Government Healthcare

[retdetsgt]

To clarify this point, I've never advocated a Revolution on any level. My hope would be for individual States to take it upon themselves in their own legislative processes to disallow complete subjugation of their citizens.

I never thought you did. But I don't believe the individual states have the ability to take it back. Resolutions are meaningless. The only possible way they can get back any autonomy at all is to quit accepting ANY federal money for anything. That and the 14th Amendment are the two hooks that the feds have.

[retdetsgt]

That is one of the biggest problems of Medical Health-Care. Back in the Thirties, people would retire at 64, live in a pension and die at 70. With the increase of technology in the Medical field, people are living up until 110 today. It takes up a lot of money in Medical, a lot of which the State needs to eat up since they're on their pension.

Back in the 30's, few, if any people had pensions. Social Security wasn't even enacted until 1935. And until well after WWII, the pensions available were pretty scant. It wasn't uncommon for people to work until they physically couldn't anymore and then they were taken care of by relatives. Also, we were in a depression and there was no such thing as medical insurance to speak of. It was a totally different world back then.

And maybe one in a billion people reach 110, if that. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63.9, today it's 77.8.

You are correct in that there is more medical technology available to purchase than there was before.

From what I was taught and understand, technically, each state is supposed to Operate like it's own country in some ways, with the Central Government unifying them for protection purposes. Each state even had its own currency early on! State laws are supposed to override Federal laws, but with even the Feds raiding California Medical Dispenseries, so even then, you don't see Central Government listen to State requests much.

Where did you go to school? Why do you think appeals go up from the state courts to the federal????? What you may be talking about is the Articles of Confederation that was aborted because it didn't work and the Constitution was enacted.

[retdetsgt]

IMO, we need a serious change. Harvard did a study and found that in 2007, 62% of all bankruptcies were linked to medical problems. Out of that number, 78% had medical insurance at the start of the illness.

No doubt it played a part, but the study doesn't take into account which people were up to their asses in debt before they had a medical problem. This was also done about the time people were losing their houses because they bought more than they could afford and had thousands of dollars of credit card debt. I think there's more to the story than what Harvard is saying. It's just PC to say it's all because of medical problems, but but too many people have been living on the brink of bankruptcy anyway for years. It's doesn't take much of a medical emergency to push them over the edge and then blame it on just that. I'd like to see a lot better and more open study done before I buy much of that.

I agree, pre existing conditions are a problem and may have to be addressed by government.

If I lost my job due to a sickness such as cancer, or some other serious injury, I would lose my benefits and would have to pay the full amount of the premiums (called a COBRA). Work it out, that would mean I would have to pay over a $1000.00 a month for a family plan.

Which is why I paid for disability insurance when I was working. It didn't cost that much a month and protected me from the above scenario. But even at that, I would be covered by Medicaid. My first wife got MS at the age of about 35. By 50, she couldn't work. The government has been taking care of her ever since so the crap about you die just because you're without medical insurance in this country is bull****. She's gotten the best of care from leading doctors in the area for years and it hasn't cost her a dime.

I'm not about to say our system can't be improved, but I think we need to tread much more lightly than Obama and company are doing. If you work for the federal government, you of all people should be able to see how inefficient it is in getting value out of their (our) money. You may not applaud Obama so much when inflation is double digit and so are interest rates. That's exactly what happened when LBJ wanted to provide a federal "safety net" in the 60's..

[1depd]

IMO, we need a serious change. Harvard did a study and found that in 2007, 62% of all bankruptcies were linked to medical problems. Out of that number, 78% had medical insurance at the start of the illness.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy - BusinessWeek

Beside hearing the horror stories from my colleagues in the health industry, I have seen it the flaws in our system. I know a couple where the husband (early 30's) is diagnosed with cancer. Though he is insured, he has to pay out of pocket $600 per pill in reference to the Chemo treatment. They are dead broke and if things dont turn around, may have to join the many other Americans who are facing bankruptcy from their medical bills.

I know another officer who is on disability in a work related injury. Fortunately he is medically covered for life by the City, but in order to get coverage for his family, he would have to shell out nearly $1100.00 for his family. He was forced to drop his wife from coverage.

For you non-Americans, the way the system works (on most accounts) is your employer provides healthcare while you are employed. Normally the employer pays a percentage of the health premiums. Pricing is dependant if your single or family and the type of plan you want. I work for the Federal Govt, so my employer pays 72% of my premiums (as of 2005). The other 28% is taken out of my paycheck. For a family plan, I pay over $130 a paycheck, or $260.00 a month. If I lost my job due to a sickness such as cancer, or some other serious injury, I would lose my benefits and would have to pay the full amount of the premiums (called a COBRA). Work it out, that would mean I would have to pay over a $1000.00 a month for a family plan.

God forbid you have a pre-existing condition prior to getting health insurance. The insurance company does not and probably will not insure you or will charge you an outrageous premium. Again the Private Health Industry is a business mode for-profit organization.

Most if not every American is one sickness away from Bankruptcy. That why I support the current administration role in tackling this important issue.

I hope that the powers that be look into the way other countries provide for their people and the U.S. can take back the plans that work and attempt to change the current system that is now in place.

There are several statements that can easily be misconstrued in your dissertation. You pay quite a bit for your health insurance. I also work for the feds, but I only pay $100 per pay check for family coverage. The G only pays another $300 or so. It is a decent policy and covers pretty much anything I could possibly need. Even if the feds didn't pay their share it is still much cheaper than my last agency for family coverage. While a private health insurance policy can preclude a person from obtaining insurance due to preexisting conditions, a group policy such as those offered by employment cannot as long as there is no meaningful gap (I think it's >90 days) in coverage. It is one of the things guaranteed by the federal HIPAA laws. Even if the policy excludes a preexisting condition it is only for a limited amount of time, normally a year, then coverage begins.

I do agree that most people in America are one sickness away from bankruptcy, but they are also one disabled car/flooded house/death/job loss away from bankruptcy. In truth and to be fair most people live way outside their means. Living paycheck to paycheck is the American way of life. It is not a good way of life. If anything goes wrong, it's off to the bankruptcy court. We do not have a health care crisis in this country we have a savings crisis. This can be seen in the article you posted, where it states the average amount of medical bills were 18k or 27k. That is the cost of a decent new car. Cadillacs/Lincolns/Lexus's/Mercedes are not cars for the middle class, they never have been until recently. Those cars are luxury brands and are priced for and intended to be purchased by the upper class income earners. People fail to realize that the finer things in life are nice, but they are intended for those who can afford them. Buying them and hoping nothing goes wrong until they are paid off, is not smart finance. It is not impossible for a person to live, raise a family, and retire before 62 years old on one income. It can be done, but many of the finer things must be left for the truly wealthy and Americans generally can't understand that.

[Nole795]

There are several statements that can easily be misconstrued in your dissertation. You pay quite a bit for your health insurance. I also work for the feds, but I only pay $100 per pay check for family coverage. The G only pays another $300 or so. It is a decent policy and covers pretty much anything I could possibly need. Even if the feds didn't pay their share it is still much cheaper than my last agency for family coverage. While a private health insurance policy can preclude a person from obtaining insurance due to preexisting conditions, a group policy such as those offered by employment cannot as long as there is no meaningful gap (I think it's >90 days) in coverage. It is one of the things guaranteed by the federal HIPAA laws. Even if the policy excludes a preexisting condition it is only for a limited amount of time, normally a year, then coverage begins.

The federal govt does have one of the better health plans, but again, many people work for small businesses that cant afford a decent health plan for their employees. Not every business offers a group plan and this is where you run into the problems, especially where it concerns pre-existing conditions.

I do agree that most people in America are one sickness away from bankruptcy, but they are also one disabled car/flooded house/death/job loss away from bankruptcy. In truth and to be fair most people live way outside their means. Living paycheck to paycheck is the American way of life. It is not a good way of life. If anything goes wrong, it's off to the bankruptcy court. We do not have a health care crisis in this country we have a savings crisis. This can be seen in the article you posted, where it states the average amount of medical bills were 18k or 27k. That is the cost of a decent new car. Cadillacs/Lincolns/Lexus's/Mercedes are not cars for the middle class, they never have been until recently. Those cars are luxury brands and are priced for and intended to be purchased by the upper class income earners. People fail to realize that the finer things in life are nice, but they are intended for those who can afford them. Buying them and hoping nothing goes wrong until they are paid off, is not smart finance. It is not impossible for a person to live, raise a family, and retire before 62 years old on one income. It can be done, but many of the finer things must be left for the truly wealthy and Americans generally can't understand that.

That is a whole new thread on savings crisis, I do agree with you on many of the points when it comes to people spending habits. But IMO it does not dilute the fact that in the U.S. has over 15% of Americans who are uninsured. That is 46 million people who have no coverage. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities attributes it to employer sponsored coverages are declining.

The Number Of Uninsured Americans Is At An All-Time High — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

One of the things I try to live by is if I pose a problem I like to offer a solution. I admit, I dont know what the perfect answer is to this. But I do support the fact that our leaders are looking into the issue. One of my points was to study how other countries offer universal or more affordable health care and see if there are points/lessons we can incorporate into our current plan. Keeping it status quo is not going to relieve the issue.

One thing I have learned in this business is if you keep doing the same thing but expect different results, then your going to be greatly disappointed.

[1depd]

One of the problems with the 46 million number is it includes people who can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase. It also includes people who are eligible for Medicaid, but either don't know how to sign up or don't want to sign up. It also includes those who can afford to pay their own health care, and decide not to pay for insurance (I fell into this category not too long ago). I also read a report that the number includes illegal aliens, who shouldn't be covered under any government provided plan.

One of the problems seen with the various government plans already implemented by the states is the people who don't want the insurance don't buy it. These people won't buy it until there is sufficient penalties to make buying the best option. For the most part paying for routine health care is very inexpensive. It is only when a person has a major medical issue that it becomes expensive. I can honestly say I spend more for my insurance than I would for my own health care.

[ChevySSP]

Nole I understand what your saying however IMO government has no business dictating a large scale operation as healthcare.

The day we look to other countries as to how to run our government is the day we as a country lose our unique identity to the world.

Also I must point out that I worked in polls for three years, and I learned to take everything given in polls with a grain of salt. No survey, government or private, is ever unbiased. There is a lot of factors in these studys that are not released to the public that are made to show support or debunk a opinion. If you read the bottom part of the chart you'll notice that the ** states "The Census Bureau changed how it determines who is uninsured in 2000, so data before that year are not fully compatible to more recent estimates."

Translation: Data didn't match up so parameters were changed. Happens more frequently then most think.

IF you want to fight for healthcare fine, but please do so at the state level. Tbh I trust the great state of Texas and its meet-once-in-two-years congress then I do politicians at the Federal level.

Too much is at stake at that level, both for the citizens and the states.

[1depd]

As to containing health care costs. Those who are interested, why don't you try to set up an entity that pools customers. The local agency I worked for used a company that was set up for small cities to provide their health insurance. The policy we had was very good, but it was a bit expensive. However it was much cheaper than attempting to obtain insurance on the free market. This is something that could be started on the side without leaving your job. The organization can be set up as a non-profit or for profit business. I'm not interested in doing this, because I have my hands full with carting the wife to her medical appointments and living. I also don't see the problem with people who have decided to start a business not having insurance.

[cjcrew022000]

'Blue Dog' Democrats: Current health bill not acceptable

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats' push on health care legislation hit a snag Thursday when a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, known as "Blue Dogs," put on the brakes, pressing the Democratic leadership for significant changes to the draft bill.
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas, is a leading negotiator for the Blue Dog Coalition on health care.
As the Democratic leaders worked feverishly to finalize details of the legislation for a planned Friday rollout, the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter late Thursday night saying the bill "lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken."

Forty of the group's 52 members of the group signed the letter, making it clear that a major block of the House Democratic caucus wanted some concessions in order to get their votes. Shortly after the letter's release, a group of the Blue Dogs huddled in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office with other leaders for nearly two hours.

Arkansas Democratic Congressman Mike Ross, a leading negotiator for the Blue Dogs on health care, told reporters he, Rep. John Tanner, D-Tennessee, and Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Florida, also met with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday to go over their concerns.

"The message to him was the same as to the leadership -- that we could not support the current bill," Ross said.

Boyd told CNN that no deals were struck Thursday night, but that the group agreed to meet with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, on Friday. Boyd and other members representing rural areas pushed leaders to adjust the rates that rural doctors and hospitals are paid by Medicare for health care services.
Don't Miss

"From a practical standpoint in terms of a timeline, a bill doesn't come into the House chamber until you got the votes to pass it, and I don't think they have the votes to pass it at this point. We've got to try to get to point where we're comfortable," Boyd said.

Pelosi repeated her pledge earlier Thursday that a government run health care plan would be included in the House bill. Ross said conservative Democrats have major reservations about how a public option would work. In the letter and in the meeting, the conservative Democrats stressed they did not want a "Medicare-like" structure for a public option.

"What we are saying is if there is a public option, it can't be based on Medicare rates unless the regional disparity in Medicare rates is fixed," said Ross, who also planned to press for more controls on government spending on healthcare and more savings from changes to Medicare.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer waved off any suggestions that the development Thursday night was a setback.

"Let me make it very clear that everybody in that room thinks we ought to pass health care," Hoyer said. But he also acknowledged that they still need to work through the details.

'Blue Dog' Democrats: Current health bill not acceptable - CNN.com

[retdetsgt]

This doesn't sound very good for UK type health care.....

A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
By DANIEL MARTIN
Last updated at 12:31 AM on 15th July 2009


A GP examins a patient's hand for signs of arthritis, but a report says many are not trained to know what help to offer
Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.
Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.
There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.
The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.
Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.
GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.
Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.
'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.'
The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work.

More...
Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year - about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.
'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said.
The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.
Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.'
Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.
'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.
'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.'
Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.
Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.'

A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims | Mail Online

[Creeker]

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/Hous...ealth-Plan.pdf

Organizational Chart of Demo Health Plan.

I don't know how to do more than link to it, as it hyperlinks to John Boehners website.

[cjcrew022000]

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/Hous...ealth-Plan.pdf

Organizational Chart of Demo Health Plan.

I don't know how to do more than link to it, as it hyperlinks to John Boehners website.

:eek: That's the most confusing flow chart I've ever seen.

[1depd]

If you think that is confusing you should try to read the bill. They use terms that aren't defined and won't be defined until after the passage of the bill. Terms like "medical loss ratio" has no definition or way to learn out how they come to the figure until the Secretary, who doesn't exist until after the passage of the bill, defines it. This is important because everything above a certain amount has to be given back to the consumers, similar to the bonus dividend some credit unions give to their members. Nobody knows how much of a "medical loss" the providers have to sustain until after the bill. In the definitions sections of the law there is more "go to this location to learn the definition of this term" than there are actual definitions.

[Taylor1]

They couldn't run a lemonade stand correctly, much less manage your health care!