The real reason Obamacare has Failed us all?

[Dominoes]

Can any of these US Healthcare haters name one drug in the last 20 years that was not developed in the United States? Also there are very large differences in how countries tally their life expectancy and infant mortality. In the US if a child is delivered and takes a single breath and then dies they count against both. In most of those countries ahead of us that child must survive 24 hrs. Considering the age of death, that skews the data quite dramatically.

Speaking of skewed data, did you guys know that of those 46 million uninsured in America: 12 million are illegal immigrants and 9 million are under 35, can afford health insurance and simply choose not to carry it. That really leaves only 25 million without it. There is not an exact number for those that qualify for public assistance but have not taken the time to do so. Even at that number, it is about 9 percent of the population. Personally, I do not understand why we are willing the screw up healthcare for 90% of Americans to cover the very few.

I agree with removal of pre-existing condition exclusions and a windfall profits tax on the insurers, but a public healthcare option is the 1st step to Socialized Medicine, and this is why the Florida Medical Association and 18 other State Medical Associations oppose HB 3200 and are urging its members to speak to their patients in efforts to abort this legislation. If the President and Congress was serious about health reform, they would include medical malpractice reform which increases the cost of every medical visit. Unfortunately, they are owned by the Trial Lawyers Association and will not even consider it.

What is the problem with Socialized Medicine? The rationing of healthcare. After age 75, most medical procedures improve quality of life, but don't on average extend life. Heart valves, bypass surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement are quite the drag on healthcare costs. Without a doubt costs are going to soar initially and when the central planners look where to cut costs it will be with the elderly. I am advising all of my older patients who think they might need joint replacement soon, to go ahead with it because there is a good chance in 2 years they will not be allowed to do so without paying for it themselves.

 

[Winnie]

Can any of these US Healthcare haters name one drug in the last 20 years that was not developed in the United States? Also there are very large differences in how countries tally their life expectancy and infant mortality. In the US if a child is delivered and takes a single breath and then dies they count against both. In most of those countries ahead of us that child must survive 24 hrs. Considering the age of death, that skews the data quite dramatically.

Speaking of skewed data, did you guys know that of those 46 million uninsured in America: 12 million are illegal immigrants and 9 million are under 35, can afford health insurance and simply choose not to carry it. That really leaves only 25 million without it. There is not an exact number for those that qualify for public assistance but have not taken the time to do so. Even at that number, it is about 9 percent of the population. Personally, I do not understand why we are willing the screw up healthcare for 90% of Americans to cover the very few.

I agree with removal of pre-existing condition exclusions and a windfall profits tax on the insurers, but a public healthcare option is the 1st step to Socialized Medicine, and this is why the Florida Medical Association and 18 other State Medical Associations oppose HB 3200 and are urging its members to speak to their patients in efforts to abort this legislation. If the President and Congress was serious about health reform, they would include medical malpractice reform which increases the cost of every medical visit. Unfortunately, they are owned by the Trial Lawyers Association and will not even consider it.

What is the problem with Socialized Medicine? The rationing of healthcare. After age 75, most medical procedures improve quality of life, but don't on average extend life. Heart valves, bypass surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement are quite the drag on healthcare costs. Without a doubt costs are going to soar initially and when the central planners look where to cut costs it will be with the elderly. I am advising all of my older patients who think they might need joint replacement soon, to go ahead with it because there is a good chance in 2 years they will not be allowed to do so without paying for it themselves.

Good point about the pharmaceuticals, Dominoes.

Lack of innovation in is definitely the largest failing of government run programs. How long did it take the Government to switch from DOS? I'll bet some departments still use it. Innovation is profit driven.

I also agree that tort reform should be part of the plan. Maybe they are counting on eventually getting to a single-payer system. Then there will be no need for malpractice insurance because it's difficult to sue the government.

I saw a video of Barney Frank saying that the public option is their first step toward the goal of a single-payer system. He wasn't apologetic about it, only sorry that they didn't have the votes to pass single-payer without going through public option first.

 

[Linda]

Can any of these US Healthcare haters name one drug in the last 20 years that was not developed in the United States? Also there are very large differences in how countries tally their life expectancy and infant mortality. In the US if a child is delivered and takes a single breath and then dies they count against both. In most of those countries ahead of us that child must survive 24 hrs. Considering the age of death, that skews the data quite dramatically.

Speaking of skewed data, did you guys know that of those 46 million uninsured in America: 12 million are illegal immigrants and 9 million are under 35, can afford health insurance and simply choose not to carry it. That really leaves only 25 million without it. There is not an exact number for those that qualify for public assistance but have not taken the time to do so. Even at that number, it is about 9 percent of the population. Personally, I do not understand why we are willing the screw up healthcare for 90% of Americans to cover the very few.

I agree with removal of pre-existing condition exclusions and a windfall profits tax on the insurers, but a public healthcare option is the 1st step to Socialized Medicine, and this is why the Florida Medical Association and 18 other State Medical Associations oppose HB 3200 and are urging its members to speak to their patients in efforts to abort this legislation. If the President and Congress was serious about health reform, they would include medical malpractice reform which increases the cost of every medical visit. Unfortunately, they are owned by the Trial Lawyers Association and will not even consider it.

What is the problem with Socialized Medicine? The rationing of healthcare. After age 75, most medical procedures improve quality of life, but don't on average extend life. Heart valves, bypass surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement are quite the drag on healthcare costs. Without a doubt costs are going to soar initially and when the central planners look where to cut costs it will be with the elderly. I am advising all of my older patients who think they might need joint replacement soon, to go ahead with it because there is a good chance in 2 years they will not be allowed to do so without paying for it themselves.

Thank You Dominoes - I was hoping that a doctor would weigh in on the Sowal Healthcare debate

 

[30A Skunkape]

Can any of these US Healthcare haters name one drug in the last 20 years that was not developed in the United States? Also there are very large differences in how countries tally their life expectancy and infant mortality. In the US if a child is delivered and takes a single breath and then dies they count against both. In most of those countries ahead of us that child must survive 24 hrs. Considering the age of death, that skews the data quite dramatically.

Speaking of skewed data, did you guys know that of those 46 million uninsured in America: 12 million are illegal immigrants and 9 million are under 35, can afford health insurance and simply choose not to carry it. That really leaves only 25 million without it. There is not an exact number for those that qualify for public assistance but have not taken the time to do so. Even at that number, it is about 9 percent of the population. Personally, I do not understand why we are willing the screw up healthcare for 90% of Americans to cover the very few.

I agree with removal of pre-existing condition exclusions and a windfall profits tax on the insurers, but a public healthcare option is the 1st step to Socialized Medicine, and this is why the Florida Medical Association and 18 other State Medical Associations oppose HB 3200 and are urging its members to speak to their patients in efforts to abort this legislation. If the President and Congress was serious about health reform, they would include medical malpractice reform which increases the cost of every medical visit. Unfortunately, they are owned by the Trial Lawyers Association and will not even consider it.

What is the problem with Socialized Medicine? The rationing of healthcare. After age 75, most medical procedures improve quality of life, but don't on average extend life. Heart valves, bypass surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement are quite the drag on healthcare costs. Without a doubt costs are going to soar initially and when the central planners look where to cut costs it will be with the elderly. I am advising all of my older patients who think they might need joint replacement soon, to go ahead with it because there is a good chance in 2 years they will not be allowed to do so without paying for it themselves.

And I might add that the rankings that show the US to be #30something were compiled by the World Health Organization;they stopped attempting to compile rankings several years ago because they admitted that it was too complex a concept to boil down to a simplistic ranking. It tickles me that people actually believe Andorra, Norway, Liechstenstein and Switzerland are somehow 'better'-let those countries deliver care to a sedentary, heterogenous gene pool like that in America and what a hoot it would be.

Great point about infant mortality. It is analogous to an airline saying a flight departed on time based on what time the plane door was closed and it pulled away from the gate, even if the plane sat on the runway for 30 or 40 minutes. Infant mortality is directly related to poverty, and I don't care how great a health care system there is, a country that has a large impoverished population will always be burdened with high infant mortality.

The bottom line is this, and I am not hearing anyone talking about it: If the new system is a burden, docs will opt out as many currently choose to do with medicare and especially medicaid. Wealthy Americans will pay cash or utilize private insurance. Poor Americans will continue to negotiate a byzantine system as best they can and the middle class will be stuck in limbo somewhere in between. Sound familiar?

 

[Daugette_Matt]

I seem to be missing how some reform for those of Us (including me) who really can't afford really good, comprisensive health insurance coverage is going to ruin the healthcare system for everyone else.
I would like an option to get on a gov't program. Aren't about 1/4 of all insured americans already on a gov't plan? Medicare, the system for the armed forces, and the system for all members of federal gov't, congressmen and all of that. Lots and lots of people in America have a gov't backed plan.

What burns me up the most, is a bunch of guys who do not have to worry about hospital bills AT ALL are telling me I don't want a gov't plan.
Well, I WANT A GOV'T PLAN. I WANT TO BE JUST LIKE CANADA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
I want to go to the hospital and come out without a bill.
I want all you people who make more than me to have to pay for my health care, and I want you to give me the very best in the world. I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS YOU!!!!!!!!

 

[30A Skunkape]

I seem to be missing how some reform for those of Us (including me) who really can't afford really good, comprisensive health insurance coverage is going to ruin the healthcare system for everyone else.
I would like an option to get on a gov't program. Aren't about 1/4 of all insured americans already on a gov't plan? Medicare, the system for the armed forces, and the system for all members of federal gov't, congressmen and all of that. Lots and lots of people in America have a gov't backed plan.

What burns me up the most, is a bunch of guys who do not have to worry about hospital bills AT ALL are telling me I don't want a gov't plan.
Well, I WANT A GOV'T PLAN. I WANT TO BE JUST LIKE CANADA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
I want to go to the hospital and come out without a bill.
I want all you people who make more than me to have to pay for my health care, and I want you to give me the very best in the world. I DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS YOU!!!!!!!!

Here is the problem. You have been conditioned to believe you have to have a 'comprehensive' plan, whatever that means. I would point out that the government already offers health care to children and adolescents. The same can be said for senior citizens. That leaves the 20somethings to leading edge 60 years olds needing to make a choice. Eliminate those in that age group who truly are 'sick', who can qualify for government insurance, and you are left with an otherwise healthy populace. If the healthy adults would purchase a 'catastrophic' health plan and simply pay cash for doctor visits, it would be so simple and save for a few exceptions, it would work fine.

Somehow we have been conditioned to believe that it is better to have a $20 co-pay for an office visit and pay a few hundred dollars a month for 'comprehensive' insurance (which usually isn't nearly as comprehensive as purchasers believe) rather than pay far less for a catastrophic plan, have a health savings account and pay maybe $300 annually for an individual to make office visits. It can be done, but many refuse to believe it.

 

[Mango]

Here is the problem. You have been conditioned to believe you have to have a 'comprehensive' plan, whatever that means. I would point out that the government already offers health care to children and adolescents. The same can be said for senior citizens. That leaves the 20somethings to leading edge 60 years olds needing to make a choice. Eliminate those in that age group who truly are 'sick', who can qualify for government insurance, and you are left with an otherwise healthy populace. If the healthy adults would purchase a 'catastrophic' health plan and simply pay cash for doctor visits, it would be so simple and save for a few exceptions, it would work fine.

Somehow we have been conditioned to believe that it is better to have a $20 co-pay for an office visit and pay a few hundred dollars a month for 'comprehensive' insurance (which usually isn't nearly as comprehensive as purchasers believe) rather than pay far less for a catastrophic plan, have a health savings account and pay maybe $300 annually for an individual to make office visits. It can be done, but many refuse to believe it.

It's my understanding that child health care available by the "government" or individual States is based on income, and it's usually close to the poverty line.
These catastrophic plans you speak of, who determines what is catastrophic? Is it an automobile accident, cancer? What about chronic disease? My sister has had to be rushed to the hospital several times in the past year and a half, has seen numerous specialists, and none of them, until recently, was able to diagnose her with a rare, but manageable disease; one that she was able to punch in all her symptoms into Web MD and figured out herself. Yes, it is rare, but give me a break. Had the physicians had looked at ALL her charts, they would have easily figured it out, but rush them in and rush them out seems to be the mantra these days.

I'm guessing a catastrophic plan would have been catastrophic for her financially after doling out $300 a visit, ambulatory services, blood work, emergency room and hospital stays after the "plan" determined that nothing was really wrong with her prior to be diagnosed. Chances are she would have been one of the Bankruptcy cases that 2/3rd's of the cases are which are related to medical financial hardship.

 

[30A Skunkape]

It's my understanding that child health care available by the "government" or individual States is based on income, and it's usually close to the poverty line.
These catastrophic plans you speak of, who determines what is catastrophic? Is it an automobile accident, cancer? What about chronic disease? My sister has had to be rushed to the hospital several times in the past year and a half, has seen numerous specialists, and none of them, until recently, was able to diagnose her with a rare, but manageable disease; one that she was able to punch in all her symptoms into Web MD and figured out herself. Yes, it is rare, but give me a break. Had the physicians had looked at ALL her charts, they would have easily figured it out, but rush them in and rush them out seems to be the mantra these days.

I'm guessing a catastrophic plan would have been catastrophic for her financially after doling out $300 a visit, ambulatory services, blood work, emergency room and hospital stays after the "plan" determined that nothing was really wrong with her prior to be diagnosed.

Well, there you go.

What percentage of the populace do you estimate your cited example represents, and do you think a solution exists that will make everyone happy?

I would define catastrophic as a condition that results in hospitalization. The diagnosis of cancer? A catastrophe, and perhaps for those unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer, there could be a specific coverage offered by the government.

We can go back and forth, tit-for-tat all day long about this stuff. The bottom line is that there will always be people who are not satisfied, but catering to a vocal minority that derails common sense reform for the majority makes no sense.

 

[Andy A]

greatest healthcare in the world....for whom?

My lovely wife.

 

[Beach Runner]

Can any of these US Healthcare haters name one drug in the last 20 years that was not developed in the United States? Also there are very large differences in how countries tally their life expectancy and infant mortality. In the US if a child is delivered and takes a single breath and then dies they count against both. In most of those countries ahead of us that child must survive 24 hrs. Considering the age of death, that skews the data quite dramatically.

Speaking of skewed data, did you guys know that of those 46 million uninsured in America: 12 million are illegal immigrants and 9 million are under 35, can afford health insurance and simply choose not to carry it. That really leaves only 25 million without it. There is not an exact number for those that qualify for public assistance but have not taken the time to do so. Even at that number, it is about 9 percent of the population. Personally, I do not understand why we are willing the screw up healthcare for 90% of Americans to cover the very few.

I agree with removal of pre-existing condition exclusions and a windfall profits tax on the insurers, but a public healthcare option is the 1st step to Socialized Medicine, and this is why the Florida Medical Association and 18 other State Medical Associations oppose HB 3200 and are urging its members to speak to their patients in efforts to abort this legislation. If the President and Congress was serious about health reform, they would include medical malpractice reform which increases the cost of every medical visit. Unfortunately, they are owned by the Trial Lawyers Association and will not even consider it.

What is the problem with Socialized Medicine? The rationing of healthcare. After age 75, most medical procedures improve quality of life, but don't on average extend life. Heart valves, bypass surgery, cancer treatment, joint replacement are quite the drag on healthcare costs. Without a doubt costs are going to soar initially and when the central planners look where to cut costs it will be with the elderly. I am advising all of my older patients who think they might need joint replacement soon, to go ahead with it because there is a good chance in 2 years they will not be allowed to do so without paying for it themselves.

That scares the heck out of me!

It also scares the heck out of me that someone I know can't get private insurance for any price because of taking antidepressants.