Health Care in America (Political Blues)
 

The "House" passed something big, by a slim margin.

What do Ya'll think of this?
Of course, the Senate will have it's own version.
WHO is going to pay for all this?

Will they hafto use this as well, in other words, will this "law", if passed apply to them? (Our lawmakers and leaders?)

The house and senate voted themselves BIG raises for '09.
$4700, and $5300.
How do you feel about that?
What was anyone in your family's chance of getting a raise like that this year?



Incumbents for the most part, should go, imho. (regardless of party) unless they've done an outstanding job.

WARNING: This Thread must Stay Off Politics! (Sorry for the Name, in the Thread)!
Meant for Educating each other on the news.

pete

I'm afraid of what this means for us.?.

Kim,
I understand.... BUT, you're NOT afraid to speak!
We need to get a conversation going.....
I used to know what I spoke of, now, with a Tbi, I can't say I'm stupid, just slower...
I like to have different points of view posted in front of me!
Thanks!

pete

just a reminder here before the discussion moves forward that NeuroTalk has guidelines that do *not* permit any form of partisan political discussion

so please be sure to keep this conversation from becoming in any way party political

discussing health care reform is ok, but it is a fine line in doing so without becoming too political

we ran a poll during the election and the members of NT voted to keep politics off the forums as it inevitably leads to discord
FYI here is a link to the poll thread from last year for those that may have missed it then
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=54921

Chemar,
Thank you, and I didn't know that.
I named the thread wrongly. It's not so much political / partisan, it's what they're all forcing on us (Not one party or another).
That's why I specifically put in my first post that I don't care "regardless of party".

But, thanks for the warning! (I put a warning in the first post).

I'm still a little green.
Well, not real little, or real green, but, you know! (not quite, but almost, Kermit).
Thanks again, for doin' what you do!

pete

thanks for understanding Pete :)

last thing we want is for members to start falling out with each other over political stuff so that is why NT has always had a guideline calling for "limited" political comments
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/showthread.php?t=1293
during last years election, there was a lot of upset over political discussion and so that is why Doc ran the poll

we do have social groups where more open political discussion is allowed tho
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/group.php

Thanks for your kind help, Chemar!

I'm trying to get some input from others on this health bill. The news can be overwhelming to me, and, I don't know who to trust, (because even the news can be partisan).
We have some very intelligent and informed members here, and I was trying to get an idea on the "Health Bill", not the politics behind it.

Again, my thanks!

Pete

it is fine to discuss and analyze the bill and its pros and cons...in fact, very relevant!

you truly did no wrong in starting the discussion Pete...just the political in the title that could be misinterpreted so my post was more to prevent any discord arising

but a respectful discussion on the issue of health care and the legislation, keeping the political as limited and generic as possible, is a-ok :)

I don't see what's so wrong with a generalized government health care system. It's pretty common in Europe. We have obligatory government health care. Of course, it has its cost, that's the downside. The upside is, no more poverty due to the unaffordability of the most basic health care, no more hugely expensive meds (that is so sad to see from a country such as the US). But is the system that President Obama has envisaged going to be as comprehensive as the European models? I don't think so, so I don't get why so many Americans are so afraid of this.

Thanks, Marleen.
Great to have a view from the other side of the pond!

People are afraid of Change.

I myself, would like to see insurance that covers more, and eliminate the lifetime cap!
For instance,
I pay $850/month for myself, alone. (I can remember when that covered my entire family, and I'm not saying how much further back I remember!).
But, I'm still not covered for Vision, or Dental, and have annoying copays on prescriptions, and my neurologist is "Out of Network". I would like to see those things corrected.
When I owned my business, I had a small group, which was quite a bit less expensive).

Paperwork. There's too much!
I have Blue Cross's best policy, and it's designed to take fairly good care of you, with a semi major crisis.
But, it's also designed to make it difficult, to make claims. (I'm not Mr Paperwork).

And, most all policies here, have a One Million dollar lifetime limit.
We know, that some maladies can go above that, and the idea of insurance is to prevent catastrophic loss.
I hope the new law abolishes any lifetime limits.

I do understand, that they're changing it to eliminate the pre-existing condition clauses. Which is great!

I also hope, that the lawmakers themselves, are subject to falling under this law.
(Congress has the world's best health care plan, as far as I know)...

pete

(Thanks again, Chemar!)

Frontline - Sick Around the World Airs on PBS Tuesday Nov 10th, 9PM ET
 

Hi Pete,

This should be a very interesting program to watch coming up on PBS tomorrow night.

My husband and I gave back our greencards when we learned I couldn't get reasonable health care coverage in the USA becasue of my RSD. We figured the pre-existing condition clauses would be used for basically anything and everything if anything catastrophic were to happen to me. It's too bad really but we had to make sure we are both properly insured. California dreaming is just that.

MsL

Thanks, MsL!

I hope the rest of us can keep this thread going!

I'd be so very disappointed, if not!

Let's all THINK, NOW's the time!

(If you don't have an opinion, then you're going to get no dinner. Like it or not. Sorry, but this conversation should help us to form opinions, and questions).


THANKS!

Pete

IMHO [and no, we're not talking party politics] Frontline is a is a sneaky one, so be careful. It purports to be an objective documentary, but it has a way of landing on the side of "conventional wisdom."

I was first struck by this years ago when it did a program on the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb, totally ignoring the scholarship of people like Gar Alperovitz and Gabriel Kolko, who had been through Henry Stinson's diaries etc., and painted a pretty convincing picture that Japan was on the eve of surrender as a result of the firebombings, they were just down to the status of the Emperor, but the problem was, for years the West had been begging Stalin to invade from the East after the fall of Germany, and he said he would do it, three months to the day, but by that time, Japan was so weak and the territorial concessions that Stalin wanted (and took) were so significant, that time alone became of the essence in securing a Japanese surrender . . . .

Yet none of this - stuff I spent much of a semester studying in college - made it into the Frontline documentary. Ditto JFK in Dallas, and although I can't say I took that one for credit, I did live it.

Mike

Mike,
I was watching a show called "the Manhattan Project", on hulu, I think it was on "Modern Marvels".
They got into the political end, that the US wanted to drop the bomb(s) quickly, so that Russia couldn't get in on the peace treaty, and therefore, as the spoils go to the victor, Russia was kept out!

Thanks for the info, Mike!

pete

My humble position on the current health care bill --

WHO is going to pay for it? How, as a country, can we possibly afford the initiatives set forth by the House? We can't even afford Social Security and the existing Medicare programs - those funds are projected to go broke by the time people my age (now 49) are ready to retire.

More work needs to be done. A government sponsored program on the level that is being currently proposed is by far too expensive for the country as a whole.

I think we all agree that something has to be done. We need reform. Let's get it right.

Sandy

Putting aside how certain issue's of women's rights are dealt with in the House bill, there is [strike: only] one key - but fatal - flaw in what I have heard will be in the final Senate bill at least (and may be in the House version, dunno) and that is that people with mandated employer sponsored insurance will be inellible to participate in the public plan, no matter how bad their coverage is.

With that, the insurance industry has innoculated itself from any competition from the public plan, where the public plan could have been quite competitive by, among other things, saving on the 30% of revenue that we're told goes into stringing people out on their claims. Does anyone know off hand whether this provision is in the final House bill?

Finally, for a nice discusion on the economics of paying for this, check out a story that ran in Monday's NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/he...0cost.html?hpw Apparently, the great hope lies in the concept of "bundling," which, to the best of my understanding, is what Kaiser Permanente was and is built on. And unlike a lot of for-profit HMOs, Kaiser's care is pretty good.

Mike

I understand that besides "taxing the rich", that medicare / medicaid are going to lose a LOT of funding.
This is how, in a short article I read, it was explained, would pay for this new law.

pete

Thanks Pete. So much for my reference to the inability of most folk to qualify for the public plan being the "only" key flaw of the legislation.

Too much Baclofen, forgot about that one. Although I wonder how a cut in Medicare can in the end survive the wrath of AARP. But as for cutting Medicaid, that's just shameless.

Somebody correct me on this, but it seems like it's been a very long time since the powers at be in the U.S. were publically committed to aiding the poor, especially as a matter of real priority. How have we become so debased as a people?

Mike

Kaiser is a nightmare and wouldn't wish that coverage on an enemy. Kaiser is the inventor of the HMO which is how not to cover someone in short order. You have to use their doctors and hospitals. The US is now heading into third world status with it's pathetic, fragmented way it delivers healthcare. In order for me not to ramble, there are two industries that can collude and fix prices, health insurance companies and major league baseball. The insurance companies have managed to divide this nation at the expense of millions of Americans well being. Just keep in mind a congressman or woman will never go without their government provided coverage ever. No pre-existing condition can never apply to them.

Just a bump up of the original post. :)
New health bill & information.

I support a public healthcare option 100%, for a bunch lot of reasons. But mostly it is ethical for me. I cannot in good conscience support anything less than ensuring all are provided decent healthcare. I have heard the argument time and again that emergency rooms won't turn away uninsured. But people cannot get ongoing care such as chemotherapy, physical therapy, have a mastectomy, manage their diabetes, etc. etc. etc. in the emergency room.

So it is proposed the biggest impact to taxes will be individuals who make $500,000 plus or families that earn $1,000,000 plus. Well that is a bummer but I can't really be sympathetic. I wish I had that problem. These are also the earners that have the income to create tax shelters so probably aren't paying what they should anyway.

Besides we would not be funding the entire 47M that are uninsured today. Many of the uninsured individuals will actually buy insurance if it was affordable. I would love to consider a change in career, but can't because of pre-existing condition and the high cost. It stinks that option is taken away and I am stuck being a Dilbert.

That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Jimking -

I only write from the perspective of two family members in the Bay Area, both of whom had complex medical conditions and were (perhaps luckily) promptly referred out of network, with Kaiser picking up the tab.

That said, I know that some experiences have not been as positive. May I ask whether your wife had any dealings with Kaiser in the course of her treatment for CRPS?

Secondly, while you lump Kaiser with the for-profit HMOs, bear in mind that Kaiser (the first HMO) is itself a non-profit.http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/aboutkp/fastfacts.html Now, while much has been made by one of it's
most vocal detractors, when it reported a stong operating income in 2007 ("Kaiser reports obscene $2.5 billion in net income through 3rd qtr.") http://www.kaiserthrive.org/2007/11/...in-net-income/ the same site said nothing when Kaiser reported a net non-operating loss of $706 million in the third quarter of 2008. From a press report a few days ago:

November 6, 2009

Contact: Anne B. Little, 510-271-2320

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals Report Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results

OAKLAND, Calif – Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (KFHP/H), and their subsidiaries reported today combined total operating revenue of $10.5 billion for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, compared to $10.2 billion in the third quarter of last year. Operating income in the third quarter was $336 million, compared to $307 million in the third quarter of last year. Net non-operating income was $233 million in the third quarter, compared to a net non-operating loss of $706 million in the third quarter of last year. As a result, third quarter net income was $569 million, versus a $399 million net loss in the third quarter of last year. These represent the combined operating results for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and their subsidiaries. . . . [Emphasis added.]

http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/pressr...inancials.html

That said, I acknowledge that, in the words of what appears to be the collective voice of its critics:

It is not impossible to get good medical care at Kaiser Permanente. What IS impossible is getting them to take responsibility and make restitution when something does go wrong.

http://www.kaiserthrive.org/2009/09/...al-negligence/

And for a real horror story, we have this: http://www.kaiserthrive.org/2007/03/...ordann-brewer/

Perhaps a better model - which is also consistant with the "bundling" approach - is found in the regional health systems maintained by the Mayo Clinic and Intermountain Medical Center, which have some of the lowest average Medicare costs in the nation, associated with a generally very high level of service. There, the key is that all area residents are assigned a primary community medicine specialist to whom you can go any time with concerns: Mayo Clinic Rochester, for instance, maintains a network of wholly owned clinics in small towns thought Western Wisconsin, Southern Minnesota, and Northern Iowa. Then, on the referral of the community medicine doc, you can see a top specialist almost immediately. And I believe it's possible to request that you be reassigned to another community health specialist if you are unhappy with the first, but I don't know what the procedure is.

Coming from Rochester MN and with my parents still there, I can report with some certainty that, unlike in the very private practice of medicine in Los Angeles, no one has to wait 4 - 6 weeks between the first suspicion of cancer and surgery: 2 - 3 days is more like it.

Mike

fmichael, my wife had Keiser early in her treatment for RSD and it was very poor. I've come to the conclusion that if she had cancer she'd may have gotten better care early on. They kept insisting that she should see a shrink once a month and a hand full of aspirin for pain. This, after she was diagnosed with RSD. She had another option to pick up another HMO in which they did the same non-treatment for RSD.

I'd like to mention that I was on C-Span this morning with the CEO of CareFirst BC/BS (call in) and mentioned my wife's chronic condition of RSD and our situation trying to avoid a lapse in our insurance.

Wow! On both counts. As to the first, my sincere sympathies. If it's any consolation, the the senior guy at Cedars Sinai Pain Clinic/Center etc. saw me when I still had what I believe was the first of two feet in cast(s) for bilateral tendon tears picked up at the gym, and he sent me away in 2001 with 50 mg. of Vioxx/day and the cast in place. It wasn't until sometime after the second foot was about to come out if its cast that I was referred to a rheumatologist a couple of months later, who suspected RSD, sent me back to the same pain doc, did a couple of blocks and there it was.

But the what I really wanted to say was GOOD FOR YOU FOR BEING ON CSPAN!!! As a call-in, I assume it was live. Do you know if it's going to be rebroadcast? This should definitely be a separate thread on your part.

Good going.

Mike

PS At the time, many in the LA medical community regarded my first pain doc, as warm and compassionate man as there ever was, as the personification of the standard of care in pain medicine. I later learned that some did not. Maybe they were right.

Health insurers could bypass some key reforms
 

This was put online Friday afternoon by the Washington Post, clearly laying out some of the stark differences and mutual failings of the respective proposals. Well worth the read in its (not all that long) entirety:

Health insurers could bypass some key reforms

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 13, 2009 4:54 PM

Nobody wants to spend a lot of time, energy -- and taxpayer money -- and end up back where they started. But that's what could happen with one of the principal elements of health reform, the so-called exchange or gateway.

Legislators are designing this new insurance marketplace to protect consumers from many of the pitfalls and inequities in the current system. But even as they focus on the details of how the marketplace will work, senators have indicated that they would allow insurers to continue operating outside it, much as the health insurance lobby has sought.

One of the Senate bills would preserve the possibility that insurers could tailor policies to draw healthy individuals out of the new markets, leaving coverage less affordable for those who stay behind. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I found something the other day after reading an article by a fellow writer at AC about the health care reform. It was a sentence that caught my eye so I looked it up. The sentence had the word mandatory in it....I can't remember the specific article now.

Anyway, I went to the search engine and found an article on a news site and it said when the bill takes effect, we will HAVE to have some form of health insurance or face fines!! I searched again and here's what will happen if this really does go all the way.

Found at USA Today

Found at Heritage

There's a lot more in the above article, but this is what I'm talking about specifically. None of it makes any sense whatsoever! This is the reason I'm against the whole plan and I can only hope something happens so that the bill never takes effect. Even though it means I have to pay for my doc and struggle to do it.

A friend emailed the link to C-SPAN'S discussion with "Chet Burrell, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, President & CEO (November 12, 2009)"
who is the CEO of my former health insurance company which prompted me to call in in the first place. If anyone is interested click the link, scroll down to "Chet Burrell, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, President & CEO (November 12, 2009)", It's an interesting subject. At the beginning of my call I mentioned RSD, I'm the last caller.

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Health-...Town-Hall.aspx

Hi,
 

I haven't been on for awhile. Just dealing with other health issues so I took a break. I did want to say something on this subject though.

My daughter is a caregiver for me and a lady with MS who is completely in a wheelchair and almost bedridden. Her Social Worker came out this morning and said that they had to cut Susan's hours for Diana due to the Medicare healthcut that went into effect in October. The second one comes Dec. 1st. and the 3rd will come after the healthcare reform goes into effect. The Social Worker said that those who do not have family will most likely have to go into nursing homes. Now, I ask you, is a nursing home cheaper then my daughters lousy 1000. a month salary for taking care of Diana.

I know a lot of people who don't have insurance are looking at it as an answer for them but at what cost to others?

We already have a Gov. program in this Country. Why not just extend it to cover the ones that don't have insurance. Medicare patients pay 90+ a month out of their check for their Medicare, why can't they do that with Medicaid and let it cover the ones that don't have insurance. Medicaid is State run and it could better deal with taking care of the people in it's State IF it was ran right.

Ada

Thanks Ada!
You are always here in spirt!

I somehow think, that our government has to look at the "bigger picture" but, that's really scary.

What "One" person can know what to do?

It seems that it'll take a "committee" to do this fairly, and it's so long overdue...
I'm glad for the Dems for taking another shot at it!

Even if they don't win, they'll keep a spotlight on it.....

God will show us the way..


Oh, did anyone ever mention that we have "Too many people" on this earth?

I've not heard of it since my grade school years, when there were 3 Billion on this earth.

Now, we hear nothing about it...?

I don't get it...

asb

Hi,
 

Thanks Pete for the good thoughts. I actually have had a virus that lasted for over 2 weeks and having other medical things going on. 2 days ago I was in a car accident and hurt my right side so now I am waiting to see if it quits.

Anyone on Medicare should be worried about this. I got an email from a member of the Medical profession that the Drs. pay was going to be cut 21%.
My Dr. gets 68. from Medicare for each visit so if he gets cut 21% then he will get only 52. How many PCP's are going to accept Medicare at that rate. Now the specialist are different, they charge too much at times for what little they do. They could stand the cut but will they.

I donot think that most people will get this insurance free so it's going to be interesting to see what they will have to pay for it. My sister pays 15. a week for her insurance at work and Medicare patients pay the 90. Nothing in life is free.

Also this thing about the people who make 250,000 will be the ones to pay. That's not right either, my son-in-laws' taxes went up from 23% to 33% and he's not near that 250,000 mark. I donot believe people that make money should have to pay our way.

Ada

Health insurance companies rake in around 16% of the economy and rising. It is not sustainable. The reason the US has medicare, medicaid and VA in the first place is because these groups are either high risk or poor, rejected by insurance companies. Now many middle class are joining the ranks of the uninsurable as the elderly, disabled and poor from years back. The only way a new system will work is not to segment people into multiple groups but to mix low risk with those that are high risk, a one payer system, the ultimate large group. All should contribute in some way or the other, any other way will fail in time. For those who make the argument against this and at the same time praise medicare and the VA infact make my point. Also, a one payer will stimulate businesses across this nation, and will eliminate redundant government agencies. I do believe the wealthy can not opt out and private insurance should be available to those who choose it.