Health Insurance Re-visit
jloomis
politicians it would be wonderful if with their firey energy they could come
up with an equitable Health Insurance Plan for the US of A.
I see a lot of intelligence going to waste verbalizing, and throwing salvos
of rhetoric about, and coming to no end.
I admit, I do not have the answers to the problem....Now give me a
construction problem, or architectural design.....and I would be all over
it.
So, with the Holiday's coming up, and many things to be more than thankful
for, I hope in the future we, us,or many of you could add some constructive
ideas to this deep, forboding tunnel........
Off to visit my son this week coming up, and thinking about those things we
need to keep in our view, and be Thankful for.....Our Health and others
Health...
I am on a 10 year anniversary of this Prostate Cancer Disease....It has not
been a walk in the park either......
I know many of you have had some rough times also as well as your spouse and
friends and acquaintences...
jloomis
I.P. Freely
> I see a lot of intelligence going to waste verbalizing, and throwing salvos
> of rhetoric
Therein lies part of the problem: many people cannot understand the huge
distinction between facts and rhetoric.
I.P.
DoubleOwSeven
The irony.
gvk2
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:13:37 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
>
> >jloomis wrote:
> >Therein lies part of the problem: many people cannot understand the huge
> >distinction between facts and rhetoric.
>
> >I.P.
>
> The irony.
Yes, I just love people who know that they've got it all nailed down,
black and white, good and bad, American and Socialist.
We've got nothing to learn from the rest of the world...
Now where did I put the keys to my Pinto?
Steve Kramer
news:he4s5...@news1.newsguy.com...
: With all the arm chair scholars, wise men and women,and want to be
: politicians it would be wonderful if with their firey energy they could
come
: up with an equitable Health Insurance Plan for the US of A.
And THAT is the real crux of the problem. At the very least (maybe at
best), we can all applaud those who came up with a plan. Though it is
flawed beyond the comprehension of those of us who have studied this
country's history, at least they took a stab at it. Almost none on the
other side of the aisle brought forth viable solutions (discounting those
who have recently been shot down by the current oligarchy).
Healthcare has been a problem for decades. Proof of that is in the passage
of bills that purported to (and have for all practical purposes to) take
from the people and the states their control of healthcare; Medicaid,
Medicare, and healthcare elements of SSI. Yet in all that time, nobody --
and this is the fault mostly at the State level -- has bothered to attack
the facts that are causing the problems.
Not having yet had my coffee, my assessments may be a tad off and/or
non-inclusive, but the real problems seem to include:
- Torts - It takes an incredible level of proof of culpability to
successfully sue a police officer who did anything in the performance of
his/her duty. I cannot remember the term, but you almost have to prove that
an officer violated the rules, or the law, and did so with malice of
forethought. Yet, suits against medical professionals and institutions are
brought with mere negligence. Personally, when dealing with people who are
trying to save our lives, I like the protection that police officers get.
All EMS, paramedics, nurses, doctors, etc. should get that level of
protection. And punitive damages should not punish anyone other than the
person who reached that level of culpability and even then should be capped
at some reasonable point.
- Insurance - Buying insurance against punitive damages should be banned.
I'm getting tired of paying for doctors', hospitals', and pharmaceutical
companies' insurance. Again, if they buy insurance against legal actions,
that is almost the definition of forethought.
- FDA - Seriously, is the axiom, "as long as we save one person..."
realistic? How many people have died in the Provenge trials? I wonder if
the trials are FDA hoops (and insurance) are not the most costly portion of
new drug development. But now, we pay for them to develop our drugs, test
the drugs at three different levels (and sometimes twice at one or two
levels), and the insurance to protect everyone, and if the drug is finally
tested to an absurd degree and approved by the FDA and something goes wrong,
you see commercials -- "If you have ever taken this drug and found yourself
having headaches, contact Ambulance, Chaser, and Associates at 555-SUEU."
If we need the FDA, then it should mean something when they approve a drug.
- Pharmaceuticals - Due to the torts, insurance, and FDA-required expenses,
drugs are ridiculously expensive. I suspect when you're dealing with theses
costs, there are some within the companies making a small percentage of the
whole and that they end up making more than people in similar positions in
other less regulated industries. I don't know.
- Patent - This is an archaic system to assure that an inventor reaps
his/her due for coming up with a new thing. Does it pertain to every new
medical device? Drug? Procedure? I just heard of a law firm that tried to
patent "Cardiac Cats" after the Bengals' first four close games. However,
some devices, drugs, and procedures are deserving of a patent, at least
until their costs are recouped - which is not likely in seven years in lieu
of the above. If all the countries of the world want to work on a real
problem, maybe they can work on the patent process and modify it to allow
reasonable times for recouping costs. The costs are very well documented
and computerized; it should not be a major problem.
- Patients - You gotta be kidding me! You have a headache so you want an
ambulance ride to the hospital ER? We now have, by my count, several levels
of care - your momma, you neighbor who's a nurse, nurse by phone, urgent
care, personal physicians, small ERs, emergency medical technician,
paramedic (and three levels of those), ERs (and three grades of those), and
maybe more. If you don't have a bonafide emergency or catastrophic illness,
why on Earth would insurance (or Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, hospital) pay for
it?
Like I said, there may be more. No healthcare system proposed that I know
of addresses these.
I.P. Freely
> With all the arm chair scholars, wise men and women,and want to be
> politicians it would be wonderful if with their firey energy they
> could come up with an equitable Health Insurance Plan for the USA.
Anyone who actually cares about solutions, rather than simple vacuous
"Change", would have Googled them up by the dozens by now. Pelosi's and
Reid's primary objection to all other proposals is that they do not
achieve the Democrat's sole goal: putting the government in control of
our lives.
Just one of many examples is at
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare ,
which presents the GOP health care bill, analyzes it, and compares it to
the Democrats' bill, including CBO analysis.
It starts out with four common-sense reforms that will lower health care
costs and expand access to quality care without a government takeover of
our nation�s health care system that kills jobs, raises taxes on small
businesses, or cuts Medicare for seniors:
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance
across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade
associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower
prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own
innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health
care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that
physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine,
but because they are afraid of being sued.
It includes the text of their bill, CBO analysis, and texts of many
other health care bills proposed by Republicans but not even CONSIDERED
by the Democrats.
10 Reasons to Support the Republican Alternative
(For details I�ve omitted for brevity, start clicking.)
1. Lowers Health Care Premiums.
According to CBO, the Republican Alternative would reduce health
insurance premiums; premiums for millions of families would be nearly
$5,000 lower than Speaker Pelosi�s cheapest insurance plan.
2. Guarantees Affordable Coverage for Patients with Preexisting
Conditions, even if you lose your job, move, get divorced, or just want
to change plans. It prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy or
instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.
3. Protects Seniors Medicare Benefits, unlike the Pelosi bill.
4. No Tax Increases. Period. Unlike the trillions Pelosicare will require.
5. Encourages Small Businesses to Offer Health Care Coverage Without
Taxing Job Creation. Unlike the Pelosi bill, t gives small businesses
the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just
as corporations and labor unions do.
6. Enacts Real Medical Liability Reform and saves $54 billion by helping
to end costly junk lawsuits and curbing defensive medicine.
7. Empowers the Doctor- Patient Relationship.
The Republican Alternative eliminates a program that could lead to
government intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship and the
rationing of care on the basis of cost. It promotes innovation and
places greater emphasis on prevention and wellness.
8. Prohibits Abortion Funding, unlike Pelosicare.
9. No Entitlement Expansions Forcing Americans onto a Government Run
Plan; Pelosicare does just the opposite.
10. Reduces the Deficit.
According to CBO, the Republican Alternative reduces the deficit by $68
billion [unlike Pelosicare.
It includes many more links, such as these, in case anyone cares beyond
"Change" we can no longer believe in:
Speaker Pelosi�s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Destroy Small
Business Jobs (PDF)
Speaker Pelosi�s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Hurt Seniors (PDF)
Federal Funds Will Be Used to Pay for Abortion Under Speaker Pelosi�s
Government Takeover of Health Care (PDF)
GOP Alternative Helps States Reduce Health Care Costs (PDF)
Section-by-Section Summary of House GOP Health Care Bill (PDF - Courtesy
House Ways & Means Committee Republicans)
I.P.
jloomis
You raise many facets to this multi-faceted problem.
I agree getting a bill toward passing and aiming in a positive direction is
better than hiding ones head in the sand.
I would rather try getting my glider off the ground, and end up with a few
bumps and bruises, than sit back and say"It will never fly"
I enjoy your positive criticism.
jloomis
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:he61me$mgi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Steve Kramer
: Hello Steve,
: You raise many facets to this multi-faceted problem.
: I agree getting a bill toward passing and aiming in a positive direction
is
: better than hiding ones head in the sand.
: I would rather try getting my glider off the ground, and end up with a few
: bumps and bruises, than sit back and say"It will never fly"
Agreed. Responses like, "It'll never fly," "Reid and Pelosi are
Communists," "You're getting that from Fox News," "He's a right-wing
whacko," etc. are childish testaments of ignorant people.
Fortunately, I think there are only five of those currently posting such
tripe in this NG. Maybe another five are having on-point discussions. And
probably a hundred wishing for some discussion on PCa.
As for me, I've had my say. I would only ask that all others ask one
question when they've read a post. "Did he just give his reasons for
supporting the current healthcare bill?" I think if all ask that question,
they'll find there is no support for its merits even among the 'supporters'.
--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since; last checked on 06/04/09
Illegitimati non carborundum
Alan Meyer
Those are all very thoughtful comments Steve, however I'd like
to comment a little further on the ones involving drug
development.
> ...
> - FDA - Seriously, is the axiom, "as long as we save one
> person..." realistic? How many people have died in the
> Provenge trials? I wonder if the trials are FDA hoops (and
> insurance) are not the most costly portion of new drug
> development.
One of the very biggest problems in drug delivery is determining
the difference between drugs that work and drugs that don't work
or even cause harm. A second really big problem is determining
whether the drug you've got in this bottle of capsules is
actually the drug that the label says is in it.
Individuals aren't equipped to do either of those tasks
themselves. We don't have the expertise or the facilities.
That's why the FDA was created.
We all take for granted the good things that the FDA has provided
us, like the fact that we can go into a drug store and buy a
bottle of aspirin without worrying about whether it's actually
aspirin or just white pills full of floor sweepings, or the fact
that we can see right on the label that these pills shouldn't be
given to children under 15 (or whatever), or that a prescription
drug we get has actually been tested on people who have the same
illness we do and found to be helpful without harming them.
We forget that it wasn't always that way.
So, while I think your criticism has merit, I don't want us to
throw out the baby with the bathwater. The FDA is a necessary
and extremely useful organization. It could do with some
tweaking perhaps, but in the main, I think it does a good job.
> ...
> - Pharmaceuticals - Due to the torts, insurance, and
> FDA-required expenses, drugs are ridiculously expensive. I
> suspect when you're dealing with theses costs, there are some
> within the companies making a small percentage of the whole and
> that they end up making more than people in similar positions
> in other less regulated industries. I don't know.
For a time in the U.S. the drug industry was far and away the
most profitable industry in the country.
"In 2002, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the
United States had a median profit margin of 17%, compared
with only 3.1% for all the other industries."
(Dr. Marcia Angell:
http://www.ecmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451)
See that URL for an explanation of why from Marcia Angell, former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
safire
>
> Not having yet had my coffee, my assessments may be a tad off and/or
> non-inclusive, but the real problems seem to include:
>
> - Torts - It takes an incredible level of proof of culpability to
> successfully sue a police officer who did anything in the performance of
> his/her duty. I cannot remember the term, but you almost have to prove that
> an officer violated the rules, or the law, and did so with malice of
> forethought. Yet, suits against medical professionals and institutions are
> brought with mere negligence. Personally, when dealing with people who are
> trying to save our lives, I like the protection that police officers get.
> All EMS, paramedics, nurses, doctors, etc. should get that level of
> protection.
That would really be effective if you want to encourage negligent behavior.
Steve Kramer
news:he6v8q$9v5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
: We all take for granted the good things that the FDA has provided
: us,
: So, while I think your criticism has merit, I don't want us to
: throw out the baby with the bathwater. The FDA is a necessary
: and extremely useful organization. It could do with some
: tweaking perhaps, but in the main, I think it does a good job.
I can agree with this extract in whole.
Steve Kramer
news:20091120-2...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
: As the former Insurtance Commissioner for Pennsylvania put it many, many
years
: ago: "There is malpractice insurance because there is malpractice."
Yeah, but why should I pay for someone who intends to commit malpractice?
Now insurance against frivolous lawsuits for malpractice; that I can
understand.
I.P. Freely
> I don't want us to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That's my biggest single objection to Pelosicare.
I.P.
safire
"
>
> Yeah, but why should I pay for someone who intends to commit malpractice?
>
>
To find out why don't you switch to a doctor that (a) intends to commit
malpracrice and (b) is not covered by insurance. It would certainly be
very beneficial to this newsgroup.