Government Run Healthcare

[row6ram]

I know this is from FoxNews so some of you will disregard this without reading, but the Canadian healthcare system emploding. They are now saying the private sector should probably be an option.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539943,00.html

I'm not looking to start a pissing match, but a discussion on what government run healthcare would do to this country may be interesting.

 

[xjohnx]

I think the main difference between Canada's current healthcare system, and the plan being proposed in America is this. Canada has no private sector healthcare insurance. The US does currently, and will continue to have a private sector option under the proposed plan. The only people who would fall under the "Government run" healthcare would be those who are currently uninsured, or those who drop their private insurance and decide to opt in to the government program. If you want to keep your private insurance, you are free to do so.

Then again, that's just my understanding of the current proposal. Who knows how much has changed in the past couple weeks.

 

[Sometimes]

Additionally, please remember that there is a big difference between Government Run HealthCARE and Government Run HealthCOVERAGE.

We'll be getting the former. Doctors will still be private, they'll still have to compete and they'll still have to provide good service in order to do so.

 

[Deuce]

This is only semi-related, but it made me really effing mad...as in I want to fcking punch something right now...judge it for yourself...

“The majority of the American people were against all this, and yet it got voted in,” Flynn said. “Washington has a difficult time enough time running the programs you already have. Fix the programs you already have without taxing us to death in doing so. Once you do that, come talk to us about cap-and-trade and health care.”

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/ ... use/44141/

My response....we do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. When a leader/politician is elected based on their "platform", it is a basic mandate specifically stating that the MAJORITY of the American public supports what that individual promises to provide. Regrettably, people like this dumbass are easily swayed by public opinion, sentiments and the delusional belief that they should have a say on every single piece of darn legislation. That's not how this country was intended to work. Sure, that sounds hypocritical, but to a degree that's what the founding fathers intended. Keep the power away from the mindless masses, whether they're republican or democrat...

And don't get me started on when people b'tch about taxes...

 

[Red_I_Ram]

We are a Constitutional Republic

Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution don' t even mention the word "democracy"

 

[ramramthankyoumaam]

As a primary care provider myself I can't see how this new government proposal is going to solve much. We already have a difficult time seeing all the people currently on the insurance roles, nevermind if you suddenly double the amount of people trying to access the system. Short of forcing docs to see these new patients, if the reimbursement and red tape even remotely resembles medicaid and medicare you probably won't see a lot of doctors wanting to see patients from the new public option. The thing that worries me about it is the price tag. What I don't want to see is a huge amount of money invested in something nobody is really sure will fix anything. I'd like to see a better structured, well thought out plan prior to sinking a trillion dollars into it.
The plan needs tort reform. I don't hear this being discussed and that needs to have a greater presence in the bill.
What I really think needs to happen if healthcare is going to be viewed more as a "right" of every citizen to have instead of a business commodity as it currently is being treated, is to dissolve the current "insurance" structure as it currently stands. Why should you have an entire business that brokers the services of doctors and hospitals, adds mountains of hassles and hoops to the process, and makes off with billions in profit that could otherwise be reinvested to others or used to make care more affordable to everyone. Doctors and hospitals should get together and broker their services directly to local individuals and businesses where realistically people receive 90+ percent of their medical care and services. Perhaps a federal health care board could be appointed to oversee healthcare costs so that costs are not allowed to escalate under the control of hospitals and physicians. Red tape could be largely reduced, physicians would be happier and would have more time to see additional patients without mountains of paperwork and the constant threat of litigation. The money that we currently spend to run these insurance giants as well as their profits could be redistributed to lower the premiums/care provided by the local MD/Hospital consortiums. Hospitals and doctors would in tun agree to provide out of network benefits to travelers or those wishing to obtain care out of the local network. Buying power would improve under these consortiums for medications/supplies, etc. to lower the cost of providing the care.

I realize that this will never happen as the insurance/pharmaceutical lobby is too strong, but that's how I'd like to do it. Something definately needs to be done, I just don't think its what they are currently proposing.

 

[artRAMinMN]

it isn't so much tort reform that is needed, as it is malpractice/liability insurance reform... there are a lot of myths floating around that are used to scare the public and justify high insurance premiums to medical professionals... but these myths aren't really representative of reality... the plural of anecdote is not data

 

[ramramthankyoumaam]

Good point art. Always appreciate the legal clarifications. I agree and contend that as mentioned previously ,the problems mainly are with the insurance programs (health, liability, etc.). Docs want to care for patients...not fill out papers or fight with insurance companies.

I should point out that there are some good things in this bill. I'm not in favor of docs self referring to MRI/CT scanners that they own to generate additional dollars. Sorry if I offend any specialists out there but it makes my stomach turn when I see referral rates for scans suddenly skyrocket after a group purchases this equiptment. We need to change the rules and regs on this one.

Granted I'm a primary care doc but more emphasis needs to be put on primary care and prevention which I believe this bill is trying to do.

I also believe in accountability on the part of patients, which perhaps should also be put in the bill. Again if healthcare is going to be viewed as a right, there needs to be associated responsibility on the part of patients to maintain it. Patients should be required to visit their primary physician once a year for an annual physical/preventive visit to maintain coverage. In this manner we would be able to find and treat disease such as diabetes and high blood pressure much earlier and ease the burden of fixing established/progressive disease (which is much more expensive). If you don't go for your visit, your premiums go up, or you lose coverage..period. We know the devastating effects of cigarettes. Patients should be given resources and a fixed period of time to work with their physicians to quit smoking. If they continue, their premiums go up or they lose coverage...end of story. We should not continue to let the deleterious preventable actions of the few, burden the many who so desire and are in need of care. People need to understand that their actions have a LARGE part to play in the escalation of healthcare costs. I can tell you firsthand that getting people to be compliant and do the right thing is probably the most difficult aspect of my job. I'm afraid that until we tie the behavioral changes to some very real financial consequences (you would think the disease consequences would be enough) such as losing their insurance coverage that these things will continue to plague our ailing system.

 

[Pavarotti]

A lot of what you describe ramram, sounds like being a teacher in a public education system. You can teach the kids who want to be there, but it is much more difficult to force the students who don't care to learn, but still have the "right" to an "education."

 

[row6ram]

I have a hard time grasping the concept of healthcare being a right. It is a service that should be paid for like anything else.

 

[xjohnx]

I have a hard time grasping the concept of healthcare being a right. It is a service that should be paid for like anything else.

Do you feel the same about elementary schooling? The police department? Fire department?

 

[Sometimes]

I have a hard time grasping the concept of healthcare being a right. It is a service that should be paid for like anything else.

Pray tell what you think of as a right, then.

 

[VRam]

Do you feel the same about elementary schooling? The police department? Fire department?

Yes.

And, on another note, as a CPA and former auditor who has audited federal, state and local programs involving all three, they are agencies that waste and abuse billions of taxpayer money. It's sickening.

Stop the madness.

 

[Deuce]

Do you feel the same about elementary schooling? The police department? Fire department?

Yes.

And, on another note, as a CPA and former auditor who has audited federal, state and local programs involving all three, they are agencies that waste and abuse billions of taxpayer money. It's sickening.

Stop the madness.

So...ultimately, you benefited from it, but you don't think that it should continue to exist? You don't think that others that are less fortunate and privileged as you should be given the same opportunity to achieve their "best" and most virtuous existence, just as you did? Seems kind of hypocritical to be against something that aided you in your development to where you are today...especially considering that you attended a public research university.

 

[VRam]

So...ultimately, you benefited from it, but you don't think that it should continue to exist? You don't think that others that are less fortunate and privileged as you should be given the same opportunity to achieve their "best" and most virtuous existence, just as you did? Seems kind of hypocritical to be against something that aided you in your development to where you are today...especially considering that you attended a public research university.

I actually worked (one of the few) and by the time I was 30 I reached the highest non-political position I could. All of the others in my position were in their 50s. If you want to learn good work habits and skills, don't take a job with the government. You'll just be wasting your time.

It did not help my development, other than to see the sickening waste of taxpayer money first hand. You might as well just shovel the money in the waste basket.

I left because I'm not a hypocrite. I could have stayed, collected a nice paycheck, get fabulous benefits, go on do-nothing conferences (one in Newport right before I left was very enlightening - no educational programs, just cocktail parties and other social functions at historical Newport mansions), get 25 vacation days a year, personal days, double-digit sick days (which you can convert to cash when you retire), retire at 47 and collect a very nice defined benefit pension (which no private company would be silly enough to provide).

Government programs are a joke and they waste money left and right. I could go on for days giving specific examples of what I witnessed first hand. Anyone who believes otherwise is so naive and gullible. What's even more pathetic, is that people on the inside joke about how naive and gullible you are. Wake up.