Debates
05 Feb 09
06 Feb 09
We cannot afford not to reform the health system. We spend about 50 percent more than the next most expensive nation and nearly twice per person what the Canadians do.
See the May 1, 2006, column by Paul Krugman entitled "Death by Insurance" in which he details how wasteful the current system is. The doctor he referenced has two full-time staff members for billing, and two secretaries spend half their time collecting insurance information on the 301 different private plans they deal with. This type of waste is easily 20 percent. Also consider that 98 percent of Medicare funds are spent on medical care.
06 Feb 09
Republicans and other conservatives argue that trial lawyers and malpractice cases are to blame for the lack of national health care. In fact, 0.46 percent of total US health spending is spent on awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs — about the same as Canada and the United Kingdom and about the same amount we in the USA spend on dog and cat food each year.
While “defensive medicine” may drive up prices, it hardly accounts for our health care costs. The belief that citizens should give up their right to fair legal redress for legally proven, serious medical mistakes in exchange for lower health care costs rings as true as the promise that we must give up our civil rights to be safe from terrorists.
Even those, like my wife and I, with the best insurance coverage now available too often pay exorbitant rates and receive shoddy or inadequate service. All our surgeries over the last three years had to be redone to correct surgical "complications" that should have been detected before the insurance company kicked us out of the hospital.
So the procedures wound up costing almost twice as much.
The current profit-driven system, dominated by private insurance firms, pharmaceutical companies, and their bureaucracies, has failed.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by ScriabinBeyond that... I 'think' Americans are over treated, compared to other countries. I have tried to find info on this, but so far nothing. I can not believe the number of folks I know on 6 or more meds.
Republicans and other conservatives argue that trial lawyers and malpractice cases are to blame for the lack of national health care. In fact, 0.46 percent of total US health spending is spent on awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs — about the same as Canada and the United Kingdom and about the same amount we in the USA spend on dog and cat food eac ...[text shortened]... ted by private insurance firms, pharmaceutical companies, and their bureaucracies, has failed.
06 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisOne depends an awful lot on the other. I've got a lot of doctors taking care of my many ills and my wife has even more.
Thats pretty screwed up isn't it... maybe we should focus on improving the medical system and not so much on who pays for it.
All of them, without exception, complain constantly to both of us about interference with their ability to do their job, the doctors' ability to be in charge, to exercise their expert professional medical judgment with respect to treatment, medication, and recovery measures from insurance companies.
Now, if I had had to pay for the surgeries I've had in the last 3 years plus those of my wife -- major procedures involving partial bowel resections, kidney stones, breast cancer, blood clots, etc. -- I'd be facing more than it costs to put two kids through college as well as pay the mortgage on my house. This, even though I'm at the top grade and top step of the US civil service.
With the insurance, however, I've been able to keep working, keep paying for my daughter's education, and cover all my other bills, including taxes.
However, because the insurance company's former president sought to line his own personal pocket with a golden parachute deal -- attempting to sell the local Blue Cross in the Wash DC area to a California company, Blue Cross started several years ago to micro-manage what doctors did to care for patients so the company's bottom line would look more attractive to the California prospective purchaser.
All this came out through a report by the Maryland state insurance commissioner's office, creating quite a scandal. Now, the state regulator succeeded in stopping the bogus sale, the former Blue Cross president seeking to enrich himself got the gate, but my wife and I still had to go through twice the pain and twice the cost.
I spent two 10-day stints in the hospital in 2007, between which I lost my son. As a result, although I did not know it at the time, my wife and daughter had to deal with all this and were told I might not survive due to the staff of doctors having missed the large e coli abscess that formed after they split me from sternum to pubic bone and carved out half my large intestine.
For those of us inside the health care system and at serious risk -- my wife may have overcome breast cancer, but she's showing alarming signs in the bloodwork indicating the possibility the cancer is showing up elsewhere -- this isn't an academic exercise.
You cannot improve the medical system by ignoring who pays for it.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomisthen, without facts in evidence, your ability to believe is quite revealing.
Beyond that... I 'think' Americans are over treated, compared to other countries. I have tried to find info on this, but so far nothing. I can not believe the number of folks I know on 6 or more meds.
Try living in the world that is instead of the world of your dreams.
or weren't you raised with the aim of becoming an adult some day?
A lot of people I know are afflicted with more than one serious condition necessitating a lot of meds. Both my wife and I resent and even hate having to take so many pills or see so many doctors.
We have a simple choice, really. We can do what the doctors say and take the damned meds, or we can lie down and die.
which would you choose to do?
And aren't you lucky you don't have to?
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by ScriabinMedical care costs what it costs, no matter who pays for it. If your not getting the care the doc says you need, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. However medicare patients are very micro managed, more so than alot of 3rd party payers clients. So, putting it in government hands will not change that part.
One depends an awful lot on the other. I've got a lot of doctors taking care of my many ills and my wife has even more.
All of them, without exception, complain constantly to both of us about interference with their ability to do their job, the doctors' ability to be in charge, to exercise their expert professional medical judgment with respect to treat ...[text shortened]... emic exercise.
You cannot improve the medical system by ignoring who pays for it.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomisThen how do you explain the lower cost (in some cases, with higher quality) of government-funded medical programs outside the US?
Medical care costs what it costs, no matter who pays for it. If your not getting the care the doc says you need, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. However medicare patients are very micro managed, more so than alot of 3rd party payers clients. So, putting it in government hands will not change that part.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI deal with this everyday. I do apologize that no comparison studies have been done on the subject(or if they have I can not find them). I only know from personal experience that Americans appear to be overtreated.
then, without facts in evidence, your ability to believe is quite revealing.
Try living in the world that is instead of the world of your dreams.
or weren't you raised with the aim of becoming an adult some day?
A lot of people I know are afflicted with more than one serious condition necessitating a lot of meds. Both my wife and I resent and even ...[text shortened]... lie down and die.
which would you choose to do?
And aren't you lucky you don't have to?
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's what I was talking about before... the possibility of overtreatment. Not the only reason of course.
Then how do you explain the lower cost (in some cases, with higher quality) of government-funded medical programs outside the US?
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by lepomisWell, Scriabin has raised a valid point - the increased bureaucracy due to the privatization. For the same reason, the privatization of the railways in Britain failed miserably. Collective goods are purchased most efficiently collectively.
It's what I was talking about before... the possibility of overtreatment. Not the only reason of course.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think he may right on the point, but does cheaper make the care better? Something else must be different.
Well, Scriabin has raised a valid point - the increased bureaucracy due to the privatization. For the same reason, the privatization of the railways in Britain failed miserably. Collective goods are purchased most efficiently collectively.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI took the increased bureaucracy to mean redundancy among the different companies. Even if the government controlled the care, the same steps would be involved in care denials. Docs would still have to get their care plan approved by someone. Third party payers have one person who denies or accepts the plan. The doc can go through the appeal process after that, but it the same for medicare as it is for 3rd party payers.
No, but reduced bureaucracy will lead to better communication and therefore better care.