SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (11683)11/23/2009 8:24:13 AM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
caught part of it.. showed worse cases of people on life support , dramatic extent to continue to avoid dying. the huge costs associated with medical expenses in the last couple of months or weeks.

too bad they off set the program with the numbers of people who die at home. elect not to go to a hospital and try to save a life at all costs.

Caregivers who take care of loved ones at home with or without hospice assistance were never mentioned while watching.

one example of extreme was a pap test done on woman in her late years, dying.. to me that is abuse of the facility and nothing to do with the medical care in the last few weeks. those people should be fired.



To: Lane3 who wrote (11683)11/23/2009 9:22:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 42652
 
Dear Fellow Guinea Pig
Paul Jacob
Sunday, November 22, 2009

Immediately, as the Senate takes up health care legislation, we receive the chief benefit of the proposal. Laughter is not only good for the soul, it’s good for the body, too.

If we can’t laugh at the juxtaposition of the massive promises being made and the track record of our solons in Washington, well, we’re in for a long debate.

Now, I’m certainly no expert on medicine or insurance — and, no, I haven’t read the 2,074-page legislation — but I am fairly confident that we can all rest easy knowing our representatives have read and studied it diligently on our behalf, right?

Still, as a lay person with a smidgen of common sense, I have been following the news, and have noticed several elements in the proposed reform legislation that seem odd.

One of the key Senate Democrats to jump late onto the bandwagon, as of yesterday supporting moving ahead with the debate, is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Of course, there is that little known provision in the bill that would hand $100 million to the state of Louisiana to help cover the costs of Medicaid. But Landrieu said that money was not the reason she was supporting the bill.

Heck, we’re talking a mere $100 million. Chicken feed. Who could be swayed by such a trivial sum?

Rest assured, Sen. Landrieu (as every congressperson) remains focused strictly on the bill’s merits. Though, she did add, “I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation. I’m proud to have asked for it. I’m proud to have fought for it. And I will continue to.”

Yes, ma’am. Subsidy now! Subsidy forever!

No doubt, such subsidies are part of the cost-cutting, deficit-reducing, fiscally responsible heart of this measure. Too bad no one figured out years ago that covering millions of new people with health insurance would save so much money. The Senate bill is supposed to cover an additional 31 million folks, while reducing the deficit by $130 billion.

It seems strange that covering more folks would cost less, but who would doubt the leaders in our Congress?

Now, somehow, we need to find millions more people we can cover with medical insurance so that we can totally wipe out the federal deficit and have a giant surplus. Think big. For instance, maybe we can work a deal with China to insure their billion-plus population. The federal treasury would pour forth with riches. Then we wouldn’t have to borrow so much money from those Beijing boys.

Of course, some of the “savings” derive from other elements in the bill. For instance, folks with “Cadillac” health plans will be taxed. And businesses that don’t provide health coverage to employees will be fined. In the House version, individuals can be fined for failing to purchase an insurance policy to facilitate their “right to health care.”

Additionally, both the Senate legislation and the bill already passed in the House cut nearly half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Luckily, we’re told this won’t diminish Medicare services at all. Not even one little bit.

That money will come from cutting all the absolute waste and fraud bulging throughout the system. Now do you see how important it is to have such waste and fraud, to nurture and grow it, so that in times like these we can cut it without actually hurting anyone, anywhere, at all?

Medicare costs have pushed the system into the red this year. To be financially responsible, Congress ordered double digit percentage reductions in what Medicare reimburses doctors for providing medical services. (Who needs these expensive physicians? Couldn’t our congressmen perform the needed medical procedures? That would save even more money!)

But two weeks ago, the House turned about face to block their own reductions from taking effect. This means they are now spending $210 billion more on doctors to keep them on board the Medicare train. Why? Medicare has had a humungous problem with low reimbursement rates for physicians, which causes more and more doctors to refuse to take Medicare patients.

This $210 billion cost was wisely kept out of the overall financial calculations for the current reform legislation. Since in one fell swoop, this so-called “doctor fix” is $80 billion more in costs than the health care bill would save over the next ten years, let’s just pay no mind to the doctors — behind that curtain — who may need to be paid in the future as well.

The main thing to concentrate on is that the cost of health care will go down while the quality and quantity of care will go up. Come to think of it, this should be done in every sector of our economy: Government must get involved. Why not simply mandate lower costs and better products?

Silly congressmen, just pass a law.

townhall.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (11683)11/23/2009 10:09:28 AM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
Well, it made a good case for rationing but they were working overtime to convey that message.

It was worth watching if you want to check it out online. It conveyed, to me, a one-sided view of the issue, but even that one side is quite damning.

What they addressed was a Medicare problem, though, and not a private insurance problem.

Personally, I think private insurance would do a far better job of rationing than Medicare ever could.