From today's Kansas City Star...(posted here with permission)
No one said fixing health care in America would be easy.
The problem is enormous in scope and at the same time intensely personal. The nation’s economy, the federal deficit, state budgets and employers’ payrolls are all tied up in the health care system — not to mention Jane Doe’s timetable for retirement and John Doe’s latest blood pressure reading.
So wrangling on the part of Congress is to be expected.
Fortunately, reasonable people from different political camps agree on the pillars of reform: All Americans should have affordable access to care; costs must be controlled; and medicine must shift from a model that pays for procedures to one that rewards results.
As the debate wears on, however, a number of falsehoods stand in the way of achieving those goals. Here are a few:
America has the best health care in the world. Why change?
Actually, the U.S. has the most expensive health care system on the planet, and outcomes here are inferior to those of nearly all other modern nations.
The death rate among newborns here is among the highest of industrialized nations. Americans are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as diabetes. A study that rated 19 relatively prosperous nations on their effectiveness in curbing deaths from preventable diseases put the United States at the very bottom.
Americans have access to care now — even if they have to use the emergency room.
Emergency room access is not comprehensive health care. Staffs can’t provide the follow-up care that will prevent a crisis from reoccurring. And the costs of treating the uninsured are passed along to everyone else.
And access to care is increasingly expensive for everyone. The average employee health insurance premium is rising nearly eight times faster than income. One in four of the Americans who participated in a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation earlier this year said they put off getting health care services because they couldn’t afford them. One in six reported cutting pills in half or skipping doses to make their prescriptions last longer.
President Obama wants to deny Americans the right to choose the treatment that’s best for them.
First of all, employers and insurers already separate patients from physicians and treatment options. Care already is “rationed.”
Any viable reform plan must set up a way to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments and procedures. In many cases, lower-cost treatments and medications work better than more expensive brands.
Citizens have a right to opt for more expensive options if they choose. But it is unreasonable to expect the health care system to pay for a gold-plated procedure if a less expensive avenue is available.
We can’t afford to reform health care.
We can’t afford not to. Medical costs account for one-sixth of domestic spending and are headed upward. They are handcuffing families and workers, and strangling federal and state governments.
Plans being considered by Congress present daunting up-front costs. But reform, done the right way, will mean savings for families and businesses — money that can be pumped into the economy.
Unfortunately, some Republicans seem content to stymie any Democratic plan on health care without putting forth any measures of their own.
“Why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work (the Democrats’ plan)?” U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri asked last week, when suggesting GOP House members may not propose a health care bill.
Sorry, but Republicans don’t get off that easily. The default plan is the status quo, which, as Obama noted last week, is “guaranteed to double your premiums, cause more Americans to lose their coverage and create larger budget deficits over the next 10 years.”
Republican politicians must stop promoting the greatest myth of all: That somehow we will stumble into a system in which all Americans can have all the services they want, and no one will have to pay for it.



Comments: 177 ( 6 removed by Spartan * )
Free markets also mean a health care system dominated by seven major insurance companies that are spending almost two million dollars a day to influence congress to maintain the status quo. Quality health care has become a luxury that fewer and fewer citizens can afford.
and none of this can happen here for NOT VERY MUCH MONEY.
My solution does provide a society in which all relationships are voluntary, all property is private (and individually owned), and the government runs the military and not much else.
Please give it a look at www.nopom.info. It is popular with those libertarians who have read it.
Then they waste their time advocating for something that is an impossibility. Which probably explains why there has never been a human society based on pure, unadulterated, free-market capitalism.
A society where all relationships are voluntary might be a nice idea, but it is completely incompatible with the realities of human biology.
Governments, corrupt or otherwise, have nothing to do with it, Linda. It's biology, plain and simple.
"However, I can assure you I know many people who do business exactly that way, and I am involved in with several of them."
Regardless of how you or these people you're involved with "do business", your fundamental existence as a human isn't based voluntary relationships. Nature simply doesn't work that way.
You've claimed that you advocate for a society where all relationships are voluntary. Are you claiming that such a society can exist, or do you recognize that such a society is impossible?
Do you have children, Linda? Or parents?
Oh...well, actually, we had free capitalism once...and it ended up being Robber Barons vs. citizens--remember that, in history class? How the poor were exploited by the uber rich? At least, until we overthrew their big empires with unions, and citizen's rights, market regulation and oversight.
End game.
Wilka
Skeptical that "pure capitalism" could ever exist here in the real world? You should be. Because it can't. Because there is no way for a human society to exist where all relationships are voluntary.
Day 2: NO ONE IS GOING TO TAX US WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. THROW OVER THE TEA.
Our dislike of government so-called interference goes WAY back to the beginning, versus Canada, UK, Germany, France and Sweden's simple desire to TAKE CARE OF ITS CITIZENS and LEGAL RESIDENTS.
Thanks Spartan.
Spencer says: "I've been in a shake my head mode recently listening to all the illegitimate excuses why we should not change health care in America." What could be a priceless, laughable truth in this, if so many lives weren't depending on the right outcome, is that the very people who are spewing the illegitimate excuses are the same ones who used to whine and complain about how the insurance companies abused everyone and malpractice put the cost of medicine out of reach.
Actually, I have had so much I cannot view the arguments as a diversion from my local issues. I am with you Lisa, Medicaid works well for the patient (I would really like more coverage for eye and dental) it is somewhat like Bing from Microsoft: the one thing they did really well, thus far!
Only one argument against, they do not pay fast enough to suit all Doctors which limit’s the pool of Doctors who have offices close to home. Now this may not occur in every local yet, given the massive numbers of Doctors, from primary care to all specialists in the greater Boston area not nearly enough accept Medicaid.
Same with Medicare--its time to start making all pay the same payroll taxes, etc. I pay payroll taxes on all of my money--and that's the way it should be for all, no caps!
Also get rid of shrub's tax cuts NOW--there's the money to pay for it, well at least until the CEO's quit robbing the companies blind....or do you think some of these idjits need to make $1.2 billion annually?
Linda, Since your on the inside of the rich/fat pool: Is it really true that most HMO/PPO claims are denied 3 times by the service rep and then by the manager, and real people only get their claims paid after the 7th to 10th argument with HMOs and PPOs?
Always wondered why you sounded so authoritarian and despotic.
Wilka
Explains a lot.
LIES, LIES, LIES....Everybody lying.
The Sydney Farber Cancer Center and the Jocelyn Diabetes Center are famous and well connected with local affiliate teaching Hospitals. We have some of the most well known Hematologists, Oncologists, Orthopedic and Pediatric surgeons and specialists in the Country--California does a great job in holding great Doctors also. Health is relative and quality of life as well, some folks just want to live at any cost, while others are not happy living a dependency bedridden life supported existence.
To each their own, the facts are: Health Insurance is too expensive for individuals and businesses to make good use of. Far too many folks do not qualify for Health Insurance at any rate because of pre-exiting conditions. I have said this before and it bears repeating: life is a pre-existing condition then you get sick.
I think of it all the time...
The whole concept of health insurance is that all pay for some. We did not sign up to give the board of directors obscene bonuses on denied claim profits...while people go without treatment.
Something in that set up smells pretty fishy to me.
(And I don't like fish!)
Wilka
Hey, hit the door running, and make way for someone with some ethics to fill your slot. Go on, don't go away mad, but just go away... Are you really thinking we are all that stupid to beg the people that feed on our carrion to stay, and keep on doing what they do? Someone will always fill the open slots, and generally, I like the odds they may be a little less morally bankrupt, if you "producers" all leave. Need someone to help you pack?
Gee, Linda, did you finally start reading what you have been posting?
And, No. We don't need profit in health care. Or, if we're going to allow it, we need it marginalized. 10% profit, max.
There! I've said it.
Bring it on!
Wilka
" John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
President Nixon: “Yeah.”
Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
President Nixon: “All right.”
Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
President Nixon: “Not bad.”"
People are PO'd about costs and that is a no brainer. Even in systems like Canada, held up as a model for what some want here in the US, price increases are not far behind ours (above official inflation rates) and its crippling the different provinces as it eats up more of their budgets than forecasted.
What people are not ready to do is entrust the government with a replacement of the current system. The government that has grossly underestimated every one of it's social programs for decades has little trust from many people. This rush to come up with a package quickly is scaring others too.
At a time of fiscal meltdown, a massive package that according to the CBO will fall far short of announced goals may or may not pass. What it will not have is bi-partisan support and is looking likely to divide even the Administration's party. At a minimum, an issue by issue approach will garner more support as the current one is not doing.
Over 70% of Americans DO seem to agree on that necessity, Charles.
Here's my quote for you today: "Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result?
(Go 'head...finish the quote...)
It isn't working. It is broken. Fix it.
(Pretty freakin simple, huh?)
Wilka
Kathy W, by the estimates (grossly exaggerated but still) of uninsured by ObamaCare supporters, over 80% of the nation has medical insurance-the majority with private companies. Details of this plan already say it won't cover more than a third of the supposedly uninsured and it will cost multiples of what is currently being estimated by Congress. Given the shift of this large new cost onto private plans (to make up for the lower payments of government plans) will further exacerbate their costs and hurt the majority who have their own insurance.
By no means is the system broken. It has problems and is expensive but the majority get their own care through their own plans. There can be changes made but this monster is not the way to go
Your words: "Spar: Over 70% of Americans DO seem to agree on that necessity, Charles. / What of the other 70%?"</</em>strong>
I'm thinking you are not for real. 70%, dear heart, minus 100% of the population, leaves THIRTY PERCENT? Not "the other 70%." If I am your waitress, can I please figure my own tip? I'd hate to see what you'd do with 20% for my excellent service.
We need, I think, to have a "source-off."
Wilka
I'm no math genius but I've seen similar figures posted by supporters of ObamaCare.
The problem has little to do with health care, but the legal system and Government that allows and causes over 85% of the problems. You don't cure a sick man by cutting his head off, you treat the disease. Frivolous lawsuits that drive malpractice insurantr astronomically up, need to be stopped, judges that award these cases need to be disbarred. AMA which hinders the development of medicines that Doctors and Pharma companies can make a lot of money on, need restricted, so that sheaper meds can be produced. FDA needs to find a safe and quicker means of passing new treatments and drugs that actually help, instead of the 15 year program they have now; as that drives costs up. There are a lot of things that need addressed that would make it much easier to reduce the cost of service, if we quit looking to drive costs up more. The health care reforms now are all based on increasing costs to the country, and will not help.
I don't expect you to understand real logic, but I have at least tried to explain things to you so a 12 year old should be able to understand.
The doctors face it from the other side, but it is still the insurance industry that needs to be bent over backwards, and have their heads (and wallets) thunked by the American People.
It is TIME to say NO to the Insurance companies. It is Freakin' TIME.
Since you belong to the Party of No, this should be real easy for you.
Wilka
Kathy, try reading my comments before attacking them. You would actually sound more intelligent then.
Quoting from the comment by Sandy Knauer just below this:
"Thanks for the well-informed, rational post, Spartan."
If my desire to ever sound "intelligent" to you should surface, I'll be sure to let you know.
I did skim through your comment, and MY comment still stands.
The major insurance conglomerates, whether Linda's HMO/PPO org or malpractice insurance policies that the doctors carry....IS STILL THE PROBLEM.
They are, indeed, one of the major contributors to bad coverage...or NO coverage, or extensive rates, or denial of claims, or...or...or....
Your quote to another contributor? "I don't expect you to understand real logic, but I have at least tried to explain things to you so a 12 year old should be able to understand." Is not worthy.
Wilka
Many hardly important issues are not being addressed. Charles, do you know how little of the total health care dollar is actually incurred in malpractice lawsuits? That the insurance companies blow the issue up, and use it to charge exorbitant malpractice insurance rates is hardly an argument for it being larger than it is. This is just more reason that insurance companies need to be out of the loop.
So if there was no more malpractice insurance (said companies now gone) what happens to doctors when sued, how many lawsuits-settled or not before they are broke? The sheer cost of defending themselves is worse than the actual losses. Will people still be allowed to sue their doctors? I know that in the Armed Forces you can't do that but will that become a national policy?
Not you Wilka, the party of no interlopers.
Linda, One thing I'd like you to know. Many of us could have made big bucks but chose, I repeat chose to do valuable work positively affecting the lives of women and children.
What have you done for me lately?
This rushed mess is more dangerous than the status quo and many in your own party know it. It may pass but like cap and trade by narrow, fully partisan margins that will boomerang back on it's supporters.
Maybe if we did away with the monetary system, then most problems will be solved.
BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM EVEN MORE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF NICE GREEN DOLLARS?
Perhaps, there should be areas of our country's economic system that is not up for sale, and should not create profit. Our cops and firefighters do not operate for profit. Perhaps our healthcare and educational systems should follow suit?
Jes' saying. Common sense dictates, I think, at least exploring this option.
Wilka
They put a monetary value on every single patient and procedure. Just for a moment, forget the uninsured people and think about the people who HAVE Health Insurance and as soon as they need it, they get told "that's not covered" by some dweeb in phone call center who's been instructed to "just say NO"! THAT'S the value Insurance companies place on human suffering!
That was standard operating procedure...
She doesn't work for them anymore.
Now, she can sleep at night again. (Without Restless Leg Syndrome drugs...)
Wilka
I got tired of her silly ass.
What the dumbass isn't able to do is distinguish between a conversation and flooding someone else's articles with conspiracy nonsense.
I doubt you "luv" anyone other than yourself, Linda.
Our Purpose
The American Family Association represents and stands for traditional family values and exists to motivate and equip citizens to reform our culture to reflect Biblical truth on which it was founded. We believe that God has communicated absolute truth to man through nature and the Bible, and that all men everywhere and at all times are subject to His authority. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country as evidenced by the vision of our forefathers as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
To that end, AFA spurs activism directed to:
* Preservation of Marriage and the Family
* Decency and Morality
* Sanctity of Human Life
* Stewardship
* Media Integrity
Other divisions of AFA include OneNewsNow.com, an online news provider that is syndicated around the world. AFA maintains activist web sites such as OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com that rally Christian activists to contact companies asking them to drop their advertising from objectionable TV shows. AFA web sites average over 40 million hits and five million visitors each month.
Yuck. Okay, as far as I'm concerned, that makes them both behavior Nazi's and professional propagandists. Pass the popcorn, ya'all.
Wilka
This is so NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for their "chill'uns."
Think about THAT please?
Wilka
Do you think they've all gone to bed now?
W
It's also not too soon to reform our health care system, which we've been talking about since Teddy Roosevelt was President.
We are at a defining moment for this nation. If we act now, then we can rebuild our economy in a way that makes it strong, competitive, sustainable and prosperous once more. We can lead this century the same way that we led the last century. But if we don't act, if we let this moment pass, we could see this economy just sputter along for decades -- a slow, steady decline in which the chances for our children and our grandchildren are fewer than the opportunities that were given to us. And that's contrary to the history of America. One of our core ideas has always been that we leave the next generation better off than us. And that's why we have to act right now.
I know that people say the costs of fixing our problems are great -- and in some cases, they are. The costs of inaction, of not doing anything, are even greater. They're unacceptable. And that's why this town hall and this debate that we're having around health care is so important.
Let me just give a few statistics. Many of you already know these. In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages for the average family. I don't need to tell you this because you've seen it in your own lives. Even if you've got health insurance -- and 46 million people don't -- if you've got health insurance, you have seen your costs double. They've gone up three times faster than wages. If we do nothing, then those costs are just going to keep on going higher and higher.
In recent years, over one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s -- not because small business owners don't want to provide benefits to their workers, but they just simply can't afford it; they don't have the money. If we don't act, that means that more people are going to lose coverage and more people are going to lose their jobs because those businesses are not going to be competitive.
Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every $5 we earn will be spent on health care. And for those who rightly worry about deficits, the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined -- everything else combined.
The Congressional Budget Office just did a study that showed that when you look at the rising costs of entitlement, 90 percent of it is Medicare and Medicaid -- it's not Social Security -- 90 percent of it comes from the federal share of health care costs. So if we want to control our deficits, the only way for us to do it is to control health care costs.
What, no...really? What is so hard to understand about this?
We really ARE smarter than this...as a nation of thinkers.
(But why you end up with so many UN-thinkers commenting on your posts really amazes me.) It is like Rhetoric Central sometimes.
Wilka
The Health insurance industries only want healthy customers, that is, how they make their money. They are a business, they don't care about your health needs, only about a profit. The person sitting on the phone in another state deciding your medical needs, about rather or not they will approve a test, surgery, etc. they don't have a medical degree. They are working on strict guidelines set up by your insurance company. They really don't care about the fact your physician who examined you recommends you need a procedure.
Not only are most personal bankruptcies due to medical bills beyond the ability of the consumer to pay, but most of the households declaring bankruptcy for this reason do so despite having health insurance coverage.
Health insurance appears to be useless when it is most needed. Twenty-five percent of insurance companies cancel coverage immediately when an individual covered suffers a disabling illness. Within a year, another twenty-five percent of insurers cancel coverage.
As I have read through the above comments, I am amazed at how many people still believe our medical system isn't broken.
At the age of 49 getting health insurance to cover me is next to impossible. Even though it is going on 10 years since my massive heart attack. Insurance companies want a premium of three thousand dollars a month, and that exclude heart care, since my heart attack is looked upon as a pre-existing condition.
The system is broken, and I hope people don't have to go through a severe experience to see just how bad it is.
The current HB 3200 does not discriminate on pre-existings. Please google it. Link is: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Sec. 111. Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions.
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 22 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or other23 wise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under 24 the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based
25 on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.
Blessed be,
Wilka
I have excellent employer provided insurance and still have been pushed to the edge by left over bills from a surgery last year and the subsequent, forever meds with no generic.
We need a single payer system and there is no doubt of this in my mind. We need to remove the profit motive from health care. Now!
Thank you.
Wilka
Why isn't anyone asking THAT question to the republicans! Answer? CORPORATE CONTROLLED MEDIA!
Isn't this an ironic twist ......Just who do think controls that corporate media.....Sure as hell not the right....It's your friends on the left and all the liberals that control it.....And don't even make me list all off them cause I'd be able to use up the rest of your comment area on that!!!
IF you decided to read the comments, please note how these two individuals continually try to twist, turn, and derail the conversation about Heath Care!
Once again, I will point out this is NOT a "liberal vs conservative" issue! It is a HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Issue!
Why does it even have to be the Health Care INDUSTRY? Like food production, health care should not be an INDUSTRY.
Nixon acted on the request of Kaiser, one of the leaders in this field of INSURANCE, and started this obscene crap, Linda. Government implemented it, at the behest of the insurance industry. Stop trying to sell the lie that the insurance industry was required to do this evil by government. See the Nixon tape transcript above, and give that crap a rest.
I used to work for the insurance industry so I have no trouble understanding that they will do whatever is necessary to maintain status quo.
The American people have no clue what goes on behind closed doors.
My only fear is that the bill will be tweaked until it is no longer recognizable. I am certain, that regardless of what the final bill will look like, there will still be plenty of profit for the insurance companies.
Jeffrey Immelt is one of the biggest scumbags on the planet...And look who he is.... A financial advisor to....DUH.... (Gee, can you say liberal/socialist/marxist)....The other biggest scumbag on the planet....Look guys, you can hate me for hating them but the bottom line is on this one you can't win...All you got is your opinions and your left wing blogs and newspapers and media...
You really want debate this let's state the facts and make Spartan a whole lot of points and something worth reading, instead of this drivel you have all been yapping about, and this includes you too Don.....
Once again we just have to agree to disagree, and believe me I disagree 100%......