Health care crippling the economy

"Limiting therapies in later lives" will be a major cost saver, says Mr. Nowlan. In another word: "euthenasia." So the liberals can get it at both ends, unborn babies and older people. How about those with incurable but treatable diseases? Or those with crippling injuries? Maybe those with mental problems? Hitler had a great cost-saving plan for such people. I wonder if Nowlan will favor "limiting" his therapies when he's 80. So much for "Whatever you do to the least of My People that you do unto Me."

Jerauld wrote:

"Limiting therapies in later lives" will be a major cost saver, says Mr. Nowlan. In another word: "euthenasia." So the liberals can get it at both ends, unborn babies and older people. How about those with incurable but treatable diseases? Or those with crippling injuries? Maybe those with mental problems? Hitler had a great cost-saving plan for such people. I wonder if Nowlan will favor "limiting" his therapies when he's 80. So much for "Whatever you do to the least of My People that you do unto Me."

We need to limit the involvement of government in health care. As we see with school spending, there is no accountability, and costs continue to rise.

Think about our health care, your employer, your insurance company, the government, and your doctor. Which one in the health care equation is essential? Which ones add cost to receiving care?

Health care should be available to all and people should not be forced into financial ruin to obtain it or delay medical attention because of lack of finances. National health is doable, the main problems are greed by providers and individuals who feel that care, such as a uncomplicated hernia repair, needs to be done immediately if not sooner which would be the case if you have private coverage and an opening on the surgery schedule. We are a disgrace as a nation in providing health care . We may very well have the finest health care in the world but, thats if you have the resources to pay for it, otherwise you are not cared for and this is wrong.

I think we need to look at other countries to examine our options. We can fashion our own system based on what works and doesn't work. Everyone talks about Canada - some say it's great; some say it's not. What most people don't realize is that each providence of Canada (Quebec, British Columbia, etc) handle the costs differently. That is why there is such a disparity between opinions.

Why can we research and vote on our options? Frontline (PBS) did a wonderful job examining systems in Japan, Switzerland, England, Germany, etc.

We would all be better off if we knew more. As a healthcare worker I see how much prices are set so high because of the battles between the providers and the insurance companies. And we ALL pay for their battles in the long run.

For what it is worth, I prefer Japan's method where a voter elected set of officials (separate from our presidential elections) sets the prices on the most basic elements of healthcare. If a doctor's visit was set at $80 that is exactly what he would be reimbursed; a chest xray would be $50 no matter where you got it. That way, facilities would not have to charge some patients more to cover other patients. The board would reexamine the prices every 2 years. Providers can make money by other means (elective surgeries - when consumers can make a choice).

The thought that "people" should be the second, third, or fourth choice for government intervention in healthcare is silly. You can't say out of one side of your mouth that healthcare will take up to 37% of the governments money in a few years and then out of the other say "people" apparently could do without. Single-payer healthcare, call it what you want, works everywhere else in the world and the world seems to be getting along just fine. The folks that think the multi-billion dollar insurance companies are more important than American lives need to be voted out of office. If the greed factor is taken out of healthcare, the prices increases and costs would tumble and yes even the "poor" will have quality healthcare, not just those lucky enough to be able to afford the best. A novel idea indeed.

I spent a great deal of time in France and England, and while I understand why people think the healthcare systems of those countries are wonderful and provide healthcare access to all, I'm afraid there's quite a bit our government does not tell us about those systems.

Even in countries that have national healthcare, individuals still have the option and opportunity to purchase supplemental insurance, either on their own, or it is provided through their employer. Therefore, there are always those who have superior coverage to others who either can't afford the supplemental insurance, or don't wish to spend their money on it.

There is no such creature as "equal insurance for all." Those who make more money, will have access to better options in healthcare.

What I would like to know is how many people in this country have access to employer sponsored healthcare, but refuse to purchase it because they think it's too expensive? And how many of those individuals have cable TV, drive newer cars with car payments, have cell phones with silly media plans, etc.? How many more people utilize healthcare services, but refuse to work out payment arrangements with the provider, and instead, ditch their responsibility to reimburse the nurses, doctors and facilities for their services? And just how many people even bother to shop for insurance, be it major medical or full coverage, but would rather moan and complain and wait for the government to do something?

My husband has a chronic illness that costs us a pretty penny every single month. Since his health is our number one priority, we focus our resources on that. We buy used cars and don't finance them. We save our money and we bought a house that we could afford on one salary. This is how a majority of people operate, however, there is a faction of our society that does not, and they are the ones that cost us in the end.

I would like to see all people with healthcare coverage, however, what I really think I'd like to see more is people get their priorities straight, and learn to differentiate between what they need, against what they want.

I do not think we will ever have meaningful reform if we do not address an essential component to this healthcare nightmare: individuals who can afford healthcare insurance, but choose to spend their money on other, non-essential items and then refuse to pay for the healthcare services they utilize.

kevlar128 wrote:

<quoted text>
We need to limit the involvement of government in health care. As we see with school spending, there is no accountability, and costs continue to rise.
Think about our health care, your employer, your insurance company, the government, and your doctor. Which one in the health care equation is essential? Which ones add cost to receiving care?

Have you considered that many people don't have an "employer", or an "insurance company"? Many others work for companies that can't afford to provide health care insurance. I don't have the answer but I can tell you that the system that we have now is disgraceful. Everyone needs access to affordable healthcare and if that takes government involvement - and I think that it will - then so be it.

First of all health care is not a right.

Second one of the main reasons we have these huge cost increases is government interference in the medical "marketplace":

a) employer paid health insurance started as a reaction to WWII govt price controls that allowed employers to give insurance coverage to employees tax free; the problem is it puts 2 "middlemen" between the patient and the doctor: employers and insurance companies (and sometimes the govt). Talk about a prescription for screwing up pricing promoting over use!

b) the huge costs to develop new drugs and therapies; driven by the huge time it takes to "prove" they are safe and will work perfectly; in the meantime people die; and God forbid that they don't work exactly as expected because there is a line of lawyers ready to sue.

Third, the myth that Medicare only has administration costs of 3% which has been spread by the fat fool Michael Moore. This does not take into account the huge costs the govt foists off on the private sector to process Medicare claims and associated work.

Get the govt out of this process to the greatest extent possible and we will have a chance to make improvements. Osama Barama wants to start this huge new healthcare initiative when we were just informed last month that our 2 other major social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are going to be bankrupt sooner than previously thought. Now that is idiocy!

How is it that we can afford obscene wars of choice, bloated military budgets and huge bailouts for banks (rather than for homeowners), but we can't afford health care for all? We do have choices. We just aren't making the right decisions.

Check out this extremely well written article on health care in the U S.http://www.newyorker.com/rep orting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fac t_gawande

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01...

Providing incentives for healthy living is going to be a touchy one. "At the expense of Lifestyle choices" is an interesting thing.

Should the state take care of individuals who CHOSE to eat 9,000 calories a day or who CHOSE to smoke two packs a day or who CHOSE to drink vodka like water...
until they ultimately crumble under their own weight, or
must be put on a ventilator, or
their liver is shot?

Perhaps the real problem here is that the real cause for disease is tough to identify. High-risk behaviors are precisely that: risky.

Plenty of "healthy lifestyle" people such as myself have excema or get strep throat or develop tuberculosis. That's proof that disease and ailments just happen regardless of your lifestyle choices.

What's unsustainable is "best care you can demand" proven or not. A base level of care and prevention assured for all would ultimately lower extraordinary expenses (after an initial ramp up) and could be funded if we stopped covering the extraordinary--though often unproven, sometimes unnecessary--other things.

The truth is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everybody want's to ignore.

Without competition and free markets, medical science will stagnate.

There should be a two tier system. One only provides basic no frills health care. This includes no cosmetic surgery, no prosthetics.

While one provides based on your "willingness" to pay. Note I did not say "ability" to pay.

Many folks forgo better health coverage in lieu of new cars, bigger houses and vacations.

As a middle class earner I see this in my demographic all the time. Clamoring about heath insurance premiums and saying they cant afford the PPO option. Then bragging about the new house they are buying the next week.

The free market still has to provide the option for folks to pay for their own healthcare if they so choose.

Too bad class warfare will demonize those who choose to pay for the care they want to provide for their families. Even if we are not rich.

Health care for illegals is crippling the country.

Bob wrote:

http://www.newyorker.com/repor ting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_ gawande

When you twist the truth into a pretzel, is it still the truth?

The fantasy that government bureaucrats can do this better has to stop.

What about all the illegals getting Medicaid to cover their medical bills? Do you have any idea how many of these illegals go to the hospital, give false information and then just walk away from huge medical bills? Or when you call their home to try to collect they either say they can't speak english or there is noone there by that name.

I don't know how much better the system has gotten but I know years ago rich people use to hide their assests so they could get Medicaid and not pay their bills. The worst part was they would drive up to the door of the hospital in their cadillacs.

The system needs to be tighter and more controlled. Only truly deserving people should get Medicaid.

Here's the problem:

The 'non working class' get welfare, medicade and a section 8 roof over their head. When they get sick everything is payed for via tax payers dollars.

Working class people work their whole life to own a home and have heart attacks without insurance and have to forfeit their homes they worked their whole life for.

This is not fair that 'some people' have to pay and others have no responsibility to pay.

Theres your problem

OK, I have been saying this till I am blue in the face. Let me back up a bit:
Here is a real life example: GM is going bankrupt, the existing retirees are facing huge slashes in their pensions, and new hires (if any) don't even have the option of a pension.

There is NO SINGLE ISSUE in this country more important, or that has more impact, than health insurance. NOT ONE. EVERY company, large and small, would benefit from a robust public option in health care. That option would free up so much money that could be used to increase wages, provide pensions, and increase the life/work satisfaction. NONE. Not tax breaks. Not tax credits. Just expand Medicare or the VA system to cover every citizen of this country.

Medicare going broke? Here is the solution to that problem: Raise the limit above which taxes to support SS and Medicare are not applied. Put it at 300K, for instance. This creates solvency in the Medicare fund AND the Social Security fund. And, it accomplishes that just as quickly as our esteemed congress-critters pass that revision. People in that salary range (300K) use Social Security and Medicare just as often as the poor schmuck who pays full freight up to that established limit.

If we instituted a tax that would be a fraction of the copay, premium, and deductible amounts forked over to insurance companies, the tax would go a long way to making a public option self-sustainable. And, we could bargain and comparison shop for fees, just the way Medicare does currently.

We have the model, we have the general electorate behind us, the only thing we do NOT have is Obama's vocal support and more importantly, HIS POLITICAL WILL to do the right thing. Unfortunately, what we DO HAVE are some deviate Democrats who are willfully and with malice and forethought subverting the Democratic possibilities of reform in this area AND a president who now seems to think the only change we should have is a change in insurance company plans. I don't even want to think he is in insurance lobbies pockets....but I am beginning to think he is just like every other beholden politician. And, another thing, cut out this crap about seating Franken. Just certify the election results and seat the man. The sooner we get the true, REAL caring Democratic seated in the Senate the sooner we have a possibility of a fighting chance.

Mark my words: Obama will NOT be electable in 2012 if he does not sponsor, guide, and achieve a viable single payer, public option in the health care arena. NO OTHER ISSUE affects more common people than that - not the two useless wars, not the bank bailout, not the possibility of bringing Bush, Cheney and accomplices to justice. NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT.

If we can subsidize a war in Iraq to the tune of 1 billion a week we can afford a single payer system.