Health Care: The Ticking Time Bomb

[Joe V]

Our health care system hurts everyone. Premiums are expensive and increasing every year. Doing nothing today will cost taxpayers 2-3 times more in the next few years.

Currently, the "public option" is the biggest obstacle when it comes to health care reform. Many believe that it will be the end of health care as we know it today - others think that it is long overdue.

Would you support a public health care option?

[dlatimer]

I'm not convinced that cost estimates from CBO is going to sway congressman to withdraw support from a public plan. It may used as an excuse, but I think it is more likely that health care industrial money/influence is paying off. Health care industries lobbying efforts have been intense and non-stop as any competition would put a dent in their profits. Almost all of the senators and congressman on the controlling commitees have accepted money from one or more of the health care industrial parties. The people who were voted to represent the American people will make the decision. I suppose if it helps the health care industry- they are also American people. For the most part, anyway.

The AMA supports the more progressive legislation: public policy option.

From Opensecrets.org Campaign contributions by to Senator Mike Enzi

(R-Wyo) Chief critic on Health, etc. senate committee. 2005-2010

IndustryTotal Indivs PACs

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products

$216,700 $7,000 $209,700

Health Professionals

$144,049 $4,550 $139,499

Securities&Investment

$130,100 $23,600 $106,500

Insurance

$124,250 $1,250 $123,000

Oil & Gas

$121,300 $30,500 $90,800

[intrested]

Speaking for experience and living in 2 different countries who have socialized medicine I say a big NO. First of all nothing is for Free- don't get duped. In Sweden 50% of our pay check went to fund goverment/ health care. If you reached a designated age the tought was that you had lived a nice long life so you did not get medical care as would a younger person. In Canada you also PAID quite a bit for your FREE health care from your pay check. You would also have to wait months to get MRIs, Xrays ect. We had a friend there who adopted anothers daughter b/c her mother died from breast cancer waiting 18 months the needed tests and procedure. Nothing is for Free you pay with your check or with your life with a social medicine model.

[elkpark]

Speaking for experience and living in 2 different countries who have socialized medicine I say a big NO. First of all nothing is for Free- don't get duped. In Sweden 50% of our pay check went to fund goverment/ health care. If you reached a designated age the tought was that you had lived a nice long life so you did not get medical care as would a younger person. In Canada you also PAID quite a bit for your FREE health care from your pay check. You would also have to wait months to get MRIs, Xrays ect. We had a friend there who adopted anothers daughter b/c her mother died from breast cancer waiting 18 months the needed tests and procedure. Nothing is for Free you pay with your check or with your life with a social medicine model.

If the universal programs in all the other developed countries are so awful and ours is so great, as the "anti-reform" people keep arguing, how come there is no movement in any of them to disassemble their system and go to a US-style system? If they're letting their citizens die in the streets waiting for healthcare, as the picture is so often painted for us here, how come they have much better morbidity/mortality statistics than we do?

Doesn't add up to me ...

[intrested]

Dear Elkpark,

Think about how many immigrants there are on a yearly bases. They are running to this country for Good health care. If the health care was so great why would they leave???? Adds up to me.

[lamazeteacher]

medicare is working. is it perfect, by no means especially part d. the probem with medicare is that it is underfunded. it is underfunded because that is what a majority of the american people want. yet only when severe disability or advanced age (65) occurs, is it possible to have. part d doesn't work, because pharmaceutical companies saw another opportunity to make more money, charging unreachable premiums. when people take medications made by different companies, they pay premiums to each company. when the program was first "aired" (peeeeew!), a program was available for people to figure the costs for them. mine were above the price i had to pay for my medications! there was only the hmo option that would pay for meds from all manufacturers. however, their "formularies" prohibited the continuation of mine.

over a quarter of a century ago a law was passed,medicare premiums were raised to reflect peoples income and ability to pay. the law didn't last because of tremendous public outpouring of public sentiment wanting (needing)a continued high degree of government subsidy. we do get what we vote for (sometimes).

are you talking/writing about the "supplemental" policies? they're out of sight for anyone without sources of income far above social security.

i have no problem with a public option, particularly now that virtually all the health insurance carriers are for profit entities. they no longer have a not for profit presence in the market place to compete against.

those lowlife scroungers were never non profit, just as hospitals have been. it's just that whatever profits are made, are divided among executives in those companies, not reported as profits, but as costs and thereby deducted from taxes.

also individual states are dominated by only one or two companies so there is really little or no competition.

actually blue cross/shield/anthem/wellpoint and the many other names under which they operate, set the standard for other companies. in states wherein they operate without competition, they have a monopoly, which is illegal, yet their power is so great no one dares confront them about that.

most of us did vote for president obama, knowing that he stands for better health care and a system in which it can be provided for less money. every time someone says there's not enough money for it, i see red (not ink).

the fact is that doctors have been "robber barons", bilking the system until it broke, and by paying increasing premiums, shared by employers and employees, it is still limping along. who ever heard of paying someone over a thousand dollars for a 15 minute procedure? - twice in a row! that's what my gi doctor charged for a routine endoscopy and colonoscopy, a year ago. of course medicare wasn't about to pay that, so he charged me more than medicare noted in their statement, that he should have done. he leaves his office (no, not to make "rounds") at 3 or 3:30 p.m. most days, and several days he's gone by 10:30 a.m.

lab charges are also out of sight. when i was hospitalized, tests done were more expensive than the same ones i had there as an out patient! yet patients seldom see their itemized bills, as those go straight to insurance companies or the government (as medicare and medicaid does), and then we're billed what those agencies think we should pay. i had to ask for my itemized bill, and saw how many extra things were billed, that never were done!

for example, as i posted before, i was brought to hospital by ambulance, with a gi hemorrhage reflected later by h&hs spiraling down. a report of my hx of that was given by the emts, and i was placed on a guerney, without anyone seeing me for 2 hours. yet that time was billed at almost $4,000.

once doctors are paid fairly, based on time they spend actually working, (like all other health care workers) health care will be on more even ground. then when they and others making stupendously high amounts of money, are taxed appropriately, enough money will flood in to pay for their and others' medical costs as well as preventive programs that will enhance lives. we certainly can't take pride in the morbidity and mortality statistics that exist now, especially for newborns.

where in our taxation laws does it say that those who make more money, are taxed at the same percentage that less well paid persons are taxed? nowhere! luxury cars have greater taxes when sold, especially when they utilize more fuel than other cars use. believe me, it won't deprive the wealthy of any of the goodies they like, when they're taxed more. it's just that people with oodles of money, like oodles of power, that gives them a thrill. they don't like being told what they have to do, and in the past have been given tax breaks that allow them to pay less taxes than a nurse, factory worker, and many others pay, who haven't money to buy tax "shelters". that's why they dump millions into politicians' campaigns - for self protection.

so those individuals who "tilted the tables" of finance, getting their pockets filled to overflowing are finally going to have the responsibility they've earned, to assist others not so fortunate/cunning. yet they have paid for tv ads that lie to the public, indicating a worse situation than there is now, based on faulty conclusions. don't believe those ads!!!

i'm from canada, with many friends and family there who know many other canadians, and they tell me they'd never go to the usa for treatment, as it costs too much, and doctors here care only about having their bills paid. errors such as amputating the wrong breast, leg, arm, organ don't happen there! that's because doctors there and in other countries with universal coverage by their governments, have gone to medical school because they want to be a person who helps others - not to make fortunes.

only very rich canadians who want what they want, when they want it, have come here occasionally for treatment. they justify that by saying they would have died, had they waited a shorter amount of time in canada than they say, for their bypass or whatever else they thought was an imminent threat to their lives. no doctor, or verified radiologic findings corroborate their statements (if actors aren't in those roles on tv)!

when candidates for political office have restrictions placed on the amount of money they may use to campaign, we may have better representation for all of us. until then, like waiters and porters, politicians' hands are always out to get money for causes the rich want and for which they pay! we don't trust government now, because we know how they attained their positions, and that money that should go to more highly qualified officials, goes to lowlifes who don't understand what they need to know and do.

when you want the true story, follow the money!

[lamazeteacher]

dear elkpark,

think about how many immigrants there are on a yearly basis. they are running to this country for good health care. if the health care was so great why would they leave???? adds up to me.

if you were thinking of those wretched, poor hispanics here, it wasn't health care they needed to come for, it was a decent paying job! much of that money goes home to their families......

[dlatimer]

Dear Elkpark,

Think about how many immigrants there are on a yearly bases. They are running to this country for Good health care. If the health care was so great why would they leave???? Adds up to me.

I really don't think it is for excellent health care. Check out the WHO figures on health care quality and health care expense. Which category is the US #1 and # 37?

This argument is without basis.

[dlatimer]

In a perfect world the US would have enough money to pay for everybody to have all things wonderful. You and I, we cannot afford to pay for everybody. It is just not doable, it's not reasonable and it's not why I work 3 three jobs. I work so much to pay for my children to go to college, a privilege that is 100% paid for, by me and people like me, for other peoples children. I pay for other parents who make less than I do and for their children, whose grades and SAT are below the level of my children's. So, we pay for college, we pay for healthcare, we pay for social security, we pay for big business bailouts, we now are asked to pay for universal healthcare, AND pay for ourselves (we work hard and can expect no help from the government). Do you see that it is one sided? Do you see how our pockets are being emptied? Dream on sister, and play that fiddle cause Rome is burning.

The argument is about health care, not about all the other expenses of life in the US.

[lamazeteacher]

speaking from experience and having lived in 2 different countries with "socialized" medicine, i say a big no. first of all nothing is for free- don't get duped. in sweden 50% of our pay check went to fund goverment/ health care. if you reached a designated age the thought was that you had lived a nice long life so you did not get medical care as would a younger person. in canada you also paid quite a bit for your free health care from your pay check. (yet you would also have to wait months to get mris, xrays etc. we had a friend there who adopted anothers daughter b/c her mother died from breast cancer waiting 18 months for the needed tests and procedure. nothing is for free you pay with your check or with your life with a social medicine model.

i know people in the usa who were told by receptionists at doctors' offices, that the only appointment available would be in 6 weeks, when they called about a breast lump. if a doctor is practising preventive/early care correctly, all women with a family history of breast cancer would be taught breast self examination and start yearly mammograms at 40 years of age; and at 50 years of age, all female patients would have baseline mammograms and be taught breast self examination to do monthly. receptionists would be instructed to have any patient with symptoms of cancer, come in within a week.

in canada it is necessary to present health needs clearly, and as often as it takes, to get the necessary appointments, tests and radiography in a timely manner. however there are walk-in clinics that patients may go to in the evening, often in shopping centers. sometimes the "doubling time" of tumors is so fast, that cancer is too advanced when it's found, even within days. inflammatory breast cancer is like that.

there's no back seat driver in anyone's life to say, get that appointment sooner, as they might advise "stop!". sometimes we accept what we want to hear, as (false) reassurance. sometimes people don't go to classes that teach early detection and preventive care there.

[medpsychRN]

Perhaps someone has already addressed the question of what will happen to the salary of nurses. One sure way to maintain a budget it to cut staff or cut hourly wages.

Imagine the amount of money you've spent on your education. I don't know any other profession which would allow the government to set their pay grade. Lawyers??? No way!

There are many ways the present system is being abused. I'm sure there are many people that can be blamed. I believe one solution is to FIX the present problem before taking on another. What's the rush for nationalized health care???

[dlatimer]

Perhaps someone has already addressed the question of what will happen to the salary of nurses. One sure way to maintain a budget it to cut staff or cut hourly wages.

Imagine the amount of money you've spent on your education. I don't know any other profession which would allow the government to set their pay grade. Lawyers??? No way!

There are many ways the present system is being abused. I'm sure there are many people that can be blamed. I believe one solution is to FIX the present problem before taking on another. What's the rush for nationalized health care???

I don't know how nurses salaries will be affected, but they (any institution) will still need a sustainable pay wage to keep the supply of nurses.

Rush to nationalized health care? This is from an article written today in the NYT.

"Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035."

WHO ranks the US as 37th on quality of healthcare. 1st in expense.

"It is common for opponents of health care rationing to point to Canada and Britain as examples of where we might end up if we get “socialized medicine.” On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, “Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.” There is no particular reason that the United States should copy the British or Canadian forms of universal coverage, rather than one of the different arrangements that have developed in other industrialized nations, some of which may be better. But as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."

The entire article URL is posted below. Entitled: "Why We Must Ration Health Care". I thought it was a rational argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

[patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP]

I can not even grasp a USA with a socialized health care system. Our nation has 53 states ( according to the president). I find it comforting that some people who where intially in favor of this are seeing the light that the presidents plan calls for a lot of waste. I will commend these people across the aisle that they have seen the light. As I have outlined in earlier postings, reform does need to be done, but government control of services is not the answer, regulate, deregulate, find ways to save money on waste. Having worked in a federal health care system for a number of years, people get jobs these places and they know they aint gonna get fired, so they do as little as possible. Then the union backs them up and defends them doing as little as possible. So the facility has to hire someone else to do the job that they dont do. It reminds when the housekeeper tried to tell me once that they dont clean, they sanitize, while only the patient suffered and the nurse got mad and went off on this housekeeper.

Yes some of my liberal nursing professionals do bring out some good points about reform, I must agree with some of these points. Not all of them though, and not enough to justify this downward slope this will mean. I have always thought of the US. Government as a system that allows its citizens to grow. An example of this is the Space program. Right now space exploration is conducted by the government but slowly commercial interests will arise and the role of the government will decline in space exploration. The same could be said when columbus sailed to the west, initially it was funded by the state, but soon commercial interests took over.. ( bad example with slavery and all, but you get the point). So for government to take over an industry in our country goes against what the USA is about. I am in favor of some type of plan for the uninsured and the poor for a while, but dont downgrade everyones healthcare to the same level because of a few.