OT: Preparing for National Health Plan

>> Jan, I'm afraid you brought up the most devastating part of the new plan as it stands now with a public option. My wonderful insurance forced me onto Medicare and now pays the difference, so to me it's equivalent. However, once a public option is in place, many if not most companies will simply drop insurance and pay the feds as it is cheaper than what they do now. The number I heard was over 20 million people currently with insurance will be pushed into the public plan by their companies.

>> Julie, I wish it were so for all Canadian citizens, but several on this board have related quite different stories. However, if it's inevitable that we get it, I will hope for the best.

Hi, I'd like to point out one thing, and that is that in the past few years there has been a strong movement from the right wing of those living in Alberta (the 'Texas' of Canada in many ways), towards private medical coverage. Those behind the push are generally quite well off to begin with, and also quite limited to where they live (Calgary, mostly), and the rest of us are in no rush to back them or join them, but it's quite possible that some have been vocal on this forum, giving the impression that more of us up here want to revert to some private medical system that in fact we certainly do not. Of course we all grumble about the imperfections of things as they are now, no system is perfect and very few people are always happy all of the time, but it would be a shame if a few noisy and short sighted individuals were seen as representing the great majority of us, just because they can't see past their own stuffed wallets.

Right Julie, "Better the Devil You Know". We all know any changes the Government makes will be for the worst, That's what they do! Jim

Goofproof wrote:Right Julie, "Better the Devil You Know". We all know any changes the Government makes will be for the worst, That's what they do! Jim

Someone made a good proposal this week. Since Congress has figured out how to have a great national healthcare, let them apply it to the Veterans Administration health care. Then in three years when the VA is a roaring success, we can pass the same program for everyone!

Why does something this massive have to be done in such a short time?

OldLincoln

My DH has been reading the vague proposals for improvement in U.S. Health Care. He said if the goal is to make it fair for all to be insured, it never will be fair until all citizens in the U.S. are on the same health plan. That includes the President, Congress, Railroad workers,Veterans, you and me . . . then when M. Average Citizen and the President receive the same health coverage, it will be a fair system,

Is there an advantage to Pres. Obama's plan to include the 16 to 18 million illegals from Mexico in the revision of U.S. Health Plan? At present, they receive free health care in the nation's emergency rooms. The U.S. Government has allowed this situation to "drift" for years without decisive action. Their lack of direction has created havoc in private & public hospitals, causing over 300 hospitals in California to either close due to insolvency, or be near to it. If our health care policies are changed without making a firm decision on medical care for illegals, the new plan will not a hope of being successful. Further if they are included, will this bring another 18 million illegals, to the United States in the next 5 years?

Jan

I really understand resentment against illegal aliens. I really get that you (sometimes rightly) are afraid for your jobs. I really get that a lot of services shouldn't necessarily always be just 'laid on'. But, what would you have people do - watch someone get run over by a car and just lie there because he's illegal - and therefore not human, not deserving of help? Come on, be reasonable.

Julie, I admit to having a personal irritation . . . I join thousands and thousands of USA citizens who are frustrated with our Government's failure to take decisive leglislation on the issue of illegals. If they ever made a decision, (one way or the other) I could support it.

Our Leglislative Branch of Government can come to an agreement, & pass leglislation supporting their decisions when it is in their interest to do so . . . increase their annual salary. When it comes to leglislation that inhances national security and clarifies the future for citizens of USA and other countries, they don't have enough interest in congress to even bring it to a vote.

Judging by recent congressional decisions, I shudder to think of the mess they could make of our Health Care.

Jan

The intent is to regulate our way into a system whereby everybody has insurance and at the same time healthcare costs are reduced. It's obviously impossible to do that and maintain the level of medical care for those with good insurance now while adding 40 million new subscribers. So the issue is is what COVERAGE will be included.

Obama was asked would a highly active 100 year old be eligible for a pacemaker and he gave the political answer that they may be better served by pain medicine. No hint even of that decision being made by her physician.

The proposal as written states the term "elderly" applies when a person marks their 65th birthday. At that time, mandated by law will be the requirement for a discussion between the doctor and the elderly regarding "end of life" care such as maintenance of hydration and nourishment. This discussion is to be repeated every 5 years. Is THIS what they do in Canada?

The cost of healthcare is very heavily skewed to the last 15 years of life. The numbers to achieve his objectives can only be achieved by withholding care from the elderly, in essence reducing the lifespan of Americans. He wants this issue to be his legacy, but I believe it will become infamous and sadly known as "Obama's Final Solution". My hope resides in my believe that at some point America will not stand for it. But as long as he tells his sweet lies with conviction and not allowing the details to become public his disciples will prevail.

I completely pay my own way. I'm 62. When I fill out the standard doctors medical information form I always write in SELF PAY in the insurance area. I ALWAYS get a big discount...works for me. I also have a concierge doctor. I've paid cash for all of my CPAP equipment and I got a discount on my sleep study...$1,600.

[quotee
But, what would you have people do - watch someone get run over by a car and just lie there because he's illegal - and therefore not human, not deserving of help? me on, be reasonable.][/quote]
I had a conversation with my 20 year old Grandson a few days ago.
He was telling me that when his Dad (my Son in law) was a teenager that him and his highschool friends worked in the tobacco fields. I asked why my Grandson and his friends
didn,t work in the fields. He says "Grandma they don,t pay enough ..so the mexicans work the fields now. Who is at fault here? Illegals, kids, work ethic , Greed?

rooster wrote:

Goofproof wrote:Right Julie, "Better the Devil You Know". We all know any changes the Government makes will be for the worst, That's what they do! Jim

Someone made a good proposal this week. Since Congress has figured out how to have a great national healthcare, let them apply it to the Veterans Administration health care. Then in three years when the VA is a roaring success, we can pass the same program for everyone!

Why does something this massive have to be done in such a short time?

That's a heck of a thing to do to us Vets. Shame on you! jim

Force Congress to use it for three years, by the time they satify their mighty needs it should be good enough for us to use.

OldLincoln wrote:The intent is to regulate our way into a system whereby everybody has insurance and at the same time healthcare costs are reduced. It's obviously impossible to do that and maintain the level of medical care for those with good insurance now while adding 40 million new subscribers. So the issue is is what COVERAGE will be included.

Obama was asked would a highly active 100 year old be eligible for a pacemaker and he gave the political answer that they may be better served by pain medicine. No hint even of that decision being made by her physician.

The proposal as written states the term "elderly" applies when a person marks their 65th birthday. At that time, mandated by law will be the requirement for a discussion between the doctor and the elderly regarding "end of life" care such as maintenance of hydration and nourishment. This discussion is to be repeated every 5 years. Is THIS what they do in Canada?

The cost of healthcare is very heavily skewed to the last 15 years of life. The numbers to achieve his objectives can only be achieved by withholding care from the elderly, in essence reducing the lifespan of Americans. He wants this issue to be his legacy, but I believe it will become infamous and sadly known as "Obama's Final Solution". My hope resides in my believe that at some point America will not stand for it. But as long as he tells his sweet lies with conviction and not allowing the details to become public his disciples will prevail.

Having lived on both sides of the border (and in the redneck land of Alberta)

Plus having watched both my dad and my uncle go through major medical crisis's either at 65 or beyond 65, I feel that I can answer this.

1.) My dad had a heart bypass shortly after his 65th birthday. Wasn't anything special that had to be done. It was all paid for.

2.) My uncle... was 70 when he needed to go for his. He had to be able to sign the permission himself. Surgery was given after that. It was all paid for.

3.) My dad was on dialysis for years... nocturnal at home. It was all paid for, all of the treatment, all of the supplies, all of the monitoring, everything. As long as he had prior approval they even paid (what they would have paid at home in Alberta) for the dialysis part of a "dialysis cruise". He was offered what treatment was available in Alberta. Now if he'd had to go out of the country for something... he would have either had to have it prior approved or he would have had to self pay.

4.) My dad had cancer treatment until he chose not to have cancer treatment and that was all paid for.

5.) My uncle chose not to have cancer treatment. But that was his choice.

6.) Both my dad and my uncle had hospice care. My dad was in an actual hopice house, my uncle was in the local hospital. Still all covered.

In the end, they both died. But I believe that the coverage in the long run was better in Alberta, then it would have been in the US.

Goofproof wrote:It all comes down to one thing, expect the government to take care of you, or expect to be responsible for your own path in life, and make your own way in life.

The second way isn't easy, it requires work and making hard choices, even a little of doing without. Let the Jones go their way, we all don't have to keep up with them, we only need to take care of our families, of which we should control when and the conditions of when we want to start one. Jim

Well, I have worked all my life and thought I had made all the right choices. I am 58 years old, I have never received a food stamp card, welfare check, hud home or unemployment. I raised four daughters (mostly on my own) by working two jobs. I have a college degree and am a comptroller for a local excavating company. Due to the cost of health insurance my employer has decided to not offer health care to his employees after the first of the year. I figured I would go and purchase my own health insurance. Well boy was I surprised to find out that since I have a pacemaker I am considered uninsurable. Not that I don't have the money to buy it but that I have a pre-exisiting condition that no insurance company wants. I called the local clinics and in order to get in I have to be not working and have no assets (like my home and car). I called the local hospital and was told that I would have to have half the money up front for any procedure I would need done before they would admit me, so if I need a new pacemaker I would need $25000.00 up front. I am looking for anyother job because I can get insurance with a group but at my age it is really hard. Any advice, Goofproof?

OldLincoln
I have listened to Pres. Obama's speechs regarding health care. His new term is Insurance Reform. He shows irritation and disbelief for the amount of money spent on Medicare and Medicade. I share his irritation, but mine is directed at the fraud in these programs.
President Obama plans to use reductions in Medicare and Medicade to pay a significant amount towards his proposed health plan. Both programs have undergone continual budget slashes. This last week, I discovered how much the cuts to Medicare will affect me. I have recently been diagnosed with severe anemia and a Ferritin Count of 7. In an effort to discover where I am losing blood, I have had a series of blood tests. Nothing revealed the source. Two doctors, my pcp and Gastro doctor told me I had to have a test to examine the small bowel. Previous to a new test, the small bowel could only be viewed by surgery. In 2001, the FDA approved the use of a camera to determine if bleeding or cancerous growths are lurking in the small bowel. The camera is swallowed by the patient and a receiver is attached to their waist to capture the pictures.

I discovered Medicare no longer paid for this test and I would have to pay $1500 to $2000 for the camera. I also have to pay for the doctor to review as many as 50,000 films. Swallowing the camera wasn't too bad. Paying that amount of money will be. The ironic part, is that Medicare will pay for all aspects of the surgery, hospital stay, and doctor's bills. The surgery would run about $20,000.

This is a personal and a health rant. I had to proceed with the test because of the devastating fatigue that is caused by anemia. The other pressing reason for this test is that a low Ferritin count increases the PLM's. My recent sleep study recorded 846 PLM's. PLM's in that number prevent any restorative sleep. I have to be able control the anemia and the PLM's to be able to function.

Can USA seniors get adequate health care - or will we be left out? OldLincoln's view of the future for seniors, corresponds exactly with what I had read. At 65 years of age we will be evaluated for the status of our health. Say, like Jim our health is reasonable, but we need a new pacemaker. This is a costly venture, will a 65 year old person in this situation be given pain pills and sleep in a drugged state, unable to care for themselves. The effect of narcotic pain pills on an elderly person would bring about a diminished appetite, no desire for exercise. As a result of drugs, their body just give up and slips away in a drugged state, to death. Many of us will have to have pain medication for physical problems. They should be given based on need, rather than an easy way to get rid of the elderly.

Referring to Jim again, he has been productive citizen, with an admirable work ethic. He contributed to society by raising and educating his children. At 65 his body requires a new pacemaker. If our Government cannot give reasonable care to it's citizens, then perhaps we should review our wealth redistribution to foreign countries. Determining if the aid benefits the citizens of the areas or if it goes into the Swiss bank accounts of the leaders.

Controlling the waste in our own Government would provide sufficient funds to develop private plans to ensure health coverage to every citizen in our country.

Jan

Here is my problem with this mess; nobody seems to be able to tell us exactly what is being proposed! We hear statements about old people just remaining untreated and left to suffer to death while illegals get primo care on the public dime. We have seen how efficient the government is at running things--for instance the postal service. Why would we put our lives in these bureaucrats hands?? we certainly wont get the health plan THEY have!!!