Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[Guest]

I agree, even for us who are happy with our healthcare, we could still use a vast improvement on current practices. So, a reform is great in that it has the potential of improving the current system at the same time giving an alleyway to those who currently doesn't have one to avail of.

But, nationalized healthcare is not improving on current practices - it is breaking down what works for the vast majority of Americans to improve the lot of a few. I'm still scratching my head on why a lot of people cannot seem to see this.

[rameumptom]

I would suggest that the best practices would start with the following:

1. Tort reform to reduce costs. If doctors don't have to run 100 tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, overall costs will go down.

2. Patient bill of rights to ensure quality. Insurance companies will have to accept all people for the basic voucher (see below) at a minimum.

3. The government give everyone a voucher for basic health insurance or health savings account. This allows for a free market, no competing government plan, no requirement for stiff government regulation (raising prices), and those wanting more health insurance can buy higher levels of protection.

[Kawazu]

Hi guys,

I definitely prefer some of your healthcare solutions compared to what ideas are coming out of the, "bioethicists" working closely with the Administration. The following is from a Wall Street Journal article published on August 27:

Betsy McCaughey: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel Wants Health-Care Rationing - WSJ.com

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving...

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

Edited September 3, 2009 by Kawazu

[Guest]

I sure don't want a Dr. Emmanuel telling me what my life and my baby's life is worth! That guy needs a talking-to.

[Kawazu]

Bioethicists are trained in ethics and uniquely qualified to deal with medicine. Rest assured that diverting medical funds away from infants--who have yet to consume resources--and away from the elderly--who have consumed too many resources--is the surest way to benefit the populace as a whole.

It is about morals, really. Those senior citizens and sickly babies are just dragging down the rest of us. Have a heart, would you?

Signed warmly,

Your Future Physician

[FunkyTown]

Perhaps if you had watched more right wing talk shows you would have learned how to spell Y O U.

I may disagree with Church on many things, but I have to agree that this was a high class, grade A, government approved burn.

Churchmouse 1

jadams: 0

[Maxel]

Bioethicists are trained in ethics and uniquely qualified to deal with medicine. Rest assured that diverting medical funds away from infants--who have yet to consume resources--and away from the elderly--who have consumed too many resources--is the surest way to benefit the populace as a whole.

It is about morals, really. Those senior citizens and sickly babies are just dragging down the rest of us. Have a heart, would you?

Signed warmly,

Your Future Physician

I laughed and cried.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What's more, the model this health system works on reduces unnecessary procedures, and encourages more effective procedures that are usually associated with better outcomes. ... In our model, the physician loses no revenue by referring the patient and can offer a less invasive procedure with better outcomes for the patient.

There are many problems in our health care and many great things but I have to disagree with Obama and some of you who think the problem lies with doctors ordering tests. First of all, there are anti-kickback and self referral laws in all states, like the Stark laws. If the doctors you work with are making money for choosing a procedure that is less effective, in most cases that would fall under those laws and they should be prosecuted under the existing laws. There is no need to make more laws or a whole new system costing billions for that, just enforce the laws already there. Secondly, your premise that doctors order tests (that they don't perform themselves) primarily for money, is just sad. If you think doctors are doing that, I don't know why you would think some company or government employee would not do that even more. Thirdly, I can tell you why most doctors order the tests they do ... because it's the "standard of care" and if they didn't order those tests and something went wrong they would get sued. It has nothing to do with charging the customer more or milking the system with unnecessary tests. Standard of care means that if everyone else is doing it around you, then you are expected to order those same tests and suggest the same treatments or you find yourself out on a long, thin limb. Another important point is that doctors do NOT make money by referring. Most doctors, also, don't care about losing patients, there are not enough doctors to go around as it is. Most fields of medicine are under served, so that's not a reason to order or not order a test or procedure.

I think the other misconception is that there are different levels of health care. A doctor cannot provide anything other than the "gold standard" of health care for that location, so in other words there is only one health care service in the US. There isn't a luxury health care and a standard health care and an economy health care, like cars. For any given condition, a doctor can't say for this patient I will order the MRI but for this one over here I am not. Now, if the patient asks, "how much does that cost and what would happen if I don't get it?" then the doctor explains the reasons behind it and the patient can refuse to do it. But, if the doctor doesn't even offer the test when it is indicated or its the standard of care for that particular disease or orders a less than "gold standard" test then he/she runs the risk of being sued ... they are not going to do that. For example, if a patient comes into the ER with a new onset headache, they have to get the $500.00 lumbar puncture to rule out meningitis and the $2000.00 MRI to rule out tumor even though only 1 out of 5000 times they find anything (I don't know the exact number, 100, 500, 5000, 50,000 whatever, just making a point). Because it's the one time they miss that they will be sued for millions of dollars. So, the problem is not at the doctor level.

This is kind of like the statement about filling up the tires with air, it makes everyone feel like there is something to change to make it all better but sorry, it's not that simple.

[Just_A_Guy]

A Doctor's Plan for Legal Industry Reform.

Don't worry. If you like your current law firm, I promise you get to keep it.

[Maxel]

Oh man... That was a funny read.

Legal "death panels." Over 75? You will not be entitled to legal care for any matter. Why waste money on those who are only going to die soon? We can decrease utilization, save money and unclog the courts simultaneously. Grandma, you're on your own.

I like the absurdity of it all- then I wince when I realize the lawyers are doing the exact same thing with Obamacare. Edited September 5, 2009 by Maxel

[Just_A_Guy]

This is awesome.

[boyando]

This is awesome.

It reminded me that this is a debate on many different levels.

Hear are the questions that are popping up in my head.

1. Does any one have the right to take from one person, even if that person is affluent, and give to another who is in need?

2. Can the U.S. Government run any aspect of our lives, better than we as individuals?

3. Is there any thing that the U.S. Government does more efficient and more cost effective than the private sector?

4. Are there really people dieing because they don't have health insurance?

5. If the U.S. Government takes over health care, will we be better off as a nation, both long and short term?

6. Why does this bill and so many bills like it, take so many pages to write, sometimes fifty times as many pages as does the Constitution of the United States?

7. What is the real reason the cost of health care is rising "10% a year"?

Each question is a different aspect of what we a throwing into one debate. I know that I am looking at it from a conservative view. And that if I were too ask these questions as a pollster, I would be convicted as a push puller (although I believe the rule is you have to be conservative, to be convicted).

Let me know what you think and if you have any other questions (I could write questions all day but thought seven was enough from me).

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the salient points I've always thought the Democrats had is that the Republicans have not bothered to posit an alternative to Obamacare.

Turns out, there is a Republican health care reform plan. (You guys probably already knew this; but it was new to me.)

[Just_A_Guy]

More Health Care Joy From the UK: Question the NHS, Lose Your Kid.

Thankfully, there seem to be MPs who are looking into the situation.

[Maxel]

But... The government is an all-loving, all-benevolent, all-knowing entity! They would never do something as tyrannical like taking your kids for disagreeing with them in the U.S... Right?

Tell me it's not true, JAG! You've ruined my faith in humanity!!

[bytebear]

I didn't want to start another thread, although maybe I should have. So here is the tangent.

I just saw a commercial on TV by the cast of the tv series Scrubs. They were sponsored by "Rock the Vote" with a message of "Demand Health Care". I thought Rock the Vote was supposed to be issue neutral, and just to encourage people to vote, but not to tell them what to vote for? Am I mistaken? I am very disappointed that ABC would be so biased on this issue.

[talisyn]

But... The government is an all-loving, all-benevolent, all-knowing entity! They would never do something as tyrannical like taking your kids for disagreeing with them in the U.S... Right?

Tell me it's not true, JAG! You've ruined my faith in humanity!!

CPS is a whole other can of worms, one deserving of it's own thread. Just remember absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[rameumptom]

I know a couple whose child is in probation and counseling. They were warned not to stand their child in the corner, as that is something CPS does not approve of. Kind of sad that the child is the one with the issue, but the parents end up also being on trial for such small things as this.

[Palerider]

I am a member of an Angry Mob and I want all without insurance to die.........Its amazing I have been labeled those things by other politicians and I carry a swastika. I forgot about that one.:)

[rameumptom]

I am a member of an Angry Mob and I want all without insurance to die.........Its amazing I have been labeled those things by other politicians and I carry a swastika. I forgot about that one.:)

Don't forget, they need to "die quickly."

[unixknight]

This is why I remain unconvinced that somehow Socialized Healthcare is a moral obligation:

This was a point I made in another forum, and I copied it here because I think this is very important and goes directly to why Conservatives generally stand against things like this.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat a single meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime?" That's what we Conservatives are about. We want to help people, but we want to do it in a way that encourages them to return to self-sufficiency if at all possible. In fact, I'd say we have a GREATER moral obligation to help people to become self reliant than to simply throw money at them.

Want to know why?

Imagine you have to rely on me for your food. Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, I am the source of your meals. You have to come to me 3 times a day or you go hungry. Am I really helping you? Sure, I'm giving you free food, but is this truly an act of charity?

Think about your answer for a second.

The answer is that it is NOT an act of charity. That's because as long as you rely on me for your food, I have POWER over you. I can CONTROL you. I can withhold food from you if you do not do what I want. I can dictate what you eat. I can dictate how often you eat. I can dictate how much you eat. I have power over you because I have made you dependent upon me.

On the other hand, we Conservatives believe in empowering YOU to make those decisions. We would rather teach you to fish, to farm, to cook, to gather, to harvest. Sure, we'll give you food in the meantime so that you won't starve, but you will learn to feed YOURSELF so that NOBODY may have power over you, even us. You alone will decide what you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, and you needn't submit to ANYONE in order to feed yourself.

Statists perfer the former. Conservatives prefer the latter.

[Just_A_Guy]

Remember the recent Rose Garden conference where the President met with a bunch of lab-coat-wearing doctors?

Got to get the photo-op. (Story here).

[FunkyTown]

Remember the recent Rose Garden conference where the President met with a bunch of lab-coat-wearing doctors?

Got to get the photo-op. (Story here).

Okay, so according to this story, Obama had 150 Doctors invited to show support for a public health care option.

The newspaper running this story rustled up one Doctor who said the following:

He said he had spoken to "thousands of my colleagues" who oppose the Democrats' legislation.

So I would like everyone here to take the time and find out if they have ever spoken with thousands of people in a similar job - Automakers with other automakers, dentists with other dentists, etc.

Has anyone received his references on these thousands of colleagues? Names? Addresses?

No. Because it's absurd that he would have that information. It's also absurd that he spoke with thousands of his coworkers to get opinions.

Final judgment on that article: It's not great propaganda for the opposition. It's saying, 'Sure, Obama got 150 Doctors that he dressed up for a photo op, but we have one guy! And he says he knows a lot of other guys who oppose it, too!'

[Just_A_Guy]

Very true, Funky. But then, this is no ordinary doctor; this is a doctor who happens to be a congressman in the midst of a very heated national debate about health care.

As for the photo-op, though: It just seems silly to me. I guess it would be dwelling on the trivial to ask how many of our tax dollars paid for those lab coats . . .

[FunkyTown]

I didn't talk about that because it hurts his credentials even more.

"Obama got 150 Doctors and dressed them up in lab coats, but WE'VE got ONE Doctor who also happens to be kept in line by party whips in the Republican party because he's a Republican Representative disagreed. And he said he knew thousands of others who supported him!"

Want to impress informed voters? Have a rally for and against public health care and get Doctors to attend. See which has the most supporters.