Healthcare Reform What Would You Do

3. I'd like to see less regulation for insurance as far as what they will cover, but more regulation to create quotas of high risk patients. In other words, in order to be sure there are affordable plans for everyone a certain %age of their business would have to be for these high risk patients with some structure for basic coverage (like they do for high risk auto insurance)... thus spreading out the burden. With fewer regulations about what they will offer, competition would grow according to consumer demand.

LESS REGULATION? That is what we have now--we have basically no regulation on rates, or who can be insured. This has existed since Bush and his cronies basically did to the medical industry what Reagan did for the financial markets--removed all oversight provisions, and caps. Thus, rates have risen 438% (based on OBE projections) over the last 8 years. Also, restrictions on coverage and who can be insured have risen drastically, as a result of an unregulated industry. People scream "free market," but how can you have a free market when insurance companies are making obscene profits, and make medical decisions? Perhaps you personally don't like government, but regulation and standardization of rates is essential. Free market doesn't exist, unless the consumer can dictate the price of something, based on their ability to pay for the item. If it is too pricey,folks won't or can't buy it--hence the 44 million uninsured in this country. We need a public payer system to set rates, to protect the consumer--the "less government" folks are wrong on this one, as the market can't solve its ills if the playing field isn't level.

I'm beginning to become VERY SUPPORTIVE of regulating the financial industry and the healthcare industry (yeah, it is an industry like it or not) just as they've regulated energy providers in the past. I am NOT in favor of regulating doctors, but the hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, device manufacturers, etc., yes.

I find it hard to sympathize w/hospitals crying poverty out of one side of their mouth, whilst giving the okay out of the other side of their mouth to the construction of new "outpatient clinics" and doctor offices/clinics all over the county whilst having entire wings or entire floors of their existing hospitals sitting vacant.

I also think that there should be an office call copay. If a person really is destitute or in dire financial straights the doctors should have the option of foregoing the copy out of their own pocket. If we have to fork out a few dollars copay for a doctor office visit we might become a bit more selective in determining when we NEED to see the doctor.

They talk a lot about preventitive medicine but what I see is a bunch of assinine periodic well visits when one is feeling fine and a specialist so busy w/"well visits" one can't get a timely appointment w/them when one IS sick!!!

Autopapdude wrote:...44 million uninsured in this country...

Old number; it was about 80 million early last fall.

Autopapdude wrote:
...44 million uninsured in this country...

Old number; it was about 80 million early last fall.

Yes, you are right. That was the number that President Obama reported when he first addressed the public regarding health care. Since then, due to job losses, increases in insurance premiums, and companies dropping coverage, it is now closer to the figure you mention. All the more need for free PUBLIC insurance, and have insurance companies answerable to the American public, and government--not special interest lobbies, and the Republicans who voted 100% AGAINST health care in any form---YES, every Senator and Representative who is a Republican voted against any form of health care, and provided NO alternatives during discussions by all 6 committees of the House and Senate.

So if the number of uninsured is 80 million, then the costs will be closer to $1.9T and not $800B. All the more reason to understand how this new program will be paid for and what the real cost savings (if any) is. If we are not responsible in the financing of the plan then in 20 years our health care policy decisions will be made in Beijing and not Washington, because the Chinese government will be financing our healthcare. Remember the words of Margaret Thatcher "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

So if the number of uninsured is 80 million, then the costs will be closer to $1.9T and not $800B. All the more reason to understand how this new program will be paid for and what the real cost savings (if any) is. If we are not responsible in the financing of the plan then in 20 years our health care policy decisions will be made in Beijing and not Washington, because the Chinese government will be financing our healthcare. Remember the words of Margaret Thatcher "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Can't get away from the "Socialist" crap, can you? See, that is what weakens the Con-self-serve-a tive argument--categorizing anybody who believes in Social Services as a Socialist. How childish!

el_zorro wrote:So if the number of uninsured is 80 million, then the costs will be closer to $1.9T and not $800B...

As proposed only about 20M will be covered, so what's your beef? Think you, your children-grandchildren, other loved ones should be exposed to their untreated illnesses? Wanna pay in higher insurance rates their visits to the ER? You don't live isolated from your neighbors who just might get sick. Our system doesn't work for everyone. Other countries have figured out how to make universal healthcare work...what in the heck is wrong with us that we can't? Are we that stupid?

Other countries have figured out how to make universal healthcare work...what in the heck is wrong with us that we can't? Are we that stupid?

I think we're not that stupid, but we're that selfish. Profit has run wild, and deregulation of so many aspects of health care has empowered the lobbyists. As such, their puppets (politicians) who are getting huge contributions from the industries refuse to discuss it--they don't even offer alternatives. It isn't that we're not capable of doing so, it is that we're talked out of it by scare tactics, and financially motivated people who oppose it purely to line their pocketbooks. Some folks are accordingly scared, due to the lobbyists cries of "Socialism," and actually begin to believe a lie that is repeated so often, it passes for truth. It isn't stupidity, so much as gullibility and financial motivation that prevents us from having the common decency to provide health care to ALL of our citizens. We are the only "Constitutional Representative Republic" that doesn't have universal health care (and this includes many constitutional monarchies). In our wars and defenses of other countries, we pretend to have the moral imperative, as we're bringing our form of "democracy" to them, and we don't even have the ability to provide a basic necessity such as health care to our own citizens. Isn't that nervy?

socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and/or administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

If the government administers the funding* and distribution of health care services, what else should it be called? Communism?

*Keep in mind when the government "funds" anything, it's really the taxpayers footing the bill.

"con-self-serve-a-tive" Yes, how childish, indeed!

Both systems Capitalism and Socialism have failed miserable. They don't address several issues and protect just a few, leaving the rest by themselves (talking taxes, social benefits, etc for both systems).

We are in the 21st century we need something new.

Why do I need healthcare reform? Not, just healthcare insurance reform. Because there are so many holes in the system that is causing more trouble than benefit.

I have my health insurance and I have some illnesses, the problem I am facing is with my Hypothyroid. A few years back I was diagnosed and prescribed syntroid. I took it for 3-4 moths but it didn't work out. My doctor told me to switch to Armour thyroid (natural medicine, it is approved by FDA), I did it and it was great. Well, recently the company that made Armour was bought for another (Forrest Laboratories), well using their great infinite wisdom, they changed the formula (made more economic sense, even thou affected most of the people taking because some absortion issues. How FDA approved this, I don't know? Want to guess......).
Well, it was better than nothing, but symptoms came back. Last quater, they stopped production. They said they don't know when a new batch will reach the markets. My wife this afternoon called Walgreens, CVS, Randalls (grocery chain in Houston, tX) and she was told that Forrest won't make Armour anymore.
So millions of patients are going to be left in the dark without medication, Forrest laboratories are not bankrupt, they just don't want to make it anymore.
Well, we have options we can buy it from Canada, Thailand, etc. Wait a moment!, Obama healthcare won't allow to buy medicine oversees. Who think put that prohibitions there? Democrats?, Republicans?, We, the people? no the big pharmaceutical companies.

So, as you can see Capitalism and Socialism (democrat health care reform) has failed me. We cannot have health to be based in profit. Many people will die. Well, for Mr. Glen Beck says that in capitalism is acceptable the death of people than cannot pay for the medication. That is part of human life. So why are we helping the Haitians with the earthquake, if we cannot help our own. (I am not saying helping other in problem is bad, I am for it, the problem is I don't understand people that say one thing and do the opposite).
Well, and Democrat Health care is creating more division, making double standards for some groups (please read here unions).

I can keep going about the failures for both sides, but you get the idea. We need something new!

f the government administers the funding* and distribution of health care services, what else should it be called? Communism?

It should be called exactly what it is--Social Services. Communism and Socialism are political systems, not the act or state of rendering helpful services such as health care, roads, police, fire protection, courts, etc. You're deliberately confusing the political philosophy of Socialism with the rendering of necessary and desirable SOCIAL SERVICES to individuals, for the good of society. This is a typical Republican name-calling thing, so as to scare people into thinking that medical care for all is "Socialism," which it is not. You know this, but are deliberately twisting the meaning of the political system so as to make it a quasi-insult. Unacceptable, and childish--far more odious than my "Con-self-servative." Actually, mine is far more accurate, as conservatives want to cut taxes, even if it is at the detriment of the greater good. Whattsamater, aren't you patriotic? Don't you want to pay taxes to support your country? Without taxes we have no army, navy, justice system, highway system, airports, bus stations, railroads, etc. I thought you were patriotic, and wanted to support your country?

Autopapdude wrote:

f the government administers the funding* and distribution of health care services, what else should it be called? Communism?

It should be called exactly what it is--Social Services. Communism and Socialism are political systems, not the act or state of rendering helpful services such as health care, roads, police, fire protection, courts, etc. You're deliberately confusing the political philosophy of Socialism with the rendering of necessary and desirable SOCIAL SERVICES to individuals, for the good of society. This is a typical Republican name-calling thing, so as to scare people into thinking that medical care for all is "Socialism," which it is not. You know this, but are deliberately twisting the meaning of the political system so as to make it a quasi-insult. Unacceptable, and childish--far more odious than my "Con-self-servative." Actually, mine is far more accurate, as conservatives want to cut taxes, even if it is at the detriment of the greater good. Whattsamater, aren't you patriotic? Don't you want to pay taxes to support your country? Without taxes we have no army, navy, justice system, highway system, airports, bus stations, railroads, etc. I thought you were patriotic, and wanted to support your country?

I agree with you 100%. I put socialist in my earlier post, but it is really not socialism. Well done Aupapdude!.

So autopapdude, I am sincerely curious about your perspective on why the public option was not pursued in the current reform debate after President Obama promised that the health care reform would include a public option ?

So autopapdude, I am sincerely curious about your perspective on why the public option was not pursued in the current reform debate after President Obama promised that the health care reform would include a public option ?

You know why. There were not 60 votes to prevent a fillabuster, due to lack of a SINGLE Republican supporting the public option. In addition, several conservative Democrats opposed any such feature. The conservative Dems who would not support a public option are on the receiving end of the good graces of health care special interest pac money (much as their Repub counterparts). This effectively killed a public option---the idea of reading cookbooks for weeks, so as to avoid voting on something as crucial as health care.

fidelfs wrote:I have my health insurance and I have some illnesses, the problem I am facing is with my Hypothyroid. A few years back I was diagnosed and prescribed syntroid. I took it for 3-4 moths but it didn't work out. My doctor told me to switch to Armour thyroid (natural medicine, it is approved by FDA), I did it and it was great. Well, recently the company that made Armour was bought for another (Forrest Laboratories), well using their great infinite wisdom, they changed the formula (made more economic sense, even thou affected most of the people taking because some absortion issues. How FDA approved this, I don't know? Want to guess......).

Now, you've hit onto something that's driving me crazy. Armour thyroid is the only thing that's worked for me. If you want to really be on top of what's going on with Armour thyroid (and the other natural thyroid products) you should check out this site. http://www.savenaturalthyroid.com/
Essentially, this whole "shortage" is a lie. The FDA found a way to get involved with a drug they've been wanting to shut down for years. And that's Forrest Lab's fault because they reformulated it which opened the door to the FDA. The other producers of natural thyroid became fearful of being shut down when one of the competitors got shut down so they stopped production. One has jumped out on the limb and they started sending out shipments this week again so you should be able to find it now. The website will tell you about it and how to get it. There are also articles on the site that explain the history behind all of this and the efforts being made to straighten this all out.

fidelfs wrote:We cannot have health to be based in profit. Many people will die. Well, for Mr. Glen Beck says that in capitalism is acceptable the death of people than cannot pay for the medication.

Ummmm.... he never said anything like that! He wants to see all these things become affordable to most people, and then provide for the needy. Medication shouldn't cost a fortune. I mean, why is it that Wal-mart's the only one that can provide prescriptions for $5? But, that's one of the frustrating problems with Healthcare reform. A deal was made early on with pharma in order to get their support. This deal doesn't make sense on either end of the political spectrum. Liberals should hate it because it de-regulates them in many areas. Conservatives should hate it because essentially, the government is paying them off with taxpayer money through Medicare. Government getting into bed with corporations is a bad idea. I think liberals and conservatives should agree on that.