| Author | Post |
|---|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 08:16 pm |
|
| Fred my man that is why judges have discretion to dismiss law suites. so BS ones dont get passed start
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
Except that some doctors in very high risk specialities are much more likely to get sued. OB/GYN is a perfect example, because when a baby is born with probelms, there is a lot of cost and there is a unjustified feeling that "someone has to pay". Now, the pay may be for a lifetime of care or years of specialized care that no one can afford, so often the insurance company or the patient sues the doctor hoping for at least an out of court settlement.
I do think there is too much regulation, but I don't want to simply remove it. We do need some regulation to make sure that everyone gets covered, but I do think some of the ones that prevent them from competing in certain areas should be removed.
IO...some interesting ideas, and they work for some, and I think some of them should be incorporated...but they all are based on the belief that there is a plan available for the individual, or that it could be made affordable.
I like the idea of medical savings accounts, but my company offers them. Since we have fairly decent health care, they are rarely used, OR are used for what I call vanity procedures like Radial Keratonomy. If I am barely making ends meet, I do not know that I can afford to put the money there...but it will help some.
|
Zymergy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
I always found it interesting that when I get a ins. statement it says what the test (insert any test you want) cost, and this is what the ins. company paid. So if the insurance company only has to pay this amount then are those without ins. being charged the higher fee, and why? People without insurance generally don't have the money to get insurance so why are they charged a higher fee? Does say Blue Cross get lower fee than say Aetna? Why isn't everyone paying the same amount?
It is the things like this that make health care and insurance the nightmare it is today.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
| It seems to me that if we got rid of some of the over regulation and the HMO's it would restore true competition in the medical fields. then we force the doctors to police themselves instead of letting them go from state to state after theyve been sued for malpractice. they simply pass on the cost of the malpractice insurance to the paitent. If we set it up so they only get to malpractice once then the insurance companies should drop their prices
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: Is not the root cause of this issue medical costs?
so how do we lower medical cost?
Now Ben
If we try to lower the cost , we will have a lot of clerical staff and expert medical form analysts out of jobs. (you wouldn't want that would you ? ) heh heh heh
You know the people who by past med school so they can say no to the Physician's bills and they have to resend them . Making their staff work longer hours , costing
the physician more money and time , that brings the cost back to the patient and others.
You might want to check, if you are billed direct some doc give a break if it comes out of pocket , but if a insurance company is involve some how the cost is three times as high
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 06:26 pm by Helen here
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 05:55 pm |
|
I previously posted Obama's health care plan. Here is another perspective.
The President's Proposals for Health Security in the World's Best Health Care System I. PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE THROUGH COVERAGE THAT YOU CHOOSE
The President believes that we should trust patients, working with health care professionals, to decide which treatment is best for them. Everyone should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at a price they can afford. When people have good choices, health plans have to compete for their business - which means higher quality and better care. Many Americans enjoy access to good choices in employer-sponsored health care plans, but many others do not have good coverage options or are in danger of losing them. The President proposes to address this problem through over $117 billion in initiatives to make good health care coverage more available and affordable, as well as initiatives to improve the options available to people enrolled in the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs.
II. IMPROVING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BY CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ENCOURAGES AND REWARDS QUALITY
III. EFFECTIVE SUPPORT TO STRENGTHEN THE HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET AND INCREASE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
The President's proposals for improving health care coverage options will make health insurance affordable for millions of Americans, and will provide better and more up-to-date coverage options for many millions more. But the President believes that we must also improve access to preventive and primary care for Americans who are not insured. Additionally, many of our nation's uninsured or medically underserved live in rural areas or inner city neighborhoods where there is a shortage of physicians and other health care providers. Strengthening the health care safety net is a necessary part of improving American's access to care, and to helping our health care system focus on preventing disease rather than treating avoidable complications. The President has proposed major initiatives to strengthen the health care safety net. Public Health Education
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
Is not the root cause of this issue medical costs?
so how do we lower medical cost?
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 05:07 pm |
|
Sorry I hit a sore spot
I'm seeing a flash back of Hilary Care in Obama's plan.
"I plan this and that " and I will ensure that all " Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A00E7DE1E38F93BA25757C0A9629C8B63
It's the same thing year after year , No Change for the good yet !
Unbroken promises for years.
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 05:14 pm by Helen here
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
Helen here wrote: heh heh heh
to deviated from
Racism from me , where ?
Resentment maybe , I resent the fact that people who don't need will take.
Oh! does that mean you are digressing from the health care problem in hand ?
What does anything you have said have to do with whether or not we need some form of national health care, including a single payer system? A single payer system would eliminate the very things you are complaining about.
Ignorance is not a virtue.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
heh heh heh
to deviated from
Racism from me , where ?
Resentment maybe , I resent the fact that people who don't need will take.
Oh! does that mean you are digressing from the health care problem in hand ?
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:41 pm by Helen here
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
A single payer system, done properly, would provide universal healthcare, cost less than we are currently spending, and eliminate all of the programs such as medicare, medicaid, etc.
We would all benefit from it. Those without insurance and those currently with insurance.
Maybe we could try to discuss this in these terms as opposed to a descent into racism and resentment. If you regard "digress" as a difficult word, maybe you should forgo adult conversation.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
Oh Fred dear
There more students then you think on the heath care programs , as long as you are in school and get a free ride for your education . And you show they have low income ( making less then so ans so ) and are a student at DSU . You get free health care from Delaware.
Where i work , I have seen more then I should care to think.
Many actually brag about not having to pay , for the same things I have to! cause the government is supporting them, and they won't have to pay it back.
Free money if you will , free to them not you and me and that 80 year old that worked all of their life to be in a run down home depending on kind ness of others for their next meal.
Or that father and mother who both are working to make ends meet until the next check and hope neither one of them get hurt or they lose every thing.
Now Ben
You are correct at a point . As Fred stated it's like a mine field, but that is what i was getting from oop! . Government stupidity , only one of the exploding factors
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:45 pm by Helen here
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
Fred wrote: If I am not mistaken, DSU charges a health care fee for their services, so Terrance is right that it is a digression.
Helen...sorry, but "government stupidity" is not a good reason...you could blame all of our problems on that, for all the good it would do.
I know this is difficult to focus on identifying the problem....one of the preceipts of the decision making process the military uses specifically states that it is the most difficult one because people want to solve or dismiss solutions before they know the full extent of the problem.
Do you think we should do more (be that tax credits, subsidized insurance, or some other means) to get more people insured?
Problem solving 101.
1. Identify the root cause
2. Work to fix the root cause problem
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:07 pm |
|
If I am not mistaken, DSU charges a health care fee for their services, so Terrance is right that it is a digression.
Helen...sorry, but "government stupidity" is not a good reason...you could blame all of our problems on that, for all the good it would do.
I know this is difficult to focus on identifying the problem....one of the preceipts of the decision making process the military uses specifically states that it is the most difficult one because people want to solve or dismiss solutions before they know the full extent of the problem.
Do you think we should do more (be that tax credits, subsidized insurance, or some other means) to get more people insured?
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I think you have to start with identifying the problem, which is a minefield in and of itself.
Can we start with the basic assumption that our health care system, for those who have access to it and can afford it, is adequate?
Can we also agree that costs are high, but those who have adequate insurance are generally insulated from much of this? I know when I looked at an emergency care bill I was shocked at how much it costs. It was covered, so it "didn't matter", but is should.
Can we also then agree that the high cost of health care for a variety of reasons is freezing some people from getting adequate care or insurance?
I'm deliberately avoiding placing blame or trying to jump immediately to "the problem" or to solutions...I'd would like to think we could first agree on what the questions are at least before we start trumpeting what the solution is.
T
That's a big boy word "digress "
Looks to me, oops was identifying one of the problems.
Governmental stupidity.
Giving out to much to the wrong people !
And yes you can judge who the wrong people are ? All deserve to have health care , but many are taking advantage of the system. And the keepers are letting them. In fact in some cases showing them how.
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:01 pm by Helen here
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
oop! wrote: Well
Delaware does have free Health care , the problem is you have to make less then 800.00 per month to receive it. 801.00 is to much you get cut off.
But then there's food and gas ( housing you have to pay ) and utilities. You must at least make 5,000 a month for a single person to survive, unless you share cost with a family member , friend or paramour.
People at times are force to tell lies about who if any are helping them to keep the health plans .
Some seniors are only getting 10 per month food stamps while the drug dealing thugs and there families receive 100s more , Senior health care should be equal to all .
I see the DSU kids getting more the the seniors from the state and Federal government. 97% of these kids are well able bodied people who need to be pulling their on weight
And now we digress.
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
Well
Delaware does have free Health care , the problem is you have to make less then 800.00 per month to receive it. 801.00 is to much you get cut off.
But then there's food and gas ( housing you have to pay ) and utilities. You must at least make 5,000 a month for a single person to survive, unless you share cost with a family member , friend or paramour.
People at times are force to tell lies about who if any are helping them to keep the health plans .
Some seniors are only getting 10 per month food stamps while the drug dealing thugs and there families receive 100s more , Senior health care should be equal to all .
I see the DSU kids getting more the the seniors from the state and Federal government. 97% of these kids are well able bodied people who need to be pulling their on weight
Last edited on Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:27 pm by oop!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
Here are some links that provide information about single payer health care:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=1
http://covertheuninsured.org/
http://youngphillypolitics.com/topics/single_payer_health_insurance
http://cthealth.server101.com/solving_the_problem_of_the_uninsured.htm
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 01:56 pm |
|
Call me old school, but I really think we have to agree on what the problems are rather then simply saying "we have problems" because someone can then tear down any and all changes for one reason or the other.
For instance....do you agree or disagree that we would be better off if we had more people who had insurance? I am not saying where it comes from, just the simple question. The analogy to car insurance is apt, except that you don't have to have a car so you don't have to have insurance. However, I think we would be better off if more people were covered so they would have some basic coverage that might prevent minor issues from becoming major.
Once we agree (assuming we do), then we need to figure out how to get more people on a plan....making it cheaper would be a start, and getting more people insured to spread the risk might be one way. Tax credits might work, where you get to deduct OR you get the tax credit up front to pay your health insurance might be one that is market driven.
My point is that you contribute nothing by screaming "socialist" at any and all proposals. There are other options out there that might help; I think, however, that we need some sort of safety net, but I am more then willing to be proven wrong.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
Fred wrote: However, Bix...you are still ignoring the basic question I have proposed directly to you.
Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
Sorry Fred. I must have missed it. Yes, I do agree that the problems are genuine. I too do not see any specific solutions posted yet, therefore nothing to support or attack. However, I would rather have a free market approach than a government approach. Other than an Obama plan, I have not seen any specific plan posted by conservatives, Republicans, or anyone else.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
Fred wrote: You don't think we "ration" care? Of course we do....if you can afford it, you get it, and the more you can afford, the better care you get. If you can't afford it, you don't get it...We've got old people who have a ration of half of the blood pressure or cholestrol medicine because they can't afford it.
I would argue that there is no single "European" system. People go from England to France because of their better health care system. There system is one where the sicker you are, the more the government does for you, so I guess they ration care too, right? Their system isn't perfect; no single system is. Obama has some ideas, and it is good to see someone actually posting what Obama's position is rather then what they think it might be.
However, Bix...you are still ignoring the basic question I have proposed directly to you.
Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
You are trying to reason with an ideologue. The man's mind is closed. He can't distinguish between different systems in different places. They're all socialist to him.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
You don't think we "ration" care? Of course we do....if you can afford it, you get it, and the more you can afford, the better care you get. If you can't afford it, you don't get it...We've got old people who have a ration of half of the blood pressure or cholestrol medicine because they can't afford it.
I would argue that there is no single "European" system. People go from England to France because of their better health care system. There system is one where the sicker you are, the more the government does for you, so I guess they ration care too, right? Their system isn't perfect; no single system is. Obama has some ideas, and it is good to see someone actually posting what Obama's position is rather then what they think it might be.
However, Bix...you are still ignoring the basic question I have proposed directly to you.
Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: WTF is an epiphanie?
A sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Getting back to health care...Ben, you are right. There are systems that work, or, more accurately, there are parts of some systems that work better then others. Our system has it's advantages...who says we have to give them all up? Who says we have to take Canada's system, lock, stock and barrel? The UK's system has it's flaws...who says we have to have them? France's system is considered the best in the world, but it certainly can be improved on....why can't we have the best health care system for EVERY American?
There's no reason we can't. The problem is that we are a majority rule system and you need to educate and convince the majority. It would be nice if you could do that through discussion, analysis, and the presentation of facts, but here, we have to contend with the ideological fools who like to muddy up all public discussion.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:31 pm |
|
Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System
Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.
Fight for New Initiatives
Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.
Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.
More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
You might gripe about my use of the term “socialist” but that’s what it is. The Canadian and European systems remain socialist, or -- to use modern American liberals' euphemism -- "single-payer." The government pays, and the patient waits and waits. This is a point that never is mentioned by Democrats, most notably the Obama supporters. Liberal Democrats (like John Conyers) argue that health care costs are relatively low in Europe and quality care is superb -- another government-run miracle. They don't do miracles. How is European medical costs kept low? They do it through rationing care to the sick. That's an unacceptable way to control costs. Health care officials in Britain found out that patients were hanging out in emergency rooms for days before being treated. Understandably, health officials hit the roof. The top gun bureaucrats “magisterially ordered that emergency room patients be treated within four hours. Hundreds of "seriously ill patients" simply were kept longer in ambulances before being admitted to the emergency rooms. Hence, there were fewer ambulances available for subsequent emergencies” (London Daily Mail)
The consequence of socialized medicine is "rationing."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 06:33 pm |
|
You are probably right, on all counts. I like to think that one can win over people, eventually. Not all of them, perhaps, but I look at global warming, Iraq, oil, conservation,health care, racism, sexism and homophobia and I see progress. I see some here railing against the change, holding on to their past beliefs like Maybe not as much as I would like, but it certainly is better than it was in the past on all of these.
I am convinced we'll win, because we are right. They can quibble on semantics, or they can gleefully post an out of touch Jesse's comments or invoke the names of Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy, but it doesn't matter...which, I guess, shows they are out of touch as Jesse, if that is the best they can do.
I don't really think I am that liberal, but if that is what people think I am (my dad does)...I wear it proudly.
Getting back to health care...Ben, you are right. There are systems that work, or, more accurately, there are parts of some systems that work better then others. Our system has it's advantages...who says we have to give them all up? Who says we have to take Canada's system, lock, stock and barrel? The UK's system has it's flaws...who says we have to have them? France's system is considered the best in the world, but it certainly can be improved on....why can't we have the best health care system for EVERY American?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 06:27 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Fred wrote: Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
I've decided that you're a missionary and this blog is your mission. You can't get blood from a stone and ideologues seldom have epiphanies.
WTF is an epiphanie?
Logic would dictate that if we have so many systems around the world that someone could come up with one that works. Of course the HMO's are not going to like the decrease in their massive profits. And how will those poor doctors afford that summer home in conneticut?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 05:04 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
I've decided that you're a missionary and this blog is your mission. You can't get blood from a stone and ideologues seldom have epiphanies.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
| Bix...do you at least agree that the problems listed are genuine, or if there are others? I'm not interested in promoting or attacking specific solutions quite yet. What I hope that we would find and agree is that each of the various programs or solutions has it's pluses and minuses.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 03:38 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: So you think the answer is a single-payer health system? Most people cite Canada. You can see that the single payer health care systems in some of the Canadian provinces are not exactly the same but there are differences depending which province you are in. The one thing in common is that the government “pays” and you are strictly regulated. Generally, there is the major complaint of rationing and wait times to see specialists. It’s like having an HMO here in the States. I can cite the case of a woman who, with her state provided health care plan that gave her a wait time of four months to see a neurologist and six months to see an endocrinologist. Unable to get an expedited appointment, and with her eyesight worsening, Robertson-Holmes called the Mayo Clinic in Arizona and went in for tests and a diagnosis within a week. The doctors there told her she had a four-to-six-week window to have a marble-sized tumor on her pituitary gland removed before her vision loss would be irreversible. So she went home with the diagnosis but she was still unable to get the surgery. Three weeks later, she came back to Mayo for brain surgery. This is not uncommon for a single-payer (government) universal health care system.
Americans who support universal single-payer systems have a false idea of what a single payer universal system is like in Canada. Those misconceptions include a belief that the system is free, when in fact Canadians are heavily taxed to support it. They think that there is timely access to care when trying to access any part of the Canadian health care system. They think it resembles waiting for treatment in an American emergency room. It does not because in Canada there’s no choice but to wait, because it’s illegal to seek private care.
It’s very dangerous and dishonest to promote a socialized medicine system like Canada’s or even Europe’s, especially at a time when we’re having a national election and health care reform is at the top of the national agenda. Those systems are slowly coming around to a fee-for-service method because the current systems are inadequate and cumbersome. We don’t need a Canadian or European style system. We need to create a uniquely American, 21st century model for health care and not adopt another country’s model that’s broken. In Canada, you’re fighting just to get basic treatment and care.
Click here for more information: BigGovHealth.org
Like I say, some people can't help immdeiately dropping the "socialism" word. If you wish to discuss national health care systems based upon annectdotal information, good luck. I was not advocating a Canadian system. I was talking about a single payer system. I assume we could design one for our country.
We are all paying big bucks for health care now. A single payer system could actually save some of those bucks if it were done properly. There is also nothing inherent in a single payer system that would require delays in treatment.
This should not be an ideological discussion. You probably can't help yourself. You are all about ideology as opposed to practicality, quality and economy. Those are the relevant issues.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 03:15 pm |
|
So you think the answer is a single-payer health system? Most people cite Canada. You can see that the single payer health care systems in some of the Canadian provinces are not exactly the same but there are differences depending which province you are in. The one thing in common is that the government “pays” and you are strictly regulated. Generally, there is the major complaint of rationing and wait times to see specialists. It’s like having an HMO here in the States. I can cite the case of a woman who, with her state provided health care plan that gave her a wait time of four months to see a neurologist and six months to see an endocrinologist. Unable to get an expedited appointment, and with her eyesight worsening, Robertson-Holmes called the Mayo Clinic in Arizona and went in for tests and a diagnosis within a week. The doctors there told her she had a four-to-six-week window to have a marble-sized tumor on her pituitary gland removed before her vision loss would be irreversible. So she went home with the diagnosis but she was still unable to get the surgery. Three weeks later, she came back to Mayo for brain surgery. This is not uncommon for a single-payer (government) universal health care system.
Americans who support universal single-payer systems have a false idea of what a single payer universal system is like in Canada. Those misconceptions include a belief that the system is free, when in fact Canadians are heavily taxed to support it. They think that there is timely access to care when trying to access any part of the Canadian health care system. They think it resembles waiting for treatment in an American emergency room. It does not because in Canada there’s no choice but to wait, because it’s illegal to seek private care.
It’s very dangerous and dishonest to promote a socialized medicine system like Canada’s or even Europe’s, especially at a time when we’re having a national election and health care reform is at the top of the national agenda. Those systems are slowly coming around to a fee-for-service method because the current systems are inadequate and cumbersome. We don’t need a Canadian or European style system. We need to create a uniquely American, 21st century model for health care and not adopt another country’s model that’s broken. In Canada, you’re fighting just to get basic treatment and care.
Click here for more information: BigGovHealth.org
Last edited on Thu Jul 10th, 2008 03:18 pm by Bixby
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 01:48 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I think you have to start with identifying the problem, which is a minefield in and of itself.
Can we start with the basic assumption that our health care system, for those who have access to it and can afford it, is adequate?
Can we also agree that costs are high, but those who have adequate insurance are generally insulated from much of this? I know when I looked at an emergency care bill I was shocked at how much it costs. It was covered, so it "didn't matter", but is should.
Can we also then agree that the high cost of health care for a variety of reasons is freezing some people from getting adequate care or insurance?
I'm deliberately avoiding placing blame or trying to jump immediately to "the problem" or to solutions...I'd would like to think we could first agree on what the questions are at least before we start trumpeting what the solution is.
I agree with all of what you said.
In addition, I believe there is a fundamental problem when someone with health insurance is not only covered, but the provider accepts a fraction of what was originally billed. That same provider, when dealing with someone without health insurance will bill the entire amount and expect to be paid.
Ecample: You have HI. You go to the hospital. You are billed $50,000. The HI reimburses the hospital $20,000 and that's it. Someone without HI is expected to pay the full amount and will go on a life long payment plan with the hospital.
Then there's the issue of 2 people with HI ultimately paying different amounts because of one or more of the following: agreement between the HI and the provider; copay; detuctible.
Then of course there is the issue of someone without HI being denied treatment or dumped from treatment prematurely.
I don't know how anyone can justify such a system.
The health insurance industry is a problem in and of itself. I beleive there is an inherent contradiction between the concept of a private, for profit health insurance industry and quality health care.
I'll stop here. This is a very meager start.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 01:35 pm |
|
I think you have to start with identifying the problem, which is a minefield in and of itself.
Can we start with the basic assumption that our health care system, for those who have access to it and can afford it, is adequate?
Can we also agree that costs are high, but those who have adequate insurance are generally insulated from much of this? I know when I looked at an emergency care bill I was shocked at how much it costs. It was covered, so it "didn't matter", but is should.
Can we also then agree that the high cost of health care for a variety of reasons is freezing some people from getting adequate care or insurance?
I'm deliberately avoiding placing blame or trying to jump immediately to "the problem" or to solutions...I'd would like to think we could first agree on what the questions are at least before we start trumpeting what the solution is.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:27 am |
|
There is a difference between a single payer health care system and mandatory health insurance. Universal health care is not mandatory insurance. We have mandatory car insurance and it is neither a single payer system nor a universal one.
It would be nice if people could discuss health care issues without screaming "socialism". It would be even better if those who oppose virtually everything suggest something that would improve on the present situation.
I make no bones about it, I'm in favor of a single payer system. None of this years crop of candidates for the presidency came anywhere close to suggesting a single payer system.
|
Current time is 03:05 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|