i suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. it will be hard. but i also know that nearly a century after teddy roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. so let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."
the president's american recovery and reinvestment act protects health coverage for 7 million americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent cobra subsidy to make coverage affordable.
the recovery act also invests $19 billion in computerized medical records that will help to reduce costs and improve quality while ensuring patients' privacy.
$1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve america's health and help to reduce health care costs;
$1.1 billion for research to give doctors tools to make the best treatment decisions for their patients by providing objective information on the relative benefits of treatments; and
$500 million for health workforce to help train the next generation of doctors and nurses.
guiding principles
president obama is committed to working with congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all americans.
comprehensive health care reform can no longer wait. rapidly escalating health care costs are crushing family, business, and government budgets. employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years, a rate 3 times faster than cumulative wage increases. this forces families to sit around the kitchen table to make impossible choices between paying rent or paying health premiums. given all that we spend on health care, american families should not be presented with that choice. the united states spent approximately $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007, or $7,421 per person - nearly twice the average of other developed nations. americans spend more on health care than on housing or food. if rapid health cost growth persists, the congressional budget office estimates that by 2025, one out of every four dollars in our national economy will be tied up in the health system. this growing burden will limit other investments and priorities that are needed to grow our economy. rising health care costs also affect our economic competitiveness in the global economy, as american companies compete against companies in other countries that have dramatically lower health care costs.
the president has vowed that the health reform process will be different in his administration - an open, inclusive, and transparent process where all ideas are encouraged and all parties work together to find a solution to the health care crisis. working together with members of congress, doctors and hospitals, businesses and unions, and other key health care stakeholders, the president is committed to making sure we finally enact comprehensive health care reform.
the administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:
reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
invest in prevention and wellness
improve patient safety and quality of care
assure affordable, quality health coverage for all americans
maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
please visit www.healthreform.gov to learn more about the president's commitment to enacting comprehensive health reform this year.
maybe it's me but the word "reform" sparks more anxiety then it does hope for the future. i suppose only time will tell. though i must say i didn't appreciate that our president only included registered nurses in his estimation as "nurses" on the one video i have attached. perhaps i am just being too easily insulted but i worked to become a nurse as well even if that means i'm not a registered nurse. as well such is life...
show me the quote and the context about the Republican Senator to which you refer? I seem to remember an awful lot of democrats calling bushes policies a failure and saying the war is lost and I don't remember ANY libs or dems denouncing those remarks. It doesn't matter what a Republican senator said because the Republicans can't stop any legislation in House or Senate.
I think theres a difference between open minded and considering the merits of all thoughts and as the other poster said, people who stick to a party just because they are party faithfuls. I mean what the Republican senator said about doing everything he could against this healthcare bill because it would "crush Obama" is just disturbing. This isn't a game and when i see their personal/political agenda to go against legislation in hopes to politically "crush" someone, it is disturbing.
A federal program.... Again, not everyone can hold a position with the government, and just because it is nationalized healthcare, does not mean that all nurses working in hospitals across this nation will be paid on the same scale.
Thanks for the read, I will look at it when I have more time, I may even take it to those professors teaching the law and ethics courses.
You are absolutely correct... The moneymongers ( the Doctors that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on schooling and many are still paying for the tab) will leave... What do you suppose that will do to the healthcare system?? And as far as nurses go... Go to a nursing school and do a poll, I am willing to bet that at bare minimum, half say they are getting into healthcare for money and security of a job that is not leaving the country... I am certain that when you take away the money, and increase the duties (as it is inevitably going to happen) many of those fine would be nurses will chose other careers... What do you suppose will happen with patient care?
The doctors will leave? Will they choose Mexico, Central or South America, or Africa to work where the government doesn't support health care? I don't think they'll be compensated enough in those countries, to pay back the hundreds of thousands you say they loaned, to complete medical school.
They must have lived in expensive places while at school, to owe that much. Maybe they could get money from the source of their mortgages, by taking a home equity loan - then they could deduct the interest paid. If, however, they've splurged on grand housing that stretches their budgets, they could get a less expensive home.
I had to do that after health insurance companies to which I was made to apply for coverage I didn't need, let my employers know how old I was, which resulted in terminations of my employment from 8 jobs in the past 14 years.
You see, the monthly premiums for employees who are older than 55 are increased to more than $1,000. Then, when an employee is over 65 and shouldn't have a need for regular health insurance due to Medicare coverage, their employer is charged more than $3,000 above the monthly premiums charged for other employees. They're told that Medicare can't be their primary insurance!
Patient care will be much improved by having doctors and nurses who care more about patients than their bank accounts, enough to support the new revisions. In the countries where there are adequate healthcare programs, doctors really care about patients. If you read the revisions at the web site I recommended, you'll see that adequate compensation will be given health care workers, but the exorbitant fees doctors charge now, won't be tolerated.
as people get older they require more and more health care resources. A young healthy 18 year old does not have the medical needs of an elderly patient. Again Medicare is a government run entity and yet you complain it's mandates but want government run health care in their lives. Not sure why your employer did not know your correct age and had to find out from your insurance provider. Did you lie on your application for employment?
As far as
doctors being a couple hundred thousand in debt from med school is due to the eight years of training they endure as well as their undergrad expenses if they had to take out student loans in addition to living expenses while in school for eight years. Many have families as well as tuition to pay for it. You take away the incentive to go into health care for physicians and mid level providers and you will see a decrease in the quality of health care that will be on par with the substandard public education system in this country.
The doctors will leave? Will they choose Mexico, Central or South America, or Africa to work where the government doesn't support health care? I don't think they'll be compensated enough in those countries, to pay back the hundreds of thousands you say they loaned, to complete medical school.
They must have lived in expensive places while at school, to owe that much. Maybe they could get money from the source of their mortgages, by taking a home equity loan - then they could deduct the interest paid. If, however, they've splurged on grand housing that stretches their budgets, they could get a less expensive home.
I had to do that after health insurance companies to which I was made to apply for coverage I didn't need, let my employers know how old I was, which resulted in terminations of my employment from 8 jobs in the past 14 years.
You see, the monthly premiums for employees who are older than 55 are increased to more than $1,000. Then, when an employee is over 65 and shouldn't have a need for regular health insurance due to Medicare coverage, their employer is charged more than $3,000 above the monthly premiums charged for other employees. They're told that Medicare can't be their primary insurance!
Patient care will be much improved by having doctors and nurses who care more about patients than their bank accounts, enough to support the new revisions. In the countries where there are adequate healthcare programs, doctors really care about patients. If you read the revisions at the web site I recommended, you'll see that adequate compensation will be given health care workers, but the exorbitant fees doctors charge now, won't be tolerated.
Can we all agree that perhaps we've got the cart before the horse here with regard to reforming health care? I don't think it will be possible to reform anything until we TRULY reform our elections process. Our system of governing works when it is by the people and for the people as the founding fathers intended. What we have now is government that is by the corporations (and insanely wealthy individual donors) and for those same entities. When we return our government to one that truly serves the people and precludes hijacking by big-money interests, then we can honestly analyze a complicated situation and derive a legislative solution that best addresses the issue for the good all all Americans. No solution will leave all parties better off. It's obvious that reform means some entities in a corrupted, dysfunctional system is going to "lose". We must have honest elected representatives who are willing to figure out and able to determine who should lose the most. They won't do that until they are elected in a fashion that hews to the original democratic principles that our great country was founded on.
I fear in the absence of REAL campaign finance reform, any solution we get will be largely driven by the very interests that need to be regulated and won't be. The FACT that Max Baucus said everything was on the table except single payer means they were starting from a flawed analysis - they didn't even analyze all the options. Why? In the words of an esteemed Georgetown University physician who worked on the issue directly with Conners and others and supports a single payer model, "politically not feasible". Why is "single payer not feasible" to even consider as part of the analysis? Because the folks writing the laws are beholden to big money groups who would lose under single payer.
Fixing campaign finance will help, but we also have to "fix" the devisive, propaganda spewing media that spreads misinformation and fear for the same big money interests. The only way to do that is for "we the people" to say enough and stop listening. If we don't listen they'll shut up and go away because they won't make any money if they can't pull an audience.
show me the quote and the context about the Republican Senator to which you refer? I seem to remember an awful lot of democrats calling bushes policies a failure and saying the war is lost and I don't remember ANY libs or dems denouncing those remarks. It doesn't matter what a Republican senator said because the Republicans can't stop any legislation in House or Senate.
I think this was what she was referring to.
LAUER: Let's start with the obvious. There are real differences of opinion in terms of how to achieve health care reform in this country and how to get insurance to the some 50 million people who don't have it. But over the past couple of days, I don't have to tell you, you've ignited a firestorm, and people are saying that you are playing pure politics with this issue. How do you respond?
DEMINT: Well, it has nothing to do with politics or it's certainly not personal. But, but the President's policies have not matched up to his promises so far. We saw that in this giant stimulus, his trillion dollar stimulus that has stimulated the government, but really cost American jobs and, and, and loaded lots of debt on top of future generations.
LAUER: But, but sticking to health care reform, let, let me, you know, give you your own words here. You, you were addressing the group Conservatives for Patients Rights about the health care debate and you said quote,
"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.
" Now are you rallying conservatives to the cause of health care reform? Or are you rallying conservatives to the cause of breaking a president?
Hmmm....very interesting in that the Mayo Clinic doesn't favor Obama's healthcare plan. Maybe they are on to something....
Mayo Clinic’s reaction to House Tri-Committee bill
Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.
In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.
How Reform’s Opponents Distort the Truth –The Mayo Clinic Story
This is the board of physicians and health care experts that the administration called for in a recent letter to Congressional leaders. Presumably the panel would recommend raising co-pays and lowering fees for less effective treatments—while lowering co-pays and raising fees for those services that provide the greatest benefit to patients.
Commenting on the Council, the Mayo Clinic issued a statement saying, “We applaud the direction" of the Obama administration's Independent Medicare Advisory Council, proposal, adding, "This, and other, bold concepts have the potential to 'bend the cost curve' in U.S. health spending without compromising health.”
Yet, recent media reports have suggested that Mayo doesn’t like the administration’s plans for healthcare reform as much as the administration likes Mayo.
Media Matters tells the story: “During the July 21 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Mayo Clinic "slam[med]" President Obama's health care plan -- which Hannity referred to at one point as Obama's ‘nanny state, cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, nationalized health care socialized system.’ In fact, “Media Matters” observed, “the Mayo Clinic did not criticize Obama's health care proposal. In a June 16 statement, the clinic criticized the House bill for "fail[ing] to use a fundamental lever -- a change in Medicare payment policy -- to help drive necessary improvements in American health care," but subsequently applauded the administration's suggested revisions to the House bill to address Medicare payment rates. . . .”
Yesterday, I double-checked, talking to the Mayo Clinic’s “JaneJ”—the person who actually issued Mayo’s statement about the House bill. She told me that this is yet another example of misinformation spread by those who oppose reform: “The Washington Times spit out our statement with a headline that was just blatantly untrue. We don’t disagree with the Tri-committee bill,” Jane J. explained. “We only said the House bill doesn’t go quite far enough. Our CEO, DenisCortese is saying: ‘Let’s be bold, step up, get rid of fee-for-service, and pay for value. Then when we saw the administration’s letter about an independent council on Monday we realized that this is what they plan to do, and we issued the second statement.’”
Nevertheless other publications, including the New York Times, picked up the story and repeated it, apparently without checking with Mayo, and without mentioning the second statement. Wednesday, July 22, the Times reported: “ some people who should be natural supporters of reform have become critics. The Mayo Clinic-- one of Mr. Obama’s favorite models of care —says the legislation fails to ‘help create higher-quality, more affordable health care.’”
I worry about how many more falsehoods will make their way into the mainstream media during the month of August.
Specializes in Case Management; Home Health; Hem/Onc;.
The U.S. was founded on the concept of self relaince and rugged individualism or as I like to call it Freedom. The economy works here because of capitalism and the idea that if you work hard and apply yourself you can achieve great things. Within the last four decades what we have is the people who are lazy or made poor choices in life living off the backs of the people that actually make this country work. The "frequent flyers" that are constantly dealt with in the ER are not productive members of society. Our taxes are generally lower than most countries (at least they should be). As far as our health care it may not be perfect but there are a lot of people from around the world including Canadian members of government that come down here for there care. Our cancer survival rates are higher than Canada and our wait times are much shorter. It's not corporate greed as you like to call it. It's the fact that we want to kkep more of what we earned instead of squandered on inefficient government and people who have no intention of bettering themselves or their country.
As a case manager who deals with the "ER frequent flyers" after they've been discharged, I have to say that I feel you've made a very generalized statement about a very large population of people. I disagree with you that they are not productive members of society. The patients I deal with are of the WWII era and they achieved a very great thing! The later generations may not have been here to enjoy their Freedom if it weren't for them. These are very hard working people who grew up in the depression and made the sacrifices they were asked to make and I feel it can hardly be said that they had no intention of bettering themselves or their country. Now they find themselves "falling through the cracks" if you were. Pray we all have the foresight to see what we need to do now to prepare ourselves for our future. Regarding the Canadian members of government who come to the US for health care . . . it's because they can; they have the financial resources; they have a choice. The people I'm talking about forego health care because they either don't have the financial resources to take advantage of the health care they do have or they don't have any health care at all. They don't have a choice. Capitalism . . . yes but in my opinion corporate greed has no place in health care.
Specializes in telemetry, medsurg, homecare, psychiatry.
The U.S. was founded on the concept of self relaince and rugged individualism or as I like to call it Freedom. The economy works here because of capitalism and the idea that if you work hard and apply yourself you can achieve great things. Within the last four decades what we have is the people who are lazy or made poor choices in life living off the backs of the people that actually make this country work. The "frequent flyers" that are constantly dealt with in the ER are not productive members of society. Our taxes are generally lower than most countries (at least they should be). As far as our health care it may not be perfect but there are a lot of people from around the world including Canadian members of government that come down here for there care. Our cancer survival rates are higher than Canada and our wait times are much shorter. It's not corporate greed as you like to call it. It's the fact that we want to kkep more of what we earned instead of squandered on inefficient government and people who have no intention of bettering themselves or their country.
I am profoundly interested in knowing how you can justify the misfortune of many Americans based on "Poor Choices". Who is to say that tomorrow you won't have a "JOB", and won't have health insurance. Perhaps this is the exact atitude I am talking about. Well I guess you should count your blessings, and hope that no misfortune hits your life, as it has for many other Americans.
Poor choices should not be rewarded.....period. I don't have a job but have health insurance that I pay for monthly. Hmm.....how did I manage to do this?? I saved, planned and budgeted. It isn't that hard to do. Problem is, a lot of Americans would rather have fancy cell phones, new rims on their cars or a mouth full of gold.
Live below your means, save every penny you can and you will be fine. It is those who fail to plan that turn life into a failure. Even personal catastrophes can be managed if you plan for the worst.
Specializes in telemetry, medsurg, homecare, psychiatry.
Poor choices should not be rewarded.....period. I don't have a job but have health insurance that I pay for monthly. Hmm.....how did I manage to do this?? I saved, planned and budgeted. It isn't that hard to do. Problem is, a lot of Americans would rather have fancy cell phones, new rims on their cars or a mouth full of gold.
Live below your means, save every penny you can and you will be fine. It is those who fail to plan that turn life into a failure. Even personal catastrophes can be managed if you plan for the worst.
This is true, is a perfect world. I guess, that means there is no excuse for anything. Nobody has any excuse for catastrophe ruining their lives. Like the thousands of people who wait in line for three days to get into a free clinic. Well, it's all their fault for making stupid choices, and poor planning. A little empathy can go a long way.
Soyrizo
69 Posts
VA = Veterans Administration, the federal program.
The lengthy waiting times for cardiac surgery occurred almost 20 years ago, and there has been policy changes since then. This is an interesting read. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/110.pdf