Who will read the Health Care Bill ??

[4RE KLR]

Isn't it ashamed that our legislators will not even agree to READ the bill before signing it into law.

http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/pledge-to-read


We should vote all their a$$es out of office.

[cobra de capell]

[Ron61]

Steve,

If they did bother to try to read it, most of them wouldn't understand it. I think the only words they comprehend are taxes and raise taxes.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

Most people are in favor of "universal health care" and many other high-sounding pieces of liberal desiderata as they are presented in the abstract with a Utopian vision by the Mainstream Media propagandists.

But no sensible person favors what cannot be afforded and what cannot be achieved when it will only make everyone poorer and ruins the research necessary to truly make progress in health care.

Ask yourself this, or better yet ask someone advocating universal health care this. When someone says he's in favor of helping others with health care, ask him how much he's recently given to charity to help those needing health care. We can safely assume that anyone can be generous with other people's money. Liberals do it all the time and never hesitate to tell us how wonderful they are for doing it. An unwillingness to do these things themselves is why liberals always want the government to do it. And where has this system worked out so far, Russia, England, or Germany? People who can afford the best still come to the US for the best health care.

[KevinW]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

And where has this system worked out so far, Russia, England, or Germany? People who can afford the best still come to the US for the best health care.

You quoted England, so i'll reply.

You've missed the point:

Yes, the US has a world-leading track record for innovation and technological development in healthcare. This is inarguable.

However, if you dont have the resources to fund the care, then this care is denied. (As a foreigner, if i got this wrong, please correct me)

This is the central issue of tax-based vs insurance/privately funded schemes.

In the UK, the policy of successive governments regardless of political doctrine, is that its better to deliver the best that a tax-based system can offer an individual, without regard to his/her ability to pay, rather than to deny care.

One further point: until a few years ago until local laws were tightened, europe (spain in particular) entertained a small band of US health tourists, because tax-based healthcare offered 'free' potentially lifesaving treatment, that these individuals had no means to fund in their home country.

While its easy to scoff and ridicule when you are healthy and earning good $$$$, you will have a totally different perspective when your policy fails to pay out on treating the complications and long term chronic needs that inevitably occurr when you are in the 65+ group.

It is this group, no longer earning, that actually represents the greatest burden of any western healthcare system (~85% of total resources in the uk), however so funded. How to treat, with dignity, those in their twilight years is the central issue that any policy-maker has to wrestle with.

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by KevinW

Yes, the US has a world-leading track record for innovation and technological development in healthcare. This is inarguable.

...is that its better to deliver the best that a tax-based system can offer an individual, without regard to his/her ability to pay, rather than to deny care.

Kevin; welcome to the debate. As I am sure you might have noticed, sometimes tempers flare a bit, but I am sure intentions are pure. I quoted 2 bits of text above that are central to the debate here, I think. We have the best track record for innovation and technological advancement. Agreed.
The second bit is telling...I emboldened the part of interest.
I don't want the 'best a tax based system can offer'..I want the best I can afford, period. The problem from here is that 'the best tax based system' requires the intrusion of the government into healthcare. From our perspective the government is absolutely unequipped to administer trash collection, much less life or death decisions. While it can be argued that both sides have some merit, after living with our governments intrusions for a lifetime I believe unequivocally that the negatives outweigh any and all positives for this type of system by a vast margin. This belief is confirmed by even a casual examination of our one government run healthcare system; the Veterans Administration Hospitals. I am sure there are plenty of horror stories at google-tip for you.
Thank you for participating!

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

From our perspective the government is absolutely unequipped to administer trash collection, much less life or death decisions. !

Amen to that!

[KevinW]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

Kevin; welcome to the debate. As I am sure you might have noticed, sometimes tempers flare a bit, but I am sure intentions are pure. I quoted 2 bits of text above that are central to the debate here, I think. We have the best track record for innovation and technological advancement. Agreed.
The second bit is telling...I emboldened the part of interest.
I don't want the 'best a tax based system can offer'..I want the best I can afford, period. The problem from here is that 'the best tax based system' requires the intrusion of the government into healthcare. From our perspective the government is absolutely unequipped to administer trash collection, much less life or death decisions. While it can be argued that both sides have some merit, after living with our governments intrusions for a lifetime I believe unequivocally that the negatives outweigh any and all positives for this type of system by a vast margin. This belief is confirmed by even a casual examination of our one government run healthcare system; the Veterans Administration Hospitals. I am sure there are plenty of horror stories at google-tip for you.
Thank you for participating!

Thanks for the post, and as i said earlier, happy to stand corrected wherever i am factually wrong. I completely agree with the problems associated with state-centralisation of resources (or centralisation of anything else for that matter). As i said before, our system aint perfect by a long way. And i completely understand the desire to purchase the best care you can afford - the same is available in the uk - we have a variety of different private hospitals and private wings within nhs hospitals for those wishing to pay privately, and a variety of insurance/privately funded/ employer-funded schemes that fund these - so in parts, maybe not that different.

Three parts i'm still unclear about from the posts:

- care is never denied, but this seems to mainly refer to trauma, RTAs etc. (quite possible i missed something). The stories we here on this side is when insurance schemes run out of funding for the complicated follow-ups - long terms meds/dressings, repeat chemo drugs, need for home-based oxygen long term, the kind of thing needed for chronic conditions. This is the part that really costs, regardless of funding mechanism, and something which is really hard to set up a realistic cost estimate for a particular individual in advance.

- i beleive you need FDA approval for any procedure/treatment before reimbursement can be authorised? again, correct me if im wrong. but i beleive there are a lot of times that fda is very slow to authorise this (eg cardiac PET scans). This represents, i think, a similar impediment to access to state of the art care as our own 'NICE' institution, which has taken a huge wrap for the apparant random way it decides on authorized treatments, and is one of the sources of the problems in some of the cases posted above.

- how is provision made for those without the ability to pay for the best? do they still get the best the us has to offer?

Id be interested to read any comments on this aspect. and let me add im not here to wave the 'state control' flag or suggest the us should adopt a sate-funded system - its none of my business, im a foreginer. but england was mentioned in the rhetoric, so i decided to pitch in and try and add a little balance.

Kevin

- and, just to respond to the man with the 'socialist' issues, here is a link to my gallery on the UK cobraclub website. I am a well known UK member, same user name as here.

http://www.cobraclub.com/gallery/sho...php/photo/5329 (car riding a little high at the time)
lots of other pics there. (in fact car sold on Fri to make way for a more authentic project with FE + Toploader box)

[cobra de capell]

Interesting questions, but let's face it - our health care system is not perfect, but it appears to be a lot better than the British system, especially in the areas that are covered by your questions - so why question our system?

While Congress and the Administration are scrambling to draft a catastrophic overhaul of our healthcare system, now more than ever is the time to step back and take a look at how citizens have fared in other countries under the guise of "free" healthcare.

Government-run healthcare systems in other countries are a painful example of how good intentions can produce dire results. Canadian, British, and European government-run health systems delay and ration care for citizens, limit access to cutting-edge diagnostic services and medications, and result in poor quality medical care, all while costs skyrocket.

It is no secret that there are tragically long waiting periods for patients to receive treatment in Canada and Great Britain. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 827,429 Canadians are awaiting some type of procedure, while 1.8 million people in England await hospital admission or outpatient treatment. At one point, waiting periods were so bad in Canada, that in 2005 Canadian citizens, fed up with being prohibited by law from seeking private care, took the matter to the highest court in Canada.

The high court found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."

In an attempt to avoid long waiting periods in Great Britain, the National Health Service (NHS) instituted "targets" using a carrot and stick approach with hospitals that have further exacerbated the decline of quality healthcare for all Britons.

This month the Daily Telegraph reported that emergency room patients suspected of having cancer are forced to the back of the line. These sometimes critical emergency patients do not "count" towards the targets as do other cancer patients referred by GPs and are therefore subjected to longer and often painful waiting periods.

This past spring the Daily Telegraph cited a report by Britain's Healthcare Commission regarding the conditions at Staffordshire hospitals where between 400 and 1200 more patients died than expected during a three year period. According to the Daily Telegraph the investigation found "overstretched and poorly trained nurses who turned off equipment because they did not know how to work it, newly qualified doctors left to care for patients recovering from surgery at night, patients left for hours in soiled bedclothes, reception staff expected to judge how seriousness of patients arriving at A&E (emergency rooms), patients left without food or drink, others who received the wrong medication or none at all, blood and faeces left on lavatories and floors, and doctors diverted away from seriously ill patients in order to treat minor ones who were in danger of breaching the four hour waiting time target."

Snip....

The elderly, obese and those with unhealthy lifestyles also have the propensity to be denied treatment in Great Britain, according to a survey by Doctor magazine cited by the Daily Telegraph. According to the survey, British doctors are "calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives." According to the Daily Telegraph

Snip.....

If you are old and have cancer, you are even worse off under the British healthcare system. According to a report cited by the Daily Mail, 15,000 elderly die each year unnecessarily from cancer because focus is directed mainly to patients under 75 years of age.

Those under the age of 75 diagnosed with cancer, don't fare much better. According to The Times, in 2005 bureaucratic red tape denied over 20 licensed cancer treatments to British cancer patients, with another 23 treatments awaiting appraisal. These included treatments for breast, colon, bone marrow and lung cancer as well as non-Hodgkins lymphoma and brain tumors. Such delays can last as long as three years.

Snip.....

Because of increasing costs, British cancer patients are also denied more effective cancer-fighting drugs. In 2008 The Times highlighted the story of a 68 year old man with kidney cancer seeking to purchase a more effective drug out of pocket. He was told that if he privately purchased the drug, which promised two times the survival rate than the one administered by the government, the government would drop his healthcare coverage. The man purchased the drug anyway and is now no longer able to receive follow-up tests, treatment, etc. Another 71 year old cancer patient opted for the same thing, and was subsequently billed by the NHS £11,500 for his medical care after he was dropped by the government system. Only after the media publicized the incident did the NHS rescind the bill.

Snip....


Posted July 20,2009
http://newsblaze.com/story/200907201.../topstory.html

Yes, you were a Cobra owner and about to be one again, but the the public health system in England just want old people to die and sick people to go away - we don't want that system here.

[cobra de capell]

However, if you dont have the resources to fund the care, then this care is denied. (As a foreigner, if i got this wrong, please correct me)

Actually, at this point care is not normally denied. Most Americans that work have private health insurance; the poor that don't work can sign up for Medicaid. Medicare is offered to all seniors at 65 at a relatively low cost. Costs that are not covered by Medicare can be supplemented by a private policy that is also reasonable or both Medicare and supplementary coverage is offered by private insurance - cost is a little higher.

In the real world, medical coverage in the US is great, it just needs tweaking - it's getting expensive due to innovations, law suits and fraud in the case of the government run coverage. I'd say around 100 to 200 tweaks would do the trick - not a complete take over by the federal government.

I recently retired, now on Medicare and supplement insurance - coverage is good and if something drastic happens - coverage is available within that setup with few dollars out of pocket. So, no longer earning is not a problem except for those that cannot even afford Medicare and especially a supplemental policy would have a problem, but most of those people are on Medicaid anyway or can apply for Medicaid coverage at 65.

Another point - the relatively few that went to Spain, etc were those that wanted really cheap treatment, often optional procedures, by low-paid staff.

Here's the deal - the US can readily add those that do not have medical insurance to Medicare or Medicaid, done deal. But, no - the feds want to screw around with the entire system and make everyone pay more to provide coverage for everyone.

One additional important point - in America, no one is rejected that needs medical attention - they simply go to the hospital emergency room or to a clinic. The problem in this areas centers of illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico and within that thousands of Mexican mothers that want their baby to be an American citizen by having the baby in America. This must stop.

Aside from all that - the bottomline is that you live in more or less a Socialist country - we don't. We don't tell people how to live, how to eat, how to exercise, to stop having gay sex, not to take drugs or drink too much alcohol (well, we tell them but many don't listen), so why should we take on the responsibility for their health during their entire life time? People are free to make their own decisions and pay a price if they make bad ones.

In other words the cradle to grave ‘coverage’ by the federal government is simply BS in a capitalist country.

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

[i]

... Most Americans that work have private health insurance; ....

Not even close...
According to national statistics.

There are over 30 million people, currently with no health care at all.

[KevinW]

i enjoyed reading your reply, which was interesting and informative, and I'm happy to stand corrected where in error. However, we hear on this state of the pond, rightly or wrongly, stories of hardworking US citizens with insurance cover that then fails to cover them for chronic long term illness, requiring them to sell up to fund end-of-life care. It is the follow-up long term care needed for those chronically ill which represents the greatest cost burden of any healthcare system. Our system isnt perfect, i dont pretend it is.

Then you lost it in the last paragraph, which is, frankly, just insulting.

Have you ever been to England or Scotland (scotland has different healthcare provision to England and Wales) before and seen our system?

I think perhaps you have an issue with the word socialism.
I am not a socialist, btw, and nor is my country, regardless of who occupies No.10 (Brown/Blair/Cameron). That went in the 70s with Jim Callaghan.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by KevinW

i enjoyed reading your reply, which was interesting and informative, and I'm happy to stand corrected where in error. Then you lost it in the last paragraph, which is just insulting.

Have you ever been to England or Scotland (scotland has different healthcare provision to England and Wales) before and seen our system?

I think perhaps you have an issue with the word socialism.
I am not a socialist, btw, and nor is my country, regardless of who occupies No.10.

It's doubtful that a Socialist would own a Cobra.....

Anyway, I've read sufficient material on the web to know that there are "socialist' issues with your health coverage system - for example....

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...t_cancer_drug/

Women Denied Key Breast Cancer Drug
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 January 2005, 18:00 CST

WOMEN with breast cancer still face a postcode lottery over the prescribing of drugs, a damning new report revealed today.

London has some of the best and worst areas for receiving a drug called Herceptin - which can double the survival time for some women with advanced breast cancer.

Southwest London has the best record in the country for giving the drug to women, but north-east London is still among the worst, more than a year after the medicine's watchdog said everyone who is eligible should get it.

It means a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in Wimbledon is almost certain to get the drug, while another in Edmonton, just over 20 miles away, has a less than one in four chance of doing so.

The figures emerged in a report from the influential Public Accounts Committee which shows Britain lags behind the rest of Europe in survival rates.
_______

The figures emerged in a report from the influential Public Accounts Committee which shows Britain lags behind the rest of Europe in survival rates.

Therefore, no thanks to the English system. Denying women in Edmonton seems strange, at best. Picking who will live or not seems like not a good thing to place in the hands of government. I pray that America doesn't not take that route.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

Not even close...
According to national statistics.

There are over 30 million people, currently with no health care at all.

I stated that "Most Americans that work have private health insurance"

From CNN.....

The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006.

That's 177.4 million in 2007 - may have gone down since that time, but a huge number. Therefore, "Most Americans that work have private health insurance".

I didn't reference those not covered but I doubt that your number is correct - I also doubt that you've excluded illegals. Besides, no one really knows what that number is, except apparently you.

Next time you question a post of mine, furnish a link that supports your numbers or get lost.

[4RE KLR]

CDC

Yep
According to the Board of Insurance and surveys performed by State Farm and All State the numbers I quoted are correct.

They are also based on Americans and not people in the US. When the total population of the US is taken into account the number increases to over 40 million. Of coarse they are not about to "predict" or estimate the actual number of people that are not in this country legally.

You and I both know that many, if not most of those here illegally are not covered by insurance. However, the Government intends to insure them on your(s) (and mime) dime.

[4RE KLR]

The part that bothers me the most is what I questioned in the beginning (thread title)

Who do you think will actually read the bill before signing it into law?

63 people have signed it out of (what?) 543?

The point here is not whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for the USA. The question is who will sign it without reading it?

[Dan40]

To clear up some misconceptions on both sides of the Atlantic re: US health care;
Credentials" I have health insurance experience [an agency with over 100 insurance agents in 15 states]
My wife has a Masters in Health Care Finance and is a former hospital CFO.

1., Denial of health care for the poor DOES NOT exist in the US. ANYONE can walk [or be carried] into any hospital ER and WILL be treated BY LAW regardless of their ability to pay. The "POOR" are quite familiar with this law. Hospital ER's are commonly used as the 'family doctor' by the poor. Liberal do-gooders say this is 'demeaning' to the poor.

2. Non-payment by insurance companies. We have never had in force coverage denied by any insurance company. 10's of 1000's of policies.
That is not to say that companies don't drag their feet and investigate throughly to be sure they should pay a claim. All inquiries by a company are IMMEDIATELY thought to be a denial of a claim. That's part of the problem.
The other part of the insurance problem is the public attempting to save premiums by buying "Schedule of Benefit" policies. That type policy lists various illnesses and procedures and the amount the policy will pay for each different problem. That amount has no relationship to the actual charges. Say the policy stated $12000.00 for Gall Bladder removal. And the charges were $8000.[ VERY unlikely] The insured would receive a check from the ins. co. for $12,000.00. However, in the real world the actual charges would be more around $50,000.00. The ins, co. would still send out a check for $12,000.00. Thereafter the 'insured' will scream to all who will listen that the insurance refused to pay. Premiums on those policies could be $25 to $50 a month for a FAMILY. As an agency we would never write a "Schedule of Benefits" policy despite the clamor from many agents about how many of them they could sell. It is 'junk' insurance.

3. 30,000,000 uninsured in the US. That number is controversial in both its accuracy and whom it supposedly counts. There ARE NOT 30,000,000 US Citizens that are uninsured.

RE: an above post, even if there were 30 million uninsured US Citizens. That would be 30 out of over 300 million so the "MOST Americans are covered," would certainly apply.

One true thing is the there is a gap in LONG TERM CARE. But only in CUSTODIAL CARE, not "Acute" care. Acute care being the active treatment of an injury or illness.

The problems in US Health Care are not in quality of care or of uninsured Citizens. The problems are in skyrocketing costs.
Yes changes are needed, but scrapping a system that works extremely well BUT is very expensive is not the answer. The present leftist proposals want to reinvent the wheel rather than patch a flat tire.

[4RE KLR]

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

Why is that important? Voting is a political act - the blue dog democrats will step in and save the today, hopefully.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

Could be that one of the laws they already passed without reading, makes it illegal to read a bill before passing it. 'Vote' has been replaced by 'passed'.

ALL, D, R or I that vote for any bill without reading it should not only not be reelected but should be impeached and sent home, FOREVER, for malfeasance.



Was that close 'nuff to your topic???