OT: Hope for a Veto!
Fred
lump of coal!
That was some Wing Ding Christmas present.
Hopefully Oboma has what it takes to veto this travesty.
Fred
http://www.stitchaway.com
If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit.
Cathy from KY in CA
> Instead of universal health coverage the US senates gives the US citizens a
> lump of coal!
> That was some Wing Ding Christmas present.
> Hopefully Oboma has what it takes to veto this travesty.
>
> If nothing changes, nothing changes.
> Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit.
No, 0bama is the one pushing it! What a mess!!
just me,
Cathy from KY in CA
Fred
"Cathy from KY in CA" <kytra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e2cc5ac-33b8-4ba1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing wrong with pushing the concept of universal health coverage
however if a single mom with a couple of kids can't go to a doctor or
hospital and get the same treatment as Obama's wife then what the Senate
passed was a sham!
Hilorey Clinton a strong advocate for the concept is quite about it these
days.
Fred
Cathy from KY in CA
> "Cathy from KY in CA" <kytrave...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:7e2cc5ac-33b8-4ba1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 5:01 am, "Fred" <bkstitc...@mts.net> wrote:
>
> > Instead of universal health coverage the US senates gives the US citizens
> > a
> > lump of coal!
> > That was some Wing Ding Christmas present.
> > Hopefully Oboma has what it takes to veto this travesty.
>
> > Fredhttp://www.stitchaway.com
> > If nothing changes, nothing changes.
> > Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit.
>
> No, 0bama is the one pushing it! What a mess!!
>
> just me,
> Cathy from KY in CA
>
> There is nothing wrong with pushing the concept of universal health coverage
> however if a single mom with a couple of kids can't go to a doctor or
> hospital and get the same treatment as Obama's wife then what the Senate
> passed was a sham!
> Hilorey Clinton a strong advocate for the concept is quite about it these
> days.
>
> Fredhttp://www.stitchaway.com
> If nothing changes, nothing changes.
> Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit.
But it's not universal....they left that part out!
Gillian Murray
And polls show that about 60 of Americans don't want universal
government health care; most are satisfied with what we have. However
there are many glaring problems that need fixing. The "donut hole" in
Medicare D RX for example. Also all the unnecessary tests which run the
prices way up. Physicians do it because they are scared to death of the
litigious lawsuits, where the penalties far outweigh the"crime". Tort
reform would help that.
State Medicaid will normally take care of the single Mom and two kids.
Personally I think more effective use of Nurse Practitioners and
Physician Assistants for the routine stuff should be done. You don't
need a pediatrician for a school sports physical, or to administer some
routine shots.
Some years ago I worked in a practice where we had a NP in training. She
could prescribe most of the routine meds, and saved a lot of waiting
time for the patients.
I have worked in England under the National Health Care, although it was
last in 1961. I have worked in US with our system.
All have pros and cons. However we cannot go trillions and trillions of
dollars in debt.
My 2 cents.
Gillian
Karen C - California
> Tort
> reform would help that.
>
Actually, something like 80% of malpractice suits are based on
preventable physician error. If they want the number to go way down,
they should do their job correctly. Pay attention!
1-in-5 diagnoses are wrong, primarily because doctors diagnose by
stereotype. For example, I walked in, told the doctor what a specialist
had diagnosed me with a decade earlier, but because I was recently
divorced, the doctor changed my diagnosis to "depression" and refused to
treat the physical problems. Same doctor did the same thing to a friend
with a different condition. In both cases, he took a correct diagnosis
and changed it to a wrong one, based on the stereotype that all divorced
women are unhappy about it. The anti-depressants did nothing for her,
made me violently ill, but all it got either of us was a lecture that he
wasn't going to help us fleece our ex-husbands for lifetime alimony, so
we'd better take the anti-depressants or else he'd tell them that we
"didn't want to get well and have to return to work".
The problem with tort reform is that, in California, it's
one-size-fits-all. Regardless of whether the error landed you in a
hospital for a week and now you're all better, or the error was a
permanent problem, you're limited to the same amount of "pain and
suffering". Which is a tidy sum if you were only in pain for one week,
but if you're going to be in constant pain the rest of your life, works
out to a whopping $10 a day. Would you let someone cut off the wrong
leg if they promised to pay you $10 a day? Not likely, but that's all
the tort reformers think it's worth. And definitely, that would be
preventable error.
A friend's mother died of multiple medical errors. Because she was
retired, she had no "economic value". Because she died, the "pain and
suffering" portion of the claim died with her. The only settlement the
hospital offered was "we'll write off the bill". Small price to pay for
loss of life. Especially because most of the bill was already paid by
Medicare and there was very little chance they could collect the rest
from her husband, who had no income but Social Security.
--
Karen C - California
Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com
Finished 11/16/09 - Welcome Guest (The Cross Stitcher 10/09)
WIP: Stitchers Days of Christmas
http://www.crossstitchjoy.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3865
Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn),
MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market
www.CFSfacts.org -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/
Linda D.
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:39:14 -0500, Gillian Murray
>
>
>
> <gillmurr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> But it's not universal....they left that part out!
>
> >And polls show that about 60 of Americans don't want universal
> >government health care; most are satisfied with what we have. However
> >there are many glaring problems that need fixing. The "donut hole" in
> >Medicare D RX for example. Also all the unnecessary tests which run the
> >prices way up. Physicians do it because they are scared to death of the
> >litigious lawsuits, where the penalties far outweigh the"crime". Tort
> >reform would help that.
>
> >State Medicaid will normally take care of the single Mom and two kids.
> >Personally I think more effective use of Nurse Practitioners and
> >Physician Assistants for the routine stuff should be done. You don't
> >need a pediatrician for a school sports physical, or to administer some
> >routine shots.
>
> >Some years ago I worked in a practice where we had a NP in training. She
> >could prescribe most of the routine meds, and saved a lot of waiting
> >time for the patients.
>
> >I have worked in England under the National Health Care, although it was
> >last in 1961. I have worked in US with our system.
>
> >All have pros and cons. However we cannot go trillions and trillions of
> >dollars in debt.
>
> >My 2 cents.
>
> >Gillian
>
> universal and although it may have some flaws, it works well. Many of
> the complaints I have heard have been people who went to emerge when
> they were not emergencies (duh - that's why they waited hours there)
> and we have no need to fear bankruptcy because of health.
>
> My recent knee replacement did not incur a bill, well I had to pay for
> the television in my room, and the physio I am still having is also
> covered.
>
> I think the litigious US mind does not help though, a couple of people
> said to me 'Aren't you going to see a lawyer' because I had damage to
> the femoral nerve - well no - for a start why would it be in his
> interests to deliberately/carelessly damage the nerve ? As time
> wears on I can see he is as upset as I am about it, he regards it as a
> failure. I found myself telling him to cheer up ! It has simply
> meant I was more inconvenienced for six months or so whereas others
> got up and walked easily lol
>
> As a widow I would have been bankrupt by the time David died. He
> needed ops and expensive treatments for years.
>
> I am glad that I do not have to even think of illness in the context
> of what it might cost.
I totally agree. Our Canadian system is wonderful, and I have a fair
bit of experience dealing with it.
We were recently on a cruise and got asked a lot of questions about
our system by some new American friends. It's a shame the
misinformation that has been given to the American people in regards
to our Canadian health care system.
In my opinion President Obama is on the right track :)
take care, Linda D. in B.C., Canada
Karen C - California
>
> And polls show that about 60 of Americans don't want universal
> government health care; most are satisfied with what we have.
Those who have, tend to be happy with what they have. The problem is
the millions who don't have, and can't get.
Recent statistic, 20% of Californians are uninsured, and half of those
are employed full-time. Their employers don't offer insurance, and they
can't afford to buy an individual policy either due to pre-existing
condition or wages too low to cover the premium.
Technically, I am insured, but I'm definitely not happy with what I
have. Due to pre-existing condition, the only policy anyone will sell
me is hospitalization only. For which I pay the same price a healthy
person would pay for full coverage. I haven't been hospitalized since
1968, so fat lot of good this policy does me; I'm pure profit for the
insurance company, because on top of policy premiums I also pay all my
medical bills, even the expensive ones, myself.
But the Urgent Care affiliated with my PCP's medical group will only see
patients with insurance, so mostly I'm paying for the insurance to avoid
having to pay the extra $1000 to go to the ER instead, where my weakened
immune system would be sitting for hours among dozens of germy people
and I'd get even sicker. At Urgent Care, I can generally be seen in a
few minutes and the waiting room is large enough that I can distance
myself from the rest of the patients.
DBF's medical records show that he needs an expensive operation, so no
one will even offer him hospitalization only. His last employer went
through a year-long quest to find someone willing to insure him, and was
told by every insurance company "not at any price". His current
employer is a small business that doesn't offer insurance.
Needless to say, he and I are two of the millions who are not happy with
what we have. He's counting down the days till he qualifies for
Medicare and can get his operation. For me, that's years away, so I
just pray a lot and put off as much as I can.
Karen C - California
> It's a shame the
> misinformation that has been given to the American people in regards
> to our Canadian health care system.
>
Follow the money! Much of the misinformation has been put out there by
the insurance companies (hiding behind names like Organization to
Preserve Patients' Rights), who are going to be in deep doodoo if they
are either replaced by a govt-run system or ordered to cover us
expensive people with pre-existing conditions.
For example, the woman who was all over US TV a few months ago
complaining that the Canadian system ignored her brain tumor, "I might
have died" ... a little fact-checking and it was discovered the tumor
was benign, *never* would have killed her, she just wasn't happy that
she was asked to wait a few months to have it dealt with, while the
system processed people with malignant tumors first.
If someone wants to make a similar ad trashing the US system, I can give
you the names of dozens of people willing to tell how their lives have
been ruined because they couldn't get the treatment that would have
gotten them back to work. I suspect a lot of my mistreatment at the
hands of the US medical system over the past decade has been the false
assumption that because I don't have a "real job", I'm either a Medi-Cal
or charity case and should be treated as cheaply as possible. The right
treatment would've gotten me back to work in a few months; the treatment
I got has left my health permanently damaged.
I have recently been given a lecture about how awful the German system
is. By someone who didn't realize that my cousin is a nurse in Germany,
her husband is a doctor, and all their kids are either doctors or in
medical school -- I know more about the German system than the average
American and have never heard any of those "reasons why all the doctors
and nurses are leaving" from people who actually are doctors and nurses
in the system. Believe me, if doctors were treated so badly, my
cousin's husband (ever practical) would have ordered his kids to be
lawyers or architects instead. But how few Americans know that? How
many will swallow whatever they're told by someone who claims to know?
In fact, she knew so little about the German system that she was
surprised to find out that their doctors don't graduate saddled with six
figures of student loans like ours, so being paid less does not equate
to taking home less.
F.James Cripwell
the original system was introduced, by Tommy Douglas, in Saskatchewan, the
doctors were completely dead against it. They went on strike for about
a month, before being forced to accept the system. The miracle that
happened, was that after about 12 months, the doctors found out what a
wonderful system it was. For the first time for our doctors, they could
treat their patients the way they ought to be treated; on the basis of
medical necessity, irrespective of money. The doctors got the same
remuneration no matter if their patient was a millionaire or out of work.
In the end, it was pressure from both the public AND the medical
profession that forced our federal government, and the other provincial
governments, to introduce a Canadian wide system. Jim.
Dianne Lewandowski
The U.S. cannot sustain the current system. It is bankrupting our
economy. Not to mention the millions uninsured and the millions more
underinsured. Our deductible for non-generic prescriptions just doubled
from $20 to $40. All of my drugs except two are not available as a
generic. Do you know what that will do to our bank account? On top of
that, we often don't go to the doctor because we simply can't afford the
$40.
As for over testing: it is not necessarily because of protection
against malpractice. It is often because hospitals and doctor clinics
make BIG bucks off of unnecessary tests. But that doesn't make headlines.
Obama did the right thing. The Republicans are doing the wrong thing
and looking quite smug about it. When this first came into the
spotlight, most Americans wanted change, until the insurance
institutions and Republican legislators started their smear campaign.
Dianne
Karen C - California
> As for over testing: it is not necessarily because of protection
> against malpractice. It is often because hospitals and doctor clinics
> make BIG bucks off of unnecessary tests. But that doesn't make headlines.
>
What did make headlines some years ago was that some doctors were
getting bonuses from the HMOs for keeping costs down by not ordering
tests, so patients who came in near the end of a bonus period might not
get the tests they needed because the doctor was conscious that ordering
a few more tests that quarter or that year might cost him a big bonus.
Just another instance of HMOs working better for the shareholders rather
than the patients.
Keith Barber
@mid.individual.net:
> Those who have, tend to be happy with what they have. The problem is
> the millions who don't have, and can't get.
>
> Recent statistic, 20% of Californians are uninsured, and half of those
> are employed full-time. Their employers don't offer insurance, and they
> can't afford to buy an individual policy either due to pre-existing
> condition or wages too low to cover the premium.
>
I am in this situation, the new law as passed by the Senate does not help
me in fact, as I understand it, I will now be mandated to purchase
insurance that I cannot pay for, with no realistic help.
This is a tax for the unalloyed benefit of the insurance companys, the
Republicans are bad, the Democrats give lip service to helping the people,
but are worse.
I am going to vote Whig.
Keith Barber
Ane...@comcast.net
Gillian Murray
One cannot please all.....and the current Administration and Congress
are just buying power, to the detriment of the entire economy.. They are
so concerned in winning the election for seats in 2010 they will do just
about anything.
We need a third party of honest people, but where does one find honest
politicians???
My little island with just chocolate, wine and stitching supplies looks
better every day. LOL
Gillian
Donna
>
> One cannot please all.....and the current Administration and Congress
> are just buying power, to the detriment of the entire economy.. They are
> so concerned in winning the election for seats in 2010 they will do just
> about anything.
>
> We need a third party of honest people, but where does one find honest
> politicians???
>
> My little island with just chocolate, wine and stitching supplies looks
> better every day. LOL
>
> Gillian
I am in total agreement with you. Though my island may be stocked with
tea, bourbon, and stitching supplies.
Donna in Virginia
Cheryl Isaak
44593e55-d52d-4967...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Donna"
<needl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there is room for all of the above and beading supplies and wondrous
yarns.
Cheryl
Fred
"Gillian Murray" <gillm...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhd7r6$evf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I can't recall any part of Canada going trillions, billions, millions, in
debt due to the national universal system. The system is either financed by
citizens paying a government medical insurance premium or through an income
tax deduction. It is a bit hard to calculate my costs but I'm told that
approx. $4500 a year pays for all hospital and doctor bills for my DW and
myself should we need it, that would include all lab tests, x-rays, mirs,
etc. prescriptions drugs both generic and otherwise are also covered with a
small yearly deductible to prevent abuse. In our case everything would add
up to approx. $5300 a year which is paid through an income tax. Obviously
the higher the income the more that would be taxed for medical costs and
vise-versa. For a lot of senior citizens with low pensions they might not be
paying a dime.
Plus Jim is correct about who gets what! An orderly in a hospital who
empties bed pans all day or a homeless person on the street gets the same
care and attention as a brain surgeon or professor.
Technically speaking the system has been in use for so long that most of us
paid premiums or taxes when we were young and didn't need the system so you
might say that as we age and require medical treatment we get it because we
have paid in advance.
IMHO the senators should have done something like this;
(1) Pass a universal government health bill - everyone is covered and
everyone pays either by tax or premium,
(2) Establish what the tax or premium is to be in order to cover costs - in
the first year it is anyone's guess,
(3) Legislate what will be covered and what will not be covered.
(4) Let private insurance handle what is left - cosmetic surgery, etc.
In that manner, debates and arguments in item (3) do not conflict with who
is covered in item (1).
Fred
Dawne Peterson
"Karen C wrote
(snip)
> A friend's mother died of multiple medical errors. Because she was
> retired, she had no "economic value". Because she died, the "pain and
> suffering" portion of the claim died with her. The only settlement the
> hospital offered was "we'll write off the bill". Small price to pay for
> loss of life. Especially because most of the bill was already paid by
> Medicare and there was very little chance they could collect the rest from
> her husband, who had no income but Social Security.
>
like this. If you are hurt or injured, the medical care system does a
reasonably good job of taking care of you. Damages in legal actions cover
things like the need for personal attendants, modifications to living
quarters, and loss of income. In the event of death, the survivors are
compensated for the financial losses around the death, which would include
the loss of the dead person's income, the need for childcare if a widow
needs to return to work, and things like that. A child or an elderly
person's death seldom changes someone's financial situation for the worse.
Our system has never gone for the huge amounts for emotional pain and
suffering that have made the American system so lucractive for "victims" and
their lawyers. The loss of anyone you love is terrible, but our system, at
least so far, has taken the view that this is not something that money can
make up for.
Dawne
Heather in NY
following this closely. I had extensive experience with the Canadian
system (multiple operations before 4 years of age, a craptastic immune
system my whole life, and a benign brain tumour at 20. One for which
I underwent 9 months of drug treatment, and then opted (by my own
choice) to have surgery to remove. And I didn't think twice about
having to wait 2 months for the surgery after the decision was
made.). I'm more than happy to explain to anyone I meet about
differences and good and bad parts in each of the systems. One of the
biggest things the general American seems unwilling to accept is
having to wait for treatment. As near as I can tell, it's equated
with "bad treatment" if you have to wait for anything. To me, this is
probably the biggest stumbling block to instituting a government run
medical care system in the US.
Moving to the US at 25, my biggest concern was health care. I've been
lucky that I've been continuously employed here because I'd never be
able to get anything other than possibly a catastrophic policy
otherwise. (Well, except for the two months between jobs when
(remember, I was out of work) it cost us $1400/month to maintain our
COBRA coverage.) I also ended up hospitalized here ~7 years ago for
appendicitus. Long story short, I did NOT have my appendix removed.
I spent the weekend in hospital, got loads of IV fluids and a CT scan,
one horrid processed cheese slice sandwich, and then was sent home 48
hours after arrival. They billed my insurance company just under
$30k. WITHOUT surgical costs.
The initial proposals sounded great. The current ones don't sound
like they're actually going to do a lot for most people. I'm starting
to think it is likely to end up costing everyone more and providing
less! The democrats seem to have lost all willingness to push hard
for what they stated was important, and to fight for it. Winning next
year's elections seems more important. It almost makes me glad I
still have another 4 years before I'll be able to vote here... All
the changes seem to be pork to get senators to vote for a bill they
*should* be voting for because it's the right thing to do, and is what
they were elected to do. A pox on all politicians! The system here
is broken beyond belief, and will take people willing to push the hard
choices to get it fixed. Unfortunately, like Gillian, I strongly
believe the US *needs* a viable third party. It just doesn't seem to
exist.
I pay what are (to me) exhorbitant copays through the company plan,
and though it hurts, I'm happy to have that option. Between DH and I,
we spend ~$280/month just on copays. On top of what I pay for the
insurance we have, which thankfully my company picks up most of the
tab for. I would be terrified to ever let my coverage lapse. I see
so much waste in the system, so much outrageous billing*, and many
people without insurance ending up hospitalized (and costing everyone
a ton of money) for things that would have been easily treated if they
had access to basic preventative care.
Heather
*Another example of outrageous billing practices last night from a
friend. She had surgery on her hand, followed by several follow-up
visits as they removed her hardware (metal pins and an external
structure) afterwards in stages. For the last follow up with the
surgeon, he billed the insurance company $600 for "fabrication
costs". The insurance company denied it, so the Dr. sent the bill to
her. When she questioned it, she was told "it's for the apparatus he
built for you that day". This apparatus was an off the shelf thumb
spica ($40 at the medical supply store, I have to use them too). The
extent of the fabrication? Slipping it on her hand and then cutting
off some excess velcro. When she threatened to scream bloody murder
he reduced the charge to $40...
F.James Cripwell
>(snip)
> empties bed pans all day or a homeless person on the street gets the same
> care and attention as a brain surgeon or professor.
> http://www.stitchaway.com
> If nothing changes, nothing changes.
> Don't back stitch to email, just stitchit.
May I add that if you have a pre-existing condition, then you get more
medical attention, not less. I have a series of minor problems, which
could, potentially, become more serious. So I go and see specialists
every 6 months or so, just to keep a check that nothing untoward has
happened. Jim.
Karen C - California
>
> My little island with just chocolate, wine and stitching supplies looks
> better every day. LOL
>
>
> Gillian
I agree.
Karen C - California
>
> IMHO the senators should have done something like this;
> (1) Pass a universal government health bill - everyone is covered and
> everyone pays either by tax or premium,
The insurance companies bought them off ($396M spent on lobbying --
that's 3/4 of a million per Senator/Congressman), plus spent zillions on
TV ads with scare tactics urging people to pressure their Congressmen to
vote against any sort of reform, not because it's in the people's
interest but because the lobby doesn't want to kill the goose that laid
their golden eggs.
"The govt will get between you and your doctor!" So? An insurance
company CPA has been getting between me and my doctor for 20 years. I'd
rather have those decisions in the hands of someone who's not 100%
focused on turning a profit, thank you very much.
And that dirty word "socialism" got thrown around a lot. People who
don't even know what it means get worked up over how awful socialism is,
and wrote reams of letters to Congress demanding they kill the bill.
> (3) Legislate what will be covered and what will not be covered.
There is something in the current bill that legislates minimum coverage,
meaning that the stripped-down policy that a lot of people with
pre-existing conditions have is about to become illegal. They can no
longer sell the useless policy I currently have, and can no longer gut
your policy if you get sick (which is why I have a useless policy) --
I'm going to get back the policy that I thought I was buying. There are
millions of us uninsurable and underinsured who are celebrating that.
Karen C - California
> I also ended up hospitalized here ~7 years ago for
> appendicitus. Long story short, I did NOT have my appendix removed.
> I spent the weekend in hospital, got loads of IV fluids and a CT scan,
> one horrid processed cheese slice sandwich, and then was sent home 48
> hours after arrival. They billed my insurance company just under
> $30k. WITHOUT surgical costs.
I can beat that one. 15 years ago, I worked on a case where a woman was
taken to the ER after she fell, received four stitches in her lip, was
sent home as soon as she had the stitches, and the bill was over $15,000
for a couple hours outpatient!
At the time, I was working on a huge piece for the husband of a friend
who works at the Med Center, and when I presented it to them, we joked
about if it had been stitched by a doctor in the ER, it would be worth
$20M @$4000 per stitch.
I'm sure nowadays, that $15,000 bill would be at least $30,000.
I didn't often call for explanations of medical bills, but that case was
one where I called my friend to double-check the calculations for me.
She checked it over and verified that the bill was, and should have
been, $15K for 4 stitches. Bleeping ridiculous.
Dianne Lewandowski
Dianne
Fred
"Karen C - California" <KMC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7q1iru...@mid.individual.net...
> Fred wrote:
>>
>> IMHO the senators should have done something like this;
>> (1) Pass a universal government health bill - everyone is covered and
>> everyone pays either by tax or premium,
>
> The insurance companies bought them off ($396M spent on lobbying --
> that's 3/4 of a million per Senator/Congressman), plus spent zillions on
> TV ads with scare tactics urging people to pressure their Congressmen to
> vote against any sort of reform, not because it's in the people's interest
> but because the lobby doesn't want to kill the goose that laid their
> golden eggs.
So get everyone you know to start phoning and writing the Senators and
Congresspersons!!
The Squeaky wheel gets the grease! OR HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED!!
and in a couple of years ms. *quite* Hilorey Clinton is going to say, "See
Obama sold you out!" "You shudda voted for me!"
> "The govt will get between you and your doctor!" So? An insurance
> company CPA has been getting between me and my doctor for 20 years. I'd
> rather have those decisions in the hands of someone who's not 100% focused
> on turning a profit, thank you very much.
That is another crock of crap!! No government employee or anyone else for
that matter has *EVER* questioned or overuled our doctors opinions or
diagnosis! The doctors and speacilists that we have seen have on a number of
occassions even sent us to the USA for special treatment that was not
available here at the time. We were reimbursed for most medical costs,
hotels and meals.
Cathy from KY in CA
> The initial proposals sounded great. The current ones don't sound
> like they're actually going to do a lot for most people. I'm starting
> to think it is likely to end up costing everyone more and providing
> less!
>
>
This is my opinion....we will pay through the nose for nothing.
'Experts'
are already saying that millions will see no changes other than much
higher
taxes....their insurance will remain the same. They say a good number
of
people will remain uninsured.
I think they should have started working on the problem a bit at a
time till it was
a workable system. Trying to redo the whole system at once is not
working because
a lot of people are mistrustful of the govmt to start with.
The Nebraska deal makes me angry!! Why should I pay for extras for a
state other than
my own to buy the vote from that state? To much backroom dealing in
Washington!!
I'm still waiting for all that "transparancy" we were promised!!
IMHO
Cathy from KY in CA
> There is something in the current bill that legislates minimum coverage,
> meaning that the stripped-down policy that a lot of people with
> pre-existing conditions have is about to become illegal. They can no
> longer sell the useless policy I currently have, and can no longer gut
> your policy if you get sick (which is why I have a useless policy) --
> I'm going to get back the policy that I thought I was buying. There are
> millions of us uninsurable and underinsured who are celebrating that.
>
Think again, the version just passed.....it applies to CHILDREN with
pre-existing.
I heard that from 0bama on the news the day the bill passed Senate.
Gillian Murray
I am with you on this one, Cathy!! There is so much weird stuff being
decided behind closed doors with this administration. I guess it has
always been done......................but it seems so much worse now,
with all the "czars".
I am starting to believe that Pres Obama is just the "mouthpiece" for
the presidency, and am wondering who is telling him what to say.
Nebraska and Louisiana came out very well in the Senate plan; it shows
that anyone can be bought.
Gillian
Karen C - California
It applies *immediately* to children, and in a few years to adults.
Dianne Lewandowski
> decided behind closed doors with this administration. I guess it has
> always been done......................but it seems so much worse now,
> with all the "czars".
Oh for heavens sake. This goes on in all politics. Period. It went on
in spades during the Bush years. "Seems" doesn't make it so.
We need health care reform. You didn't want it so you screamed blue
bloody murder. So we got this can of worms instead.
Dianne
Karen C - California
>> I am with you on this one, Cathy!! There is so much weird stuff being
>> decided behind closed doors with this administration. I guess it has
>> always been done......................but it seems so much worse now,
>> with all the "czars".
>
>
> Oh for heavens sake. This goes on in all politics. Period. It went on
> in spades during the Bush years. "Seems" doesn't make it so.
>
> We need health care reform. You didn't want it so you screamed blue
> bloody murder. So we got this can of worms instead.
>
> Dianne
>
Agreed. The insurance companies and the talk show hosts they bought off
circulated all manner of scare tactic lies to get people worked up so
they'd complain. Not because the initial proposal was bad for the
consumer, but because it was bad for the insurance companies.
Medicare spends 97% on patient care; some insurance companies spend less
than 75% on patients -- they spend a ton of money on trying to figure
out how to deny claims, how to rescind coverage when someone gets sick,
and rewarding employees with bonuses for screwing the customer. So I
don't see why everyone thinks that government health care is so awful --
for those of us who actually *use* the insurance, I have yet to hear a
major complaint about Medicare, though I am constantly hearing
complaints about private insurance.
The friend who is 100% against gov't health care, even to the point of
organizing rallies ... gets her health care through the VA! When I
suggested that if gov't health care is so awful, she should buy a Blue
Cross policy like I had to, switch to a private doctor and for-profit
hospital, oh no, absolutely not. Her primary concern is that if there's
universal health care, she'll LOSE her excellent gov't health care.
Selfish to the end.
But too many people believe everything they hear on TV, and go into
denial when someone like me says "my friends in Canada and England, my
relatives in Germany, are all very happy with their govt health care".
Maybe if I bought ad time and said it on TV it would be more believable?
Susan Hartman
>> I am with you on this one, Cathy!! There is so much weird stuff being
>> decided behind closed doors with this administration. I guess it has
>> always been done......................but it seems so much worse now,
>> with all the "czars".
>
> Oh for heavens sake. This goes on in all politics. Period. It went on
> in spades during the Bush years. "Seems" doesn't make it so.
>
> We need health care reform. You didn't want it so you screamed blue
> bloody murder. So we got this can of worms instead.
>
> Dianne
>
You've nailed it, Dianne. At one point I didn't know whether to support
it at all, it's been so altered, but heads wiser than I have convinced
me that it's better than nothing, and at least a starting point.
We've been through the wringer in the past month and a half with health
care coverage availability, and I can tell you, there are SERIOUS flaws
in the system. And why does the system expect the employer to pay for
health care insurance, if we want to make people "personally"
responsible? That makes no sense.
sue
--
Susan Hartman
Karen C - California
> why does the system expect the employer to pay for
> health care insurance, if we want to make people "personally"
> responsible? That makes no sense.
>
Small steps, Sue, small steps.
We are accustomed to health insurance being the employer's
"responsibility", so if we went directly to each person paying for their
own, there would be great outcry about that being "an additional tax
on paople".
Eventually, there will be enough of us paying for our own for one reason
or another (self-employed or small enough business that it's not
required to provide insurance) that it'll be easier to transition over
to personal responsibility.
I'll note that I worked for a firm where it didn't matter how overworked
we were, they were never going to hire an additional person, because
certain employee benefit laws would kick in when we had 25 people, and
they were in business to enrich themselves, not to spend more on their
employees. I've heard they've now shrunk to 14 because certain laws
kick in at 15 employees, and if this bill passes for employers of 10 or
more, I can guarantee you they'll shrink to 9 so they don't have to comply.
And I know they are not the only greedy b*st*rds out there who think
that way.
Dianne Lewandowski
> We've been through the wringer in the past month and a half with health
> care coverage availability, and I can tell you, there are SERIOUS flaws
> in the system.
Many of us could write volumes on their experiences with the health care
system. It is absolutely broken except for those who don't use it, or
their coverage is excellent and they pay little or nothing.
Between what we pay in premiums that the employer doesn't cover, and our
medical bills, we are spending over $9,000 annually (or more in some
years). In 2010 our deductible has doubled for prescriptions that are
non-generic. A normal doctor visit for me is around $159. I only pay
$40, but look at that number! Ridiculous that we have to have that much
administration and overhead to cover the cost of my doctor reading labs
and refilling scripts. Yes, I have plenty of time with the doctor, and
yes s/he doesn't come cheap. But $159?
Our country simply cannot sustain this type of bleeding in our economy.
Dianne
Karen C - California
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/144837/why_it%27s_essential_to_pass_the_health_care_bill%2C_then_improve_it/
"The bill will make life better for most Americans -- those who don't
have health insurance and those who have inadequate health insurance."
"CBO cost estimates of the Senate bill. It shows the health care cost
projections for a family of four at different income levels. For
example, a family of four earning $60,458 (250 percent of the federal
poverty line) would pay an estimated annual premium of $12,042 and an
annual out-of-pocket maximum of $12,600 without the legislation (in
total, 41 percent of annual income). If the legislation passes, the
comparable numbers are $5,797 and $6,300 respectively (or 20 percent of
annual income). Families with lower incomes benefit even more."
"As weak as it is in numerous areas, the Senate bill contains three
vital reforms. First, it creates a new framework, the "exchange,"
through which people who lack secure workplace coverage can obtain the
same kind of group health insurance that workers in large companies take
for granted. Second, it makes available hundreds of billions in federal
help to allow people to buy coverage through the exchanges and through
an expanded Medicaid program. Third, it places new regulations on
private insurers that, if properly enforced, will reduce insurers'
ability to discriminate against the sick and to undermine the health
security of Americans."
"The biggest obstacle to more progressive reform is our system of
campaign finance. The drug companies, insurance companies, the hospital
lobby and the American Medical Association have too much political
influence because they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in
campaign contributions and lobbying, something I've written a lot about
over the past year. The Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the medical industrial complex, as they've shown throughout the battle
over health care reform. Unfortunately, a handful of moderate Democrats
in both Houses are also in the pockets of the health industry lobby --
most obviously Senators Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landreiu, Blanche
Lincoln and Kent Conrad. And let's not forget
one-time-Democrat-now-Independent-who-acts-like-a-Republican Joe
Lieberman, whose vanity, hypocrisy and double-crossing the Democrats
should reward by stripping him of his committee chairmanship. All people
of conscience around the country should unite in defeating Lieberman
when he runs for re-election for his Senate seat from Connecticut in
2012. I've called Lieberman the "Senator from Aetna" but he's worse than
that."
"If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who
lack affordable private options, support for it jumped to 76 percent."
"The mainstream media acted like stenographers, repeating the right
wingers' lies about the health care plans, without trying to verify them
or put their outrageous statements in context. At the same time, the
mainstream media completely shut out the voices of the left wing of the
health care debate, the advocates for a single-payer system. With a few
exceptions, the media repeated the right wing's lies about Canada's
health care system without correcting them, and allowed them to frame
the mainstream Democrats' public option plan as "socialism." Trudy
Lieberman, the nation's best media critic, has been keeping tabs on the
media's misreporting of the health care debate all along. It is worth
reading her regular columns and blogs to see how much the media set the
public agenda and framed the debate in ways that undermined progressive
activists and President Obama."
Karen C - California
> Many of us could write volumes on their experiences with the health care
> system. It is absolutely broken except for those who don't use it, or
> their coverage is excellent and they pay little or nothing.
>
An article I read recently pointed out that those with good
employer-provided insurance have been "living in Canada, but without the
lines for MRI machines". Of COURSE they see no need to change.
Having been on both sides of the situation, I agree with the quote. I
have had excellent insurance, where I basically didn't pay anything for
anything. I currently have a useless individual policy where I pay
twice: once for the insurance and once for the actual treatment. And
I've also been in the middle with an HMO where doctors were frequently
overruled by CPAs practicing medicine without a license.
One of the Congressmen said several months ago that health insurance
should be like car insurance, where you have to get three quotes and
take the best price. Small problem, the medical system doesn't work
that way:
#1, if you see 3 doctors you're likely to get 3 different diagnoses,
thus 3 different treatment plans, so you can't compare apples to apples.
(See "How Doctors Think" by Jerome Groopman MD, where he -- a doctor
himself -- got half a dozen different, erroneous diagnoses of his hand
problem.)
Having worked in auto accident law most of my life, I can tell you that
the plaintiff's attorney can always find a doctor who recommends an
expensive surgery and the defendant's side can always find a doctor who
recommends the much-cheaper alternative of a few weeks of physical
therapy and a RX for pain pills and swears that this is "just as good"
as fixing the problem surgically.
#2, now that I'm the one who pays the whole bill, I have tried shopping
around, and no one will give you a price. If they are willing to give
you a quote, it's a range. Is $2000-3000 cheaper or more expensive than
$1500-3500?
Susan Hartman
> Why It's Essential to Pass the Health Care Bill, Then Improve It
> http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/144837/why_it%27s_essential_to_pass_the_health_care_bill%2C_then_improve_it/
>
>
Thanks for that pointer. I'm going to check out Trudy Lieberman. I'm
absolutely disgusted by what's happened to the press in our country. A
lot of the news is now reporting on celebrity happenings and box office
receipts and pure drivel. There's little real *news* anymore because
newspapers and TV newsrooms have been gutted.
And the worst thing is, it appears that's what people *want*!!
sue
--
Susan Hartman
Karen C - California
>
> You are right, it does appear that drivel is what people want these
> days, it's depressing.
Actually, I think the reason is that it's NOT as depressing as hearing
constantly about war and recession.
A gal I used to work with was constantly cheering herself up that she
was better than celebrities, because she at least could keep her husband
happy enough to stay. Life had beaten her down in so many ways, but
that was one way she could feel good about something.
Bruce Fletcher
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:41:31 -0500, Susan Hartman
> <suest...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for that pointer. I'm going to check out Trudy Lieberman. I'm
>> absolutely disgusted by what's happened to the press in our country. A
>> lot of the news is now reporting on celebrity happenings and box office
>> receipts and pure drivel. There's little real *news* anymore because
>> newspapers and TV newsrooms have been gutted.
>>
>> And the worst thing is, it appears that's what people *want*!!
>>
>> sue
>
> (used to be great) to see how events in Teheran were going, after 20
> minutes of news about the death of a pervert I emailed CBC and told
> them what I thought of their newscast.
>
> Now I just don't bother, I listen entirely to radio - from all over
> the world actually, so far, so good, decent radio has not gone the way
> of television.
>
> You are right, it does appear that drivel is what people want these
> days, it's depressing.
The BBC still has its World Service
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice>
and you can listen to BBC on the iPlayer
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio>
<http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/streaming_programmes>
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
(Remove dentures to reply)