What do you think healthcare "reform" will accomplish?

Brian wrote:

Medicare is just another insurance company. Single payer is not socialized medicine (I want to punch somebody when I hear that), it is government insurance. Hospitals and docs are still private.

This might be part of the problem - doctors can still sell u as much product as they think they can get away with.

If your automobile mechanic does this, its called, "A Scam"

Fear is used to make people think/feel, "Fine! See what happens if/when you fiddle with the system"

The way in which the US consumes medical care will have to change. # of MRIs/patient is what....3-4x the rate in Canada & Europe? Who makes these decisions?....this is part of the problem....

I think Barack Obama should decide who gets an MRI and who doesn't. Doctors are not qualified to make these decisions.

keith stones madre wrote:

I think Barack Obama should decide who gets an MRI and who doesn't. Doctors are not qualified to make these decisions.

How about, "doctors who do not have a conflict of interests"?

FYI

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

A side by side comparison of developed OECD nations' healthcare systems.

One of the countries profiled is where I live - Taiwan. The system works, very well. And its cheap. And my physician - UCLA med school, +25yrs living in the US - had the chance to remain in the US, and did not even consider it. Too much BS in his opinion.

My dentist - U Penn dental school, and ran the dental school student clinic @ U Washington for several years. Does great work, and every visit is $6.

We are planning a baby and would never dream of having this child in the US because of the costs and bureaucracy. Taiwan or another country (developed English speaking OECD nation). The availability of healthcare at a reasonable price has heavily colored our decisions as to where to live for many years. And by the look of things, there is no reason to suspect it will improve in the US.

From your link it appears the system we might get is most like Germany's and Switzerland's. Great, that means my monthly premiums will TRIPLE! Also, rich Germans get better care because they can pay more, while Swiss (and just about every other country's) citizens get cheaper drugs because US CONSUMERS SUBSIDIZE THEM. A quick way to cut costs here would be to allow Americans to purchase Canadian drugs.

The link also points out that Taiwan's healthcare system operates in the red, just like Medicare started doing this year. You may like the way it's run now, but simple math indicates that it can't continue. You'll either have to pay more, or receive steadily deteriorating care.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The link also points out that Taiwan's healthcare system operates in the red, just like Medicare started doing this year. You may like the way it's run now, but simple math indicates that it can't continue. You'll either have to pay more, or receive steadily deteriorating care.

If Taiwan raises premiums 50%, they will be $1000/yr for a family of four, in a country w/ GDP of ~$18k/person, and FX reserves that amount to 85% of GDP ~US$365bn. The issue of *how* to pay for it is not really material here - either for the tax paying population or the government.

Number of people filing for bankruptcy in Taiwan because of healthcare bills - 0.

fully insured wrote:

I only know how it's going to affect me personally.

This is the mentality that oposes govt interference because it may be more costly to their situation.

If you want to fend for yourself without help then don't get insurance at all.

Insurance just spreads the costs evenly among many people so some individuals won't get hit with sudden large expenses.

Kind of sounds like what the govt is trying to do on a much large scale while being helpful to people that really need it.

But helping others won't affect you personally.

For those of us who make more than 50k, and pay our bills on time, never asked for a handout, never lived on welfare, worked while going to college f/t, payed for our tuition, and have always taken care of ourserlves with exercise and worked hard to ge good grades so we can get ahead in life, this is what it will do:

It will increase our premiums, cause us to be limited in our choice of surgeries due to limits the new reform will put on doctors, not allow us the freedom to get help more readily since we WORKED for it. Now, we will stand in line with anyone and everyone who does not work. They will get anything and everything we will. The losers that do not work will complain about their healthcare, and I will pay for mine and they will not. Doctrs don't want it. The majority of Americans (the ones that work) don't want it. Yet, it might be passed, and it will be an old "I told you so..."

That is what this reform will do to me.

Ummm... wrote:

Number of people filing for bankruptcy in Taiwan because of healthcare bills - 0.

That's great (if it's true). But the Taiwanese model is not what Congress is about to pass. When the proposed insurance reform goes into full effect in 2013 (convenient that it doesn't happen until after the next Presidential election), people and businesses who buy their own insurance will see premiums increase, taxes will be increased to cover the "uninsured", demand for healthcare will rise without an increase in supply, cuts in Medicare will result in deteriorating care for seniors, and you will still be able to go bankrupt because of medical bills. What part of this improves healthcare for the average American?

Buckly wrote:

fully insured wrote:

I only know how it's going to affect me personally.

But helping others won't affect you personally.

100 million working men and women with dependents (like 300 million in aggregate) will face increased costs and reduced access/benefits.

Medical Billing Specialist wrote:

Docotors hate it for good reason; because it's a sinister scam designed to cheat them out of their incomes. But, of course, nobody cares about those filty rich bastard doctors- all that matters is minority children.

I agree with this.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

when the proposed insurance reform goes into full effect in 2013 (convenient that it doesn't happen until after the next Presidential election), people and businesses who buy their own insurance will see premiums increase, taxes will be increased to cover the "uninsured", demand for healthcare will rise without an increase in supply, cuts in Medicare will result in deteriorating care for seniors, and you will still be able to go bankrupt because of medical bills. What part of this improves healthcare for the average American?

The bill increases skyrocketing profits for the AARP and their cronies. This is the purpose of the health care plan.

The idea is to raze the current health insurance industry and cause a total reshuffling of the doctors and executives who run them. If two or one hundred dozen CEOs and BOD members jump off the balcony and croak, so be it, we have planty of replacements in the queue. Only the ones who care about providing medical care to EVERY American will survive. America is known for the free enterprose system. It's survival of the fittest. The way it should be.

Survival of the fittest? Wouldn't that be if we just abolished all healthcare for anyone? then only the healthiest would survive.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:And yet government is famous inefficient (or is it? Perhaps the inefficiency against which we rail is merely the things the government funds of which we don't approve).

Regardless, I think my point still holds. If you don't want fraud and waste then you have to have people looking for fraud and waste - and that means a bureaucracy. Perhaps the government will have a smaller one than private industry, perhaps it will be larger, but it has to exist either way.

You won't get any argument from me here. The question, I think, is what sort of transparency do we want? Do we want a system that is transparent only to insiders or do we want a system that is open to everyone? Even it's enemies.

In all honesty I have mixed feelings.

Keeping people in the dark opens up a lot of room to focus single-mindedly on outcomes *without* the public's notoriously irrational opinions pulling attention in every direction. But, not letting enough people see what's going on makes it easy for select individuals and CEO's to line their pockets (i.e. Enron).

I'm inclined to say, optimistically, a public system would lead to less abuse (thanks to the legal requirement to make data public) but also increase waste (because it's slow to act). The question is, just how overpaid are healthcare bureaucrats of the private type?

That's not the goal. The goal is to raze the health ins cos.