Healthcare

[fatcatlurker]

Now on to Healthcare.  First I'd like to say I rec'd an email last month belittling Obama's healthcare plan, it stated that Socialized Healthcare was only in third world countries.  I do not find the countries of Paris, Europe, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Many of the South America's to be third world.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.Gee, lets just stay in the past.....while the rest of the world *cares* for their population. With people like us who needs enemies.  All Sarcasm aside now.

Universal Healthcare my thoughts:I'm not sure why this scares people, if we just tackle the Damn Drug Companies alone in this country we will be saving tons.  Our FDA allows drugs that have been tested on rats for less than 3 weeks for human consumption with numerous warning labels, but will not allow you, the paying consumer to cross the border into another country and buy that same drug at a licensed pharmacy for cents on the dollar of what we pay here.  I guess this is a "Capitalist Society at it's best"  sounds more and more like a Socialism to me only the government doesn't own all these little pharmaceutical companies their favorite lobbyist paying cronies do.Obama's Healthcare plan would not fit on the budget for years after this mess we are in, but maybe he could get through some regulation on Healthcare charges and preexisting conditions and deductables for the little people.  And make sure that everyone has some sort of coverage if they are employed.McCain's Plan:I know under McCain's plan what I would pay for health care.  He has not stated any rules about regulation of charges Healthcare companies charge you and I.   He will relieve our employers of the burden of our healthcare, which I consider part of a salary now a days, as he puts it.  Let's think about it this way.  Do you have any control over your electric, telephone, cable bill, oh sure you can bitch to your Gov'na like we did in Maryland & get you a little 170.00 credit, but hey did your salary change any this year?  Did your other utilities go down?  And did the rate of that same electric go up as you received your little measly credit? Sure you can just change companies...compare with your fellow consumers America very few of us are getting a break from anyone.  And these "utilities" continue to increase.McCain would like to turn our healthcare into a nice little utility bill with no regulation that I have heard of to date.  With a measly 5 thousand dollar credit per year.  I know what insurance costs, family of two 12 thousand plus per year, standard HMO.  Imagine a family of 4, 5?  If you think because this is handed down to you prices will change, you are dead wrong.  If you think as your employer drops this expense from his budget he will give you a comparable raise (new canned rebuttal for repubs in the know) you are dead wrong.  So let's see I will now have to pay 7 k out of pocket for my family of 2, 12K minus 5K proposed McCain credit and to add insult to injury he is going to tax me more for this lovely little burden??!!!  Beware Rant on McCain - do not read if you are easily offended by the truth of our history or just want to argue w/out taking the time to research on your own and have an intelligent debate of ideas - Read McCain's history he is very familiar with utilities and regulation vs deregulation he started in the phone utilities area of legislation.  Don't look at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac for the current economic crisis, go back a little farther to the creation of HUD which set the benchmarks for these 2 this has little to do with McCain but gives you a better understanding.  Go back to the Keating 5 to learn about his history of pulling strings for his cronies, if you think you count to this man, you are wrong.  It's all about the money here.  Deregulation in a Capitalist Society who pays? Do you think we need regulation?  Or should people be able to make money hand over fist regardless of consequences?
   
   

[WhiskeyGirl]

Now on to Healthcare.  First I'd like to say I rec'd an email last month belittling Obama's healthcare plan, it stated that Socialized Healthcare was only in third world countries.  I do not find the countries of Paris, Europe, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Many of the South America's to be third world.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.Gee, lets just stay in the past.....while the rest of the world *cares* for their population. With people like us who needs enemies.  All Sarcasm aside now.

Universal Healthcare my thoughts:I'm not sure why this scares people, if we just tackle the Damn Drug Companies alone in this country we will be saving tons.  Our FDA allows drugs that have been tested on rats for less than 3 weeks for human consumption with numerous warning labels, but will not allow you, the paying consumer to cross the border into another country and buy that same drug at a licensed pharmacy for cents on the dollar of what we pay here.  I guess this is a "Capitalist Society at it's best"  sounds more and more like a Socialism to me only the government doesn't own all these little pharmaceutical companies their favorite lobbyist paying cronies do.Obama's Healthcare plan would not fit on the budget for years after this mess we are in, but maybe he could get through some regulation on Healthcare charges and preexisting conditions and deductables for the little people.  And make sure that everyone has some sort of coverage if they are employed.McCain's Plan:I know under McCain's plan what I would pay for health care.  He has not stated any rules about regulation of charges Healthcare companies charge you and I.   He will relieve our employers of the burden of our healthcare, which I consider part of a salary now a days, as he puts it.  Let's think about it this way.  Do you have any control over your electric, telephone, cable bill, oh sure you can bitch to your Gov'na like we did in Maryland & get you a little 170.00 credit, but hey did your salary change any this year?  Did your other utilities go down?  And did the rate of that same electric go up as you received your little measly credit? Sure you can just change companies...compare with your fellow consumers America very few of us are getting a break from anyone.  And these "utilities" continue to increase.McCain would like to turn our healthcare into a nice little utility bill with no regulation that I have heard of to date.  With a measly 5 thousand dollar credit per year.  I know what insurance costs, family of two 12 thousand plus per year, standard HMO.  Imagine a family of 4, 5?  If you think because this is handed down to you prices will change, you are dead wrong.  If you think as your employer drops this expense from his budget he will give you a comparable raise (new canned rebuttal for repubs in the know) you are dead wrong.  So let's see I will now have to pay 7 k out of pocket for my family of 2, 12K minus 5K proposed McCain credit and to add insult to injury he is going to tax me more for this lovely little burden??!!!  Beware Rant on McCain - do not read if you are easily offended by the truth of our history or just want to argue w/out taking the time to research on your own and have an intelligent debate of ideas - Read McCain's history he is very familiar with utilities and regulation vs deregulation he started in the phone utilities area of legislation.  Don't look at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac for the current economic crisis, go back a little farther to the creation of HUD which set the benchmarks for these 2 this has little to do with McCain but gives you a better understanding.  Go back to the Keating 5 to learn about his history of pulling strings for his cronies, if you think you count to this man, you are wrong.  It's all about the money here.  Deregulation in a Capitalist Society who pays? Do you think we need regulation?  Or should people be able to make money hand over fist regardless of consequences?

I've read that the US is the only country that writes a "blank check" for healthcare.  The US does not have universal access.

I believe the Obama and McCain healthcare plans still write a blank check, and don't really advise that the taxpayers will be picking up the tab.  It's a smoke and mirrors thing.  The country is broke.  The rich can get better lawyers and accountants to help lower their taxes, they can move, or shelter their assets off shore, outside the clutches of the politicans. 

How many families or indiviudals would write medical providers a blank check from their own funds?

Who's going to put on the brake? 

[WhiskeyGirl]

For-profit health care: A road paved with gold and doubtful intentions is available for free download from the CFNU website, www.cfnu.ca . For a copy of the book, please call CFNU's office at 1-800-321-9821.

"For-profit private health care takes away from the public system. It is
not a solution but a huge problem. We need to move forward with public health care, not backwards. For profit private health care is a huge step back," says Linda Silas, RN, President of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.

    The report reviews the arguments of those advocating for more for-profit diagnostic and surgical clinics, the construction of health infrastructure by corporate investors (P3s), the introduction of fees or co-payments to health services and the role of private insurance to fund patient services. Evidence from international experiments with privatization is contrasted with these  claims. The conclusion is that there is no such thing as a parallel system.  More for-profit private health care cannot exist as an add-on as it takes away from Canadians.

    "In 2002, Romanow himself looked for evidence of benefits of for-profit health care and could not find it. Today, Canada's nurses cannot either.  Nurses know the challenges of the public healthcare system better than most, and these problems are small compared to what we will see if there is more for-profit care in this country," warned Silas.

    The report was commissioned by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU) and written by independent writer Marc Young. CFNU represents 158,000 nurses.

    "For-profit health care is about shareholders, not about patient care or safety or even saving public money," concludes Linda Silas.

    The National Day of Action for Medicare was declared by the Canadian Health Coalition and provincial health coalitions to sound an alarm that our public healthcare system is disappearing unless there is more government leadership.

Private healthcare costs

- Canada spends more on private health care than France, Sweden, Italy or Germany (p.25).

- Private healthcare costs are increasing faster than public healthcare costs in Canada (p.25).

- Canada's national health insurance program has an overhead of 1.3% while Canada's private insurers have an overhead at 13.2% (p.23).

- The average annual health insurance premium for a family in the US stood at $11,480 in 2006 (p. 41).

- The annual increase in prescription drug costs could have financed 3,500 new physicians every year (p. 19).

- 3.5 million Canadians are not insured or underinsured for essential medicines (p. 20).

- Public-private partnerships for infrastructure in the UK have seen profit margins reaching  25% and cost overruns of up to 72% (p. 51).

- Brampton, Ontario, built a P3 hospital. It was supposed to cost $95 million and have 284  beds. When it opened it had 188 beds and cost $146 million (p. 53).

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2008/05/c3347.html

Can taxpayer funds be used to pay for government programs and private programs? 

How many healthcare providers (like those companies on Wall Street and others that have gone under) had goals like "raising the stock price"?  Does raising the stock price mean that patients receive better care?  Does it perhaps mean that senior executives receive larger bonuses?  Does it mean that stockholders get a better return on their investment?

I'm sure there is no perfect solution, and the solution must be reworked after a few years. 

Is continuing to write a blank check the answer?

[Slogger]

Universal Healthcare:

Ask the folks on straight Medicare!  It's so BASIC, you have to add a SUPPLEMENTAL POLICY.

I'm hearing that many doctors do not accept it.

So, first we have Universal Healthcare, and then we have care squads forcing the doctors to treat the patients.  Then we have fewer doctors.

All the while, we have the government in charge.  Yeah, just like the economy!

We already have a HUGE MESS.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Germany: 130,000 demonstrate against rundown of health care system

By Bernd Reinhardt
2 October 2008

Some 130,000 health service workers gathered in the centre of Berlin last Thursday to protest against deteriorating conditions in German hospitals.

(snip)

The demonstration was called by an alliance of groups under the slogan “Save the Hospitals.” The alliance includes health service trade unions, doctors’ associations and other health service groups, as well as employers’ organisations and hospital directors. Demonstrators came from all corners of the country, travelling in 800 buses and a number of special trains. Many drove through the night. The organizers had anticipated a turnout of 60,000, and were surprised that more than double that figure joined the protest.

The high level of participation is a clear indication that broad layers of the population are no longer prepared to accept deteriorating conditions in hospitals and repeated cuts in health provisions. Under the former Social Democratic Party-Green Party coalition government and the current grand coalition of conservative parties and the Social Democrats (SPD), the health care system has been undermined by a series of cost-cutting measures. These cuts have been carried through with the assistance of state and local governments.

For the past six years, the German Health Ministry has been headed by Ulla Schmidt. Formerly a leading member of the Maoist Communist League of West Germany (KBW), Schmidt has been a member of the SPD for the last 25 years and is a leading figure in the right-wing SPD faction known as the Seeheim Circle.

The balance sheet of her period in office is catastrophic. Her main aim has been the subordination of public health to “free market” principles and capitalist profit. Hospitals have been subordinated to the so-called “profitability principle” under which they are required to show a profit by carrying out cuts in personnel and wages.

I wonder how much profit they are expected to make?   

The same government that rapidly made available €9.2 billion of taxpayer money to bail out IKB bank, thereby securing the profits of financial speculators, is refusing to provide the funds for a decent health care system. Moreover, the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for the €3 billion in financial assistance to the health care system through increased health insurance contributions.

The leader of the Verdi service workers’ union, Frank Bsirske, a member of the Green Party, spoke of the dire conditions in the hospitals. When they could no longer finance electricity and food, other than by resorting to cutbacks in staffing levels, then something was seriously wrong, he declared. He went on to read a letter from a male nurse from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, which dealt in some detail with the abominable working conditions prevailing in his hospital.

Hospitals finance their electrical and food bills?

In the German capital city, Berlin, these policies have been carried out with the collaboration of the Left Party. Just 45,000 hospital personnel are charged with caring for 700,000 patients every year. Ten years ago, total personnel in Berlin hospitals stood at 60,000. Since 1990, a total of 23,000 hospital beds have been cut, although the number of patients has increased over the same period by
around 13 percent.

I wonder how these levels compare with the US?

The immediate issue that prompted the demonstration was the announcement by the federal government of discussions on financial reform of the hospitals. Ulla Schmidt reported that €3 billion would be made available to hospitals. This sum is to be financed by a 0.3 percent increase in the general level of state-regulated health insurance contributions.

According to the organizers of the demonstration, German hospitals need at least twice that sum to cover rising costs. Over a third of hospitals are threatened with insolvency, putting 20,000 jobs at risk.

How will the Obama & McCain plans handle rising costs?

Last Wednesday, Schmidt made a point of stressing that no more money could be made available. Under conditions where the future of a number of Germany’s 2,100 hospitals is threatened on the basis of the government plan, Schmidt said she expected a “concentration process” to take place, i.e., more closures of clinics and hospitals, with the predictable consequences for jobs. Schmidt’s proposals will only accelerate the privatisation of the health care system.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/demo-o02.shtml

Food for thought.  Universal access moving to privatisation?

[Slogger]

One of our Canadian friends was peeved (putting it politely) with Canada's system.

Many Canadians come across the border to see American Doctors.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Universal Healthcare:

Ask the folks on straight Medicare!  It's so BASIC, you have to add a SUPPLEMENTAL POLICY.

I'm hearing that many doctors do not accept it.

So, first we have Universal Healthcare, and then we have care squads forcing the doctors to treat the patients.  Then we have fewer doctors.

All the while, we have the government in charge.  Yeah, just like the economy!

We already have a HUGE MESS.

I've read that it is harder and harder to find a doctor that will see you if you are on Medicare.  I've also heard that while the price of a supplement policy (to cover deductibles and co-payments) may start out affordable, they escalate as the insured ages.  Some, after age 70 may pay more than $500 dollars a month.

Medicare does provide access and benefits, but still leaves some large gaps and the cost to the taxpayer is escalating at greater than the general inflation rate.

[WhiskeyGirl]

In 2008, 90 million Americans are living with serious illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's. As baby boomers age, this number will more than double over the next 25 years.

"Americans are living longer — but with serious illnesses," said Dr. Diane E. Meier, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care and co-author of the study. "Without palliative care, people with serious illnesses like cancer often suffer unnecessarily from severe fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, nausea and other symptoms from their disease and treatments."

Meier won a MacArthur "genius" grant last month for her work in developing the field of palliative care.

A new direction for hospitals

Dr. Richard Payne, whose research, training of doctors and practice focuses on palliative care, called the new report card "right on target." Payne is the director of Duke University's Institute on Care at the End of Life and was not involved in the report card or the study behind it.

Beyond that, he said that palliative care is the direction that hospital care will take more and more in the future.

"In fact, it is rare for us to cure almost any disease," he told LiveScience, "except for very acute infectious illnesses. ... Is cancer cured? Is hypertension cured? Is heart disease cured? No, these diseases, these syndromes, are controlled and people have to live with the consequences of these diseases — medical consequences, psychological consequences, emotional consequences. We focus on coordinating their care and helping the patient set goals that are appropriate to their treatment."

Hospitals should be about promoting high-quality, excellent care, he said, so they "need to be about promoting competencies in palliative care and in all of their providers, and making sure the system allows that care to be coordinated and efficient within the system."

Avoiding an in-hospital death

The study, based on data from hospitals with 50 beds or more that was collected by the American Hospital Association survey, suggests that in states with more palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital; don't have to go to the intensive care unit as much in the last six months of life; and spend fewer days in intensive care or the coronary unit in the last six months.

That also saves hospitals money, which could help lower health care costs.

The report was funded by the Aetna Foundation, Brookdale Foundation, Emily Davie and Joseph S. Kornfeld Foundation among others.

A line in the report states that Morrison, Meier and their colleagues worked on it independently of any support from a pharmaceutical company.

And Jessica Dietrich, director of research at the Center to Advance Palliative Care, said that no foundation provided funding specifically for this study nor had any influence on the research questions, design or results.

"We conducted the study to document the growth of our field and to draw awareness to areas where access is still lacking," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431926,00.html

Some hospitals and providers seem to be making things better without political intervention.     

[WhiskeyGirl]

A site with lots of healthcare news and views -

http://www.abouthealthtransparency.org/

[WhiskeyGirl]

Lots of links and good reading here -

http://health.usnews.com/blogs/comarow-on-quality/2008/09/30/now-hospitals-must-pay-for-avoidable-complications.html

[crazybabyborg]

Boy, I don't know if you're a Ronald Reagan Fan, but he had an opinion on Universal Healthcare!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0NWqvRidlk

[Slogger]

University Health Care:

can stip a country's economy DRY.

We're already bleeding.

Obama's plan would slit our throats.

FREE, can be too expensive.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why would anyone be afraid of universal healthcare/access?

I think the US could provide basic healthcare to cover just about everyone, and do it with a budget.

I remember a time when religious orders, communities, and other non-profit groups ran hospital and provider networks.  They did a lot of good work, had fundraisers, etc.

I believe healthcare is the new "blank check" ripoff on the American taxpayers. 

Where is the budget?  I read about all the new spending and taxing on business, regulations on insurance companies, and such, but where is the budget?  How much can the US afford to spend?  The country is broke, we'll using borrowed money to pay for the bailout, and we have one hell of a monster national debt.

No one likes to say no to treatment.  No politician will want to say no to drugs or threatments for one patient that may cost $100,000 / month.  I can't imagine any politician wants to say no to a "miracle". 

How many snake oil merchants have their been over the years?  How many people and companies have sold miracles over the years?

At what point does the healthcare system say no, we can't afford all those miracles?  Who decides between basic care and one miracle after another (without result)?

[WhiskeyGirl]

IIRC, some countries like China have controls on childbearing, and some have suggested that women are forced into abortions.

In other places, from memory, Romania, they forced women to bear children, and prevented them from using birth control.

What of people in this country that don't believe in insurance programs?  Healthcare plans? 

Will they be forced into participation?

Will people be forced into abortion as part the 'prevention program'?  That's been on my mind for some time.

Who decides how to ration healthcare?  That's really what all this is about, imho.

There is no free ride. 

Rule of thumb - no one really offers something for nothing. 

Can the US really afford to write blank checks for healthcare?

Who decides what the priorities are?

The "state" has no reason to keep people with special needs, the handicapped, the old, the infirm, or others alive.  Who decides where the money is spent?

[WhiskeyGirl]

The Dems' Health-Care Distortions
 
Seeing through the Obama smokescreen.

By James C. Capretta
Posted: Saturday, October 11, 2008

Recently, health-care has resurfaced as a prominent issue in the presidential campaign largely because the Democratic candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have launched a coordinated and sustained assault on Senator John McCain's proposal to expand health insurance coverage with refundable tax credits.

In several campaign ads, such as this one, and during the televised debates, the Democratic ticket has tried to scare voters by suggesting the McCain plan would increase their costs and "unravel" job-based coverage for millions of workers. And during Tuesday night's debate, Senator Obama again claimed that his plan would allow workers to stay with their employer plan if they like it and that households who already have insurance coverage would save, on average, $2,500 per year from his plan.

The aggressive attacks on the McCain plan have certainly dispelled the notion that Democratic presidential candidates engage only in positive campaigning. But what's really remarkable about the Democratic assault is that their claims and charges are demonstrably false. And it's not just the McCain campaign saying so.

Over the past month, three independent assessments of the candidates' plans have been issued from nonpartisan organizations: the Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (full report available here); The Lewin Group health consulting firm (full report available here); and Health Systems Innovation, another consulting practice (two separate studies available here).

Neither the Tax Policy Center nor Lewin is known for being friendly to market-based health-care reforms. Still, even their findings expose the Obama-Biden health-care assertions as deceptive at best.

For starters, the Obama-Biden campaign has tried to create the impression that the McCain plan would leave households worse off than they are today. Their ads mention that the McCain plan would "tax health benefits for the first time ever." Senator Biden took it a step further, stating during the debate between the vice presidential candidates that the McCain plan "would replace a $12,000 health plan with a $5,000 check."

This statement is of course intended to leave voters with the impression that they would lose $7,000 under the McCain plan, which is a complete distortion. Today, when an employer pays $9,500 for family health coverage (which is closer to the true average), that's $9,500 that can't be paid to the worker as cash wages. Exempting that $9,500 health premium payment from federal income tax is worth a lot less than $5,000 for most workers. For instance, for a couple in the 25 percent marginal tax bracket, it's worth $2,375. The McCain plan would give that couple $5,000 instead of $2,375. Moreover, with the tax credit in place, it doesn't matter if the employer continues to pay for premiums or gives the worker cash income instead. Either way, the worker will come out ahead. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the average household would enjoy a $1,200 boost in income from the McCain plan.

Lewin sees the Obama plan increasing enrollment in government-run insurance by nearly 50 million people, including almost 19 million who would be switched from employer coverage to a government-run insurance plan at the discretion of the employers, not the workers.

-- James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a health policy and research consultant, and the author of the health care policy blog "Diagnosis."

read the whole article and follow links here - http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3572/pub_detail.asp