frankn88. I don't think that is name calling!!!

 

[VTSeaRay]

Stop treating illegal immigrants. If they get hauled into an emergency room in a life or death situation, then by all means fix the problem at hand. For everything else, put them on a plane and take them back where they belong.

Use a bus, it's greener... :grin: and cheaper too... hell, stack 'em in trucks if there are a lot and send their a*es back home.

 

[skibum]

Oops... you're right. I was wrong. Silly me. :thumbsup:

 

[AndersonAcres]

A few reasons I'm not in favor of the government taking over healthcare:

1. the example of Quebec Canada -- Natasha Richardson dies of head injuries after a skiing accident. If there'd been an air ambulance availabe after her accident, she may still be alive. After the accident Quebec officials decided Quebec still didn't need air ambulances. Whether or not the air ambulance would have saved her life, should it be up to bureaucrats to make that decision of whether they're available or not?

2. Last summer in Oregon, lung cancer patient Barbara Wagner was notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan would however, she was informed, cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

3. Look at the successful (NOT) government preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina. It was a failure at all levels of government. Government controlled healthcare can't help but be the same.

4. Give me a flawed private healthcare system based on the profit motive any day. Price is the way scarce resources are rationed. If price isn't an issue with government healthcare, the scare resources still need rationing -- in that case the bureaucrats will do the rationing.

 

[fc3]

A few reasons I'm not in favor of the government taking over healthcare:

4. Give me a flawed private healthcare system based on the profit motive any day. Price is the way scarce resources are rationed. If price isn't an issue with government healthcare, the scare resources still need rationing -- in that case the bureaucrats will do the rationing.

An insurance company may deny a procedure or a claim. However, a doctor and the insured can often negotiate with the insurance company and work out some kind of arrangement. Or you can negotiate with the doctor, hospital, etc. Or you can try a place like Deborah for heart and lungs or St. Judes for children. On the other hand, try negotiating with the government. Anyone up for trying that with the IRS, for example? Social Security? How about just Motor Vehicles? That is the model I want for my health care system.

 

[wish2fish]

An insurance company may deny a procedure or a claim. However, a doctor and the insured can often negotiate with the insurance company and work out some kind of arrangement. Or you can negotiate with the doctor, hospital, etc. Or you can try a place like Deborah for heart and lungs or St. Judes for children. On the other hand, try negotiating with the government. Anyone up for trying that with the IRS, for example? Social Security? How about just Motor Vehicles? That is the model I want for my health care system.

An insurance company will fear a lawsuit but the government doesn't. Private insurance will often reject a procedure but it can usually be worked out in the long run.

 

[keokie]

And, you know, I never seem to see the government do anything out of "good faith". In the private sector pharma companies, device companies, doctors etc. will come together to help a patient. This actually happens in a very significant number of cases. Government just does not do this.

As I said in my earlier post, I am opposed to any kind of government takeover of the healthcare industry on principle. The founders of our nation made no promises of entitlements for good reasons. They knew entitlements discourage positive behavior, that it is immoral to take the labor from a man that works and give it to a man that will not, and that the government could not possibly deliver. The specifics of the bill mean nothing to me because I believe the attempt is wrongheaded and am confident the delivered product from our government would be crap (and over budget) to boot despite the promises of our politicians. Anyone care to wager against that?