The horrors of health insurance, public or private

So Jay, how long did it take Ms. Rogers to gain approval for Herceptin (which is well proven treatment for breast cancer) and how did this wait impact her cancer progression and her survival?

If what you say is true, and single payor system is a form of rationing healthcare(which I agree with), why won’t our politicians including Obama acknowledge this?

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah, the care given to our soldiers at Walter Reed is the model of government efficiency, efficiency the likes of you can find at any Post Office or DMV.

We can wait for stamps and be inconvenienced by driving but matters of life and death?

The health of your beloved family members in the hands of a government that would actually suggest that wounded war veterans pay for their own insurance?

• Link
• Report this comment

Whiner, kindly tell the class what kind of health insurance you have, and who’s paying for it? Thanks!

• Link
• Report this comment

I have to wonder what world they live in.

As did I during McCain’s late-2008 stump speeches where he’d intone ominously about a “bureaucrat standing in the way of you and your doctor.” As if any American currently dealing with a for-profit private insurer wasn’t already dealing with such bureaucrats.

Oh, and Curious Observer @ 7.36, thanks for your contribution–you have far more patience and willingness to suffer fools gladly/explain the obvious than I have.

• Link
• Report this comment

Moreover, Copyleft, these “conservatives” also believe that children should be incentivized to live with the consequences of their decisions–in this case, their poor choice of parents.

• Link
• Report this comment

People reading this do understand the difference between the UK’s National Health (which can be realistically referred to as “socialized medicine”) and Canada’s single payer plan “Medicare”, yes?

Just checking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Off topic but pertinent to the debate, a good example of the results that government intervention can lead to-

But to the extent that the federal government is to blame, the main fed culprits are the beefed up Community Reinvestment Act and the run-amok Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All played a key role in loosening lending standards.-WSJ

The government thought the housing market needed it’s help and this idiot action nearly flamed out the entire world economy.

Yeah, let’s let the fed try it’s hand at health care, duh, there ya go.

• Link
• Report this comment

We have nationalized healthcare, it’s called indigent care and it costs a boatload of money.

I don’t know if nationalized healthcare is the answer but it can’t be much worse than the “for profit” model we currently have. We’ve seen the “free market” at work for 8 years, look where we are. The only reason hospitals don’t go under (and insurance companies) is the government.

• Link
• Report this comment

Compelling argument in favor of single-payer healthcare system. Who should know better than nurses?

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Love to stay and chat, but someone’s got to pay for Whiner’s meds. Later, all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now the libs are bringing up Michael “Fat” Moore’s movie as proof of our “failed” health care policies, wonderful.

These are the same people that admire Cuba’s “free” health care.

I pray for you America.

~~~~~

I’ll just imagine what I have for some time, that you’re a public trough-feeder (like several of your right-wing brethren here) who has health insurance provided for him. Good for you. Must be nice.

I’ve already paid up my Social Security and Medicare taxes for the year, deadbeat, if this helps you any.

The government relies on people like me, hahahahahahahaha, the very thought always cracks me up, and here I am debating with people that rely on the government.

Unreal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bite the hand that feeds you, liberals, just like any other stupid foaming at the mouth dog does.

hahahahahahahahaha

• Link
• Report this comment

This is indeed a very difficult subject to discuss, because of the life and/or death ramifications of delayed care, pay-as-you-go coverage, and indigent care.

With the implementation of Medicare many years ago, the government has already put their feet through a threshold into a room where they have utterly no comprehension of what is going on.

Supplementing and feeding the already bloated medical practice system in its entirety, it allowed, with the eager assistance of lobbyists, drug companies, etc., etc., to far outpace rational cost structures which may or may not have progressed on their own without federal intervention. In other words, they continued to feed the pig, and the pig got fatter and fatter.

Now, medical costs have far outstripped the ability to be covered in full, as they are currently structured, and no amount of taxpayer money will ‘fill the hog’.

There are curious happenings though which may be discussed. For instance, several years ago, my mothers drug costs began to exceed her very limited income, becoming a financial and psychological concern for her.

I was on a trip to Lima, Peru, and walked into a ‘drug store’, selling OTC medicines. I did a little comparison shopping. I ended up buying, over the counter, her drugs, for about one tenth of what it was costing her here at home. They were labeled and manufactured by the same companies, at the same doses and strengths…they were the identical drugs.

Now, think about this; I purchased her medicines over the counter, NO doctors visit required to gain the prescriptions, NO supplemental Medicare/Blue Cross/Blue Shield payments, nothing extra. The middle man of the government had been eliminated. There was no way in hell I could do this in the USA. Why? Because the government dumped untold millions into the system to cover these extra ‘costs’, meaning yet more bureaucratic red tape, more wasteful spending and ‘feeding of the hogs’ masquerading as doctors and drug companies.

What is the answer? I don’t know, short of nationalizing drug manufacturers and forcing them to supply medicines at a lower cost, and I’m not sure how effective that would be. Would it shortchange research and development, would or could drug companies even comply, would it even work ?

Interesting and informative discussion (rational, that is) might come up with an alternative solution, other than just bludgeoning the hog to death, that is. I just am not well enough schooled on the subject yet to come up with a winning and workable solution, but will check further.

I suggest we all do the same.

• Link
• Report this comment

DB, Gwinnettian,

Re: Canada’s plan – While on vacation in British Columbia last year, I had an opportunity to chat with a Canadian gentleman about their system.
He said he knows Americans are getting all kinds of incorrect info about it, so he would tell me the true story. He never pays, is very pleased with the system, has never had any problems with it, and has a wife and two children who feel the same.

He compared his Canadian aunt’s treatment for a heart problem a few years ago with the treatment given to his wife’s uncle in Michigan for a heart problem a few years ago.
His aunt was treated within 2 days, however, his wife’s uncle’s treatment was delayed for several weeks. They had virtually the same heart surgery, his Canadian aunt paid nothing. His wife’s uncle in Michigan, who is insured, was still making payments for his surgery. Both had good recoveries and are doing fine.

We really should do this. Now.

• Link
• Report this comment

Curious @ 7:26 – The “government” plans currently under consideration offer access to Blue Cross, Humana and other major insurance companies as ADMINISTRATORS. The federal government would be a self-insured entity. This is a very common practice. My company is self-insured but we use Humana as our administrative agent.

As a self-insured entity, the federal government would be providing all of the funding for claims and, as the funding source for the plan, they would dictate all of the underwriting guidelines for the disbursement of their funds.

Make no mistake, there is no proposal out there where government money is going to pay for you to purchase a commercially available Blue Cross plan.

• Link
• Report this comment

It was only a couple of years ago that my employer began offering healthcare insurance. On their first attempt, the provider’s service and restrictions were a nightmare. As employees, the staff complained and the provider was dumped at the end of, what I assume, was a contract with my employer. The staff is very pleased with the provider we have now.

Can you renegotiate in the U.K.?

My former minister, a brit, called last night, telling me to watch Hannity. I was SHOCKED! He never watches cable news networks. Anyhoo, it was this guy, Hannan, that he wanted me to see. He likes the guy. I can see why. He addresses healthcare towards the end of the video.

Amend the constitution……Hannan for President in ‘12.

It was easier to understand the brit than it is our own politicians.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer – Your post regarding denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is only partially correct. As long as you were previously covered by a group plan, you may choose to go to a private plan without any concern for pre-existing conditions. This is one of the key provisions of HIPPA (Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act).

• Link
• Report this comment

So in our privatized system we’re paying more, getting less, and not even ensuring full coverage, with massive inefficiencies…

And the ones who love this system are supposedly the “champions of the free market!” Because the marketplace ensures “efficiency.”

Uh-huh. Tell us another one.

• Link
• Report this comment

A couple of things to note here:

The Canadian system works pretty well. Not as good as G’s comment above, but not as badly as some GOP-ers like to claim, either. I have tons of relatives in Canada, and their stories range from long waits to short waits; adequate coverage to limited coverage, so I think the overall assessment is that it is better than socialized medicine, but not as good as private insurance.

Mrs. G, trotting out 10 “horror stories” on private insurance is not the way to approach this issue. For every horror story you can show, there is another horror story in Canada or Great Britain. It is disingenuous to point out only the bad in a system that is clearly the best health care system in the world (still).

Now, let’s move on to how to fix this mess.

There was a story the other day that said that some insurers are considering lowering their premiums for people who have had previous, serious illnesses. They are finding out that with new treatments, these people do not have the recurrences they did in the past, so the need to charge higher premiums is no longer there. Good for them. The market is correcting itself in this one regard.

Next, states need to get out of the insurance control business. Too many states MANDATE minimum coverages for health insurance companies. For instance, at my age and personal situation, neither I nor my wife have any need to have coverage for anything to do with pregnancy or pediatrics. Nor do we wish for any coverage for psychological issues. However, those are mandated minimums. The solution is to go with a menu of choices that the patient wants, and here is where they have to choose carefully. Most people could be well-taken care of with basic wellness and catastrophic coverage, and the premiums would be far lower than the all-inclusive coverage usually offered now. Co-pays for basic office visits should be a bit higher than the usual $10-$20 dollars, to help keep costs lower as well.

Next, install a “loser pays” legal system in this country. The high cost of health care is exacerbated by the increased cost of medical malpractice insurance doctors have to pay. People will think twice about suing anyone for a payday if they have to pay court costs if they lose their case.

Next, open up the AMA records on doctors. Too many bad doctors are shielded by their brethren in refusing to note doctors who have had malpractice judgments against them. Doctors, like lawyers, need to have their records out in the public like any other profession.

Next, no insurance coverage for “designer” drugs that do not treat a life-debilitating illness, i.e. Viagra. Unless the insured wishes to pay higher premiums for that drug. If it isn’t an “I can’t function on a day-to-day basis without this” kind of situation, the user needs to pay the full cost or the higher premium.

Next, drugs. Studies have shown that for every drug that hits the market, 10-12 of them never see the light of day. If you want to know why drugs cost so much, look no farther than this statistic. How much do you think your car would cost if one out of every 10 models were a Ford Pinto? Government requirements should change from exhaustive testing to exhaustive information BEFORE receiving these drugs. Take a LISTEN to the Celebrex TV commercials these days. The ENTIRE commercial is all about side effects; not about what the drug can do FOR you, but TO you.

Finally, get outside and do something. We are one of the most laid-back societies on the planet. No exercise. Our kids are getting fatter because our adults don’t do things with them like we did when we were kids. Ride a bike or take a walk. Wellness reduces the cost of heath care more than any other drug or surgery.

And notice I never said once that we need the government in the middle of this system.

• Link
• Report this comment

And, on top of all the problems with our lousy (for the recipient of health care) health care system, we add insult to injury in so many ways that it is more like a playbook that would make Shakespeare cry. We do nothing to promote better lifestyles over convenience. We buy into fast food, preservatives, sugar, carbonated drinks, etc., as a way of life when it is actually more of a fast track to the hospital bed. The number one consideration from business is always “how much can I make” when it should be a balance between making a decent return and maintaining a healthy customer base. After all dead customers don’t pay. The bottom line is that another key part of a sustainable health care plan is preventive care and that should include everything from cleaning up the air that we breathe to the water that we drink to the foods that we eat. In fact, I expect that it is safe to say that there is nearly nothing about our entire approach to health care that does not need to change — except breast implants and other cosmetic surgery.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R

I will take your advice under consideration.

However, since I don’t believe information is a dangerous thing, and the most frequent stories we hear in the healthcare debate are horror stories from Canada or England….a little balance was called for.

• Link
• Report this comment

What galls me is the hypocracy of our elected officials when they talk about healthcare. How many times have we heard politicians say (including Obama on his campaign) say that EVERY American should have the same healthcare that members of Congress get. Like in what universe do they live in where the average Joe can go to Duke Med center like Ted Kennedy recently went for his brain cancer?(personally, he should be getting prison healthcare after his Chappaquiddiq incident…but I digress)

Fact is, thruout history, the rich have ALWAYS had better healthcare..just like better food, housing, cars, etc. There is no way in hell that you can afford a healthcare system where EVERYONE can go to a Duke or Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins for complicated problems. They’re just pandering to populist sentiment and promising a product that they can’t deliver.

You want to cover the 45 million so called uninsured, and give them a basic bare bones coverage?—I have no problems with that. But be honest with yourselves. It takes money. An additional 1-2 cent national sales tax? I’m okay with that…anyone else?

• Link
• Report this comment

My sistyer’s employer dropped group health insurance. The only policy she could afford was a high deductible private plan. Last year she had surgery that put her out $4K. 3 months later, in January of this year, the condition came back. it’s an new calender year so her deductible starts all over again. The hospital wanted her to pay her entire deductible $5K up front before they would admit her. She begged pleaded and the surgeon intervened. The performed the surgury and didn’t keep her overnight this time so her debt to the hospital only went up by a little less than $3K.

My sister had worked hard her entire life. She’s productive and profitable, but evidently has no right to health care that won’t drive her into bankruptcy.

BTW her daughter has a kidney disease that has never occurred on either side of the family. The rest of her health is fine, but this is a mark on her record that can never go away. My sister’s ex-husband has a government job that will cover their little girl’s medical needs, but when she beomes an adult, my niece’s only option for any type of health coverage is group health car. Either that or move to France.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s not correct to call the British system “insurance.” Their incentive is not to deny service, contrary to the US system. The shame of the US system is not even that tens of millions do not have health insurance, but the inability of those who do to get treatment and medicines. What’s the point of premiums?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R @ 9:04: a very good prescription for what ails the system. My only difference would be to make “universal coverage” a free policy from the state or federal government (underwritten by payroll taxes and administered by the existing insurance companies) that would work with any doctor and have high deductible and $40 co-pays for doctor visits and $20 co-pay for drugs. Let this be “bankruptcy protection” more than anything as well as a way to get the very expensive uninsured out of the emergency rooms of hospitals (who — by law — must treat them regardless of ability to pay, so they do it for free and then pass the financial loss onto insured patients). Then, instead of buying expensive health care for their employees, companies would be able to pocket more profits OR buy lower-cost supplemental policies to provide a way to bridge the gap between what employees are used to for insurance deductibles and the state-provided policy’s deductible.

• Link
• Report this comment

Talk about a system in need of some maintenance or debugging or something. Jay, I never know from one post to the next if it is going to be accepted or rejected and I always seem to get complacent with my saving before attempting to post practice right before I lose another post to the goblins. The little devils always seem to know the right time to take a byte.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, for all you bashing the private health insurance system (and yes I have many issues with them), please see if any of your mutual funds, 401 K’s, IRA’s, etc aren’t invested in them…I suspect many of you do and may or may not realize it. Then you would be bashing the system from which you derive profit from.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam,

I recall reading that there were twenty states that had such things as insurance coverage via credit default swaps or other financial links to AIG. So, is that also a good enough incentive for government to not allow AIG to fail. Of course, AIG’s web had a much larger captive audience than likely any of us yet realize.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay- If dental is part of Britains govt run Health Care,then there should be no argument on its effectiveness!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Has it occurred to anyone here that we simply cannot afford government run health care? Take away the rationing argument, take away the ineffieciency argument, take away the argument that people with serious illnesses seem to migrate to the U.S. for health care rather than the other way around, take away government’s track record in just about anything other than what it was originally designed to do, and take away any other argument you want against government run healthcare. Assuming all those arguments could be solved or repudiated, WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD IT! We can’t afford the government we’ve got. Despite what politicians from both parties tell you, Christmas doesn’t come every day.

Why is it most of us realize that there are things in our life that are out of reach financially, yet we somehow believe the United States government can afford anything at any time? We and those we elect are simply stuck in this mindset. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as they currently exist are unsustainable. That is an actuarial fact. So of course the logical thing to do is spend even more on health care. Why can’t we work to make the current system more efficient? Why can’t the government just say “That’s not a bad idea, but it is simply too expensive.” I don’t believe government run health care is a good idea, but even if it was we have absolutely no way to pay for it or much of anything else.

What we should be doing is trying to figure out how we will manage with the government doing less in our lives, not more, but ultimately that is what we are going to be faced with once this spending carnage has run its course. You WILL be disappointed with what this path we are on brings – count on it.

There is an old saying that goes “You may not be interested in war, but it is interested in you.” To paraphrase that, you may not be interested in deficits and debt, but it is interested in you. If this foolishness isn’t stopped soon, you will be wondering one day what in the world we were thinking, and you will long for the days when you could sit around and dream up more things the government would pay for.

Wake up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Can somebody please tell me where in the constitution it says that you have a “Right” to healthcare? And also where does it say that the government should run ANY business that competes with the private sector? Why do you think that tax cheat Gietner wants to “Take over failing businesses” that is because most hospitals run at a deficit because they give healthcare to all who need it, do you think this is a precursor to the government taking over hospitals? Wake up America!

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a nice little overview, via interactive graphics, of our healthcare system. You can find a link to a full report as well as the interactive graphics here.

• Link
• Report this comment

A drought, eh?

• Link
• Report this comment

Observer @ 10:15,

Good catch.

Yes, I do indeed believe health care insurance is a right of citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer @ 10:11,

Very informative. Thanks for the link.

• Link
• Report this comment

Things that make you go ‘hmmmmm’…

Obama has announced a strategy for Afghanistan that includes raising troop levels there. Do you think that maybe he got some information from one or more of our intelligence agencies, the kind of information that doesn’t get out to the media, but the President would be privy to? Do you think that intel might affect his decision making? ANd, if so, isn’t it possible that the Bush administration made decisions based on the same kind of intel? Only time will tell….

Jay, don’t worry about actually reporting this stuff. GO back to polishing up the old resume. The Gwinnett Post might need a beat writer to cover the Gwinnett Braves.

• Link
• Report this comment

” So when I hear conservatives complain that a single-payer system will mean that health care is rationed, or that some bureaucrat will intervene in decisions between you and your doctor, I have to wonder what world they live in.”

Well, us ‘conservatives’ live in a world of liberty and opportunity. Statists such as youself have no use for these ideals as your satisfied with being assigned a number and told what to do. It’s truly a pity that you liberals don’t realize how selfish you have become.

• Link
• Report this comment

G @ 10:25 writes, “Yes, I do indeed believe health care insurance is a right of citizenship.”

Sorry G, but health care insurance IS NOT a right of citizenship. It has never been a right of citizenship. Health care services, by contrast, are, and always have been, a right. One of the reasons those of us with insurance have to pay so much for a hospital visit is to offset the enormous cost the hospital absorbs providing health care to those who have no insurance or who may not even be here legally.

I find it ironic that many (not all) who claim they can’t afford medical insurance find a way to pay for an iPhone, XBOX and plasma TV. Health insurance, like many other things in life is about making what are sometimes difficult budgetary choices in our daily lives.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Matarotz, tell us all here how you REALLY ‘feel’ about Jay, won’t you. The Days of our Lives writing staff is in the audience and they are looking for new story lines.

• Link
• Report this comment

Welcome, Red, to a most noteworthy group — We The People. Also, feel free to ignore the troll unless you are in need of cheap entertainment. He’s always starving for attention.

• Link
• Report this comment

And Red, the Constitution provides the limits of government, not the scope of government. And remember the first words are We the PEOPLE, not We the GOVERNMENT.

• Link
• Report this comment

And welcome Red, to compliments from the only person who hasn’t the guts or intelligence to answer questions asked of him on this blog – Taxpayer.

• Link
• Report this comment

I teach, copylefty – you flunk.

I read English and understand it – you flunk.

I understand what the Framers wanted – you flunk.

I’m right – you flunk.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did anyone see the President’s news conference this morning?

Isn’t it just amazing to the the transformation from the peacekik/candidate to the war/President after just a few scary intelligence briefings. Even he has realized he doesn’t want his daughters incinerated by a WMD as they set in their D.C. classroom (private that is).

Now don’t get me wrong – I think he is doing the right thing in continuing Bush’s policy of letting our military hunt these vermin down. But what’s so amusing is that many of you liberals who hung on his every word during the campaign (”we will sit down and talk to them because they’re reasonable people”) will refuse to “gig” him for his new found warrior spirit even though it galls you to the extreme.

Why? Because ……….. because ………….. because …….. he is a democrat !!

• Link
• Report this comment

Well private, are you saying you do not want him to fail?

Can you trolls ever make up your minds?

Geez.

• Link
• Report this comment

You see, Red. I told you he was easy. Ha HA HA! HA! HA ha.

• Link
• Report this comment

Back for a bit.

RW, no, oil changes not included. I eagerly await hearing what your point might be.

Corporal @ 10.48, you want to try posting on topic first, before launching your 24/7 “Why I Hates Me Some Obammer” whingeing? Thanks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. Godzilla, please stop trying to show people you know nothing about the Constitution.

The Constitution is a government LIMITING document, not a government ENABLING document. The Framers decided to show what government could SPECIFICALLY do, not leave things open as to what may be allowed.

Have you even read the Federalist Papers?

• Link
• Report this comment

I Report/ You Whine

I notice that you still haven’t answered DB’s question: “kindly tell the class what kind of health insurance you have and who’s paying for it?”

Talk is cheap; whisky costs money.

Speaking as someone who has no insurance,let me tell you about my experiences with the health industry. When I go into the doctor’s/hospital office the first question is always “who is your insurer?” When they find out that I have no insurance, I am immediately awarded second class status, even when I assure them that I am paying them, not medicare not medicaid–me–as a consumer. So please explain to me the virtues of the free market when it comes to this industry; when I, as a buyer paying with cash, is subjected to derision by the sellers. Eight years ago I needed minor surgery and I had enough in savings to pay for it. One week before my surgery I was called to the hospital administrator’s office and this woman accused me of stealing. She told me, to my face, she didn’t believe I had the money, and before the operation I would be required to pay in advance with a cashier’s check.

DB’s comment about feeding at the public trough I take to mean that perhaps you have some kind of government funded health insurance. If so, put up or shut up. As a taxpayer I applaud your access to insurance, but when you worship at the altar of the free market while accepting taxpayer funded health care, your hypocracy shines through.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aahhh, yes, the fond memories of long ago liberal screeds-

Many climatologists have warned, however, that one consequence of global warming is more frequent and more severe droughts. Maybe we should learn to live with fewer golf courses and swimming pools, with lawns that demand less pampering and cars that still look just fine with less washing.-Queen Pinko, Urinal

Uh huh-

Saturday: Occasional showers and thunderstorms, mainly before 2pm. High near 68. Southeast wind between 10 and 15 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New rainfall amounts between one and two inches possible.

• Link
• Report this comment

Observer-@10:34- Are you telling us that Iphones,Xbox’s & Plasma Tv’s are NOT right to citizenship????? Seriously there NOT????? My God!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Red, A fitting moniker for someone of your apparent political persuasion. Ole Abe was right we are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Anybody on here actually think that’s what we have? If so, I do want some of what you are smoking.

As for healthcare, it’s a mess. I don’t know what the solution is. I just know that what we have now is not the solution.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R @ 10:36,

You.Are.Not.My.Teacher.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am corrected Dave R, thank you. I see it clearly now. Abraham Lincoln was a slimy politician and the framers of the Constitution never meant for it to be amended with 13 or 19 because it was a limiting document. Does anyone know what time the Rush radio show starts? I have a whole new horizon to consider.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fornicator @ 10:45,

Tell me, are you good at what you do? I suspect you must be, hence the name.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s about the cost people. Peter hinted around at it. In my opinion, healthcare shouldn’t be about making profit, it should be about helping people. I guess I’m just a big giant socialist that way.

And I don’t see in the near future that anything is going to change, because certainly insurance companies aren’t going to give up making money.

I’ve had a couple of interesting insurance related problems this week – one my insurance company doubled the deductible I have to pay for a routine drug – a drug that costs over $7 per pill. Why should a pill that reduced gas in my stomach cost over $7 per pill? I mean I could take Tums, but it just doesn’t do the trick.

Two, the bureacrats at Medicare this month decided that my mother in law only needs one blood pressure pill a day instead of two. Because the bureacrat said so, not the doctor.

This is all maddening sometimes.

And people go to the doctor way too much in this country. I am all for routine check ups, but we should have more community health centers for smaller issues, and people need to be better educated about their own bodies.

I know I’m kind of rambling this morning.

• Link
• Report this comment

G, you’re right. Total ignoramuses can’t be taught. For you, it’s genetic.

You’re expelled from Constitutional school. Probably not your first time, either.

• Link
• Report this comment

The new definition of Greed – when you put a value and dollar amount on everything, even human life. Or I can sell you anything, as long as I tell you that it exist and that it will be profitable to you in the future.

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually, Red, the Framers specifically provided for amendments, and the 13th was certainly a good one.

The jury is still out on the 19th, however . . .;)

• Link
• Report this comment

Absolutely compelling.

http://www.pnhp.org/

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs Godzilla, promote does not mean provide, learn your English.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. G:

Might I ask what the purpose of your 9:07 on the previous page was?

It was pretty damn obvious that Daniel Hannon was a member of the British Parliament (making him NOT a U.S. citizen) and that his arguments were those of a conservative.

You had to go to DailyKos having them point that out to you?

You really have proven yourself to be quite dense, Mrs. G.

Dave R:

Your solutions to the healthcare problems were thought-provoking. It’s a shame nobody wanted to put much thought into them. A discussion on the points would have been GREAT but alas, that’s not why liberals show up here.

I don’t really know enough about the topic to engage but I’m always ready to learn.

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

Two comments

The only people who are for a government run healthcare system are people who don’t have insurance today and the people who want their votes. These people don’t want “affordable” healthcare, they want it free to them at the expense of evil rich CEO’s. Don’t kid yourselves.

We need to get the runny noses out of the system. Your car insurance doesn’t pay for dead batteries. Health insurance should only cover big ticket issues that have the potential to bankrupt you.

• Link
• Report this comment

RW: From way earlier (tryin’ to get some work done here!), I’ll accept that “extended warranty” is a better term, although those don’t have much in common with each other. With cars, consumables are never included (which includes oil, rubber belts, filters, etc.). With my A/C unit, filters ARE included, but I can see through them, so I guess they’re intended to catch whatever my 2-year-old son decides to throw into the register in the family room, but not much else.

Anyway… what was the point?? Really, I’m totally lost on where you were driving this buggy.

Whiner: your postings on global warming are so dumb they must be parody of something, though I must admit that I don’t get the parody. You know that conservatives don’t do parody well, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R @ 11:22,

If someone doesn’t agree with you, you immediately start with the insults.

Definite personality flaw there.

Are you under the illusion that you are providing a service here?

Someone as insignificant as you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R, if you agree that the Constitution can be amended based on changing societal norms of what is decent and just based on the evolution of thought, then why can we not agree that the time has come to ‘provide for the common defense’ (against infectious diseases like TB on the Marta train) by providing adequate affordable health care for all?

• Link
• Report this comment

BiteMe: I wasn’t trying to make you understand, after all, I am not a miracle worker, you stump jumper.

There are some things that are just hopeless, you know?

• Link
• Report this comment

Off topic

Does anyone happen to know if the Rushpublicant Budget(Fudge It)has any numbers in it this morning?

• Link
• Report this comment

caz,

You might want to give me time to answer, but no I don’t think that insurance companies should not make a profit. That’s your projection not mine. Don’t go ’round putting words in people’s mouth.

RW,

I haven’t tried that, but thanks. I went ahead and paid the 75 bucks for the Nexium. I don’t mess around with stomach fire!

• Link
• Report this comment

RW: I actually have thought about looking at the headers to see where they screwed up the caching lines, but that would look more like work and who would I tell anyway?

Whiner: which is to say that you have no clue either, since when you get called on writing something stupid, you resort to name-calling like a little boy in middle school. I guess you consider that “communicating” or “debating”, but the rest of us just think you’re a weenie and a whiner. And a welcher.

• Link
• Report this comment

The AJC’s website and my computer are not getting along, so hopefully this post will make it.

Later all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch-Sorry must have read it wrong,will re-read.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay says, “One difference between the private and public system is motive. Under private insurance, the people making the decision on whether you get coverage are driven by the profit motive to say no. The more treatment they deny, the more money they’re going to make.”

Under government insurance the people saying no are the bureaucrats appointed by power-hungry politicians eager to keep the people under their control for the simple game of winning elections. Once helthcare crosses to the dark-side it is all too easy to state that my opponent wants to take away your “right” to healthcare.

Jay, what makes you think the government care do a better job than private companies. I’m not thrilled with Insurance companies that often but if one is doing a poor job en masse then you would see its profits diminish as people change their providers.

Basing an argument on the insurance companies only see $$ in their eyes by denying coverage is simplistic populism. What the government needs to do is allow for more insurance competition. You would see even less covergae denials that way.

• Link
• Report this comment

small adjustment to the above post…..

not all the Founders/Framers were Federalists…..

Thomas Jefferson for example was not.

• Link
• Report this comment

RW (the Original):

Here’s the deal on “getalife” vs. “getadeath”.

We all pick our “handles” for various reasons. Some of them are strange but it’s our choice. Those “handles” should be respected. My handle is Corporal and that’s the way I want to be addressed. Sometimes “getalife” responds to me as Corporal and sometimes he chooses to address me as “private”. When he does that, I return post him as “getadeath”. I am not suggesting he “die”, I am just “reversing” his handle as he does mine.

It’s his choice. I will respect his handle if he respects mine.

I also do the same to Taxpayer/Taxavoider and some others which I won’t take the time to go into.

If you did not respect my handle you would become probably – WR (the Unoriginal).

• Link
• Report this comment

To Getalife (call me Corporal and I will call you that):

By the way, you haven’t responded to my 11:13 answer to your post.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boy, I’ve had a real problem getting these comments pages to load, anyone else?

Just to tidy up a bit–RW wrote prior to heading out…

If I’m not mistaken it was you that started whining about spacing out routine doctor visits because of your insurance limitations.

If

“I [...] have had to foot the bill for private insurance for some years and know very well what it’s like to deal with decisions about when to visit a doc, how to space out regular checkups, putting off non-critical treatments, and so forth”

constitutes “whining” then I’m guilty as charged. But that seems like a pretty broad definition to me.

Anyway, I’ll freely admit that the checkups themselves aren’t the tough part, it’s what they find during the checkups and the decisions one anticipates having to make about whether to take doc’s advice about treatment, or find a reason to put it off due to cost, that weighs more heavily.

• Link
• Report this comment

For those who are taking Nexium or Prilosec….why pay the cost and suffer the side effects? From my own personal experience, club soda (small bottles) works better. I’ve turned several of my friends who were on meds for “stomach fire” onto club soda. Their over-the-counter drug relief has been replaced with off-the-shelf grocery relief.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anything lower than “grunt” would be called – Taxpayer.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer:

I shouldn’t tell you this but ………. it would be “sailor”….. )

You are now back to “Taxcriminal” ……

P.S. What I really feel sorry about the people in Great Britain is that they have no dentists.

• Link
• Report this comment

HEADLINE: Russia plans to create Arctic military force …

And we thought is was over ……….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du7ls7v2uYQ

Where is Jim Brown when we need him ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. Godzilla:

Congratulations on your 12:52 (Corporal joined but was not a Marine?).

It has now earned you a place as #3 on my list.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you want to read about some serious corporate greed — greed that will make you sick — then check this out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry: I was having a flashback. Dismantle

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

I see you’ve set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

I don’t know for sure, but I’ve got a feeling you know more than God.

• Link
• Report this comment

I blew out my knee.. have great insurance.. sat in emergency room for 5 hours waiting because everyone WITHOUT insurance and illegal with a kid who had a runny nose was there after 5 hours said forget it and went home, called friends and got enough pain pills to get through the weekend. Had Surgery Tuesday and ended up with a replacement –but they had to wait til they could get the swelling down .. and the doc said I would have surgery the day I went to the hospital if they just could have gotten a call from the EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTOR .. but no .. never got through the triage! My husband called 3 other hospitals all the emergency rooms for full. Good thing I have a very strong threshold for pain.

If we go the route they are proposing… probably would have been put on a WAIT list for replacements .. that is what happens in Canada, and over the pond .. they just put you on crutches and tell you they will call you when it’s your time!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Rushpublicant fiscal plan is the same as it’s always been…

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/Fiscal%20responsibility.JPG

• Link
• Report this comment

The healthcare debate will be interesting in the near future. We will be asking ourselves some tough questions, like do 100 year old people need blood pressure medication?

And caz, before you accuse me of being a heartless meany, I’m not suggesting that we should stop denying medication to old people, it’s a rhetorical question, but we will as a society start to see things alot different as the Boomers get older and older.

• Link
• Report this comment

DB,

Agreed. I think it would be cool for developers to start developing little communities – why can’t they put a store in those sub-divisions? Or a health care facility? Little things like that could make so much difference.

A couple of summers ago, i went to Seaside down in FL, it’s kind of like that. It’s a community for the super rich, but it was cool. They had grocery stores, restaurants, shopping centers right there where people could walk and they had bikes people could rent to get around. It was really neat.

• Link
• Report this comment

DB:

Down here in Clayton County, democrat owned and operated, we have sidewalks. Where they’re not broken and cracked, they’re overgrown with weeds.

Novel idea but obviously not worth democrats maintaining.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@, those sidewalks were put in back in the day when the current Republicans were Democrats.

• Link
• Report this comment

G,

What?

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s a lot bad data flyig around here. Taxpayer, the McKinsey Global Insitute is a large consulting company that does the majority of its work for hospitals and insurance companies or their subsidiaries (READ LOBBYISTS). Their conclusions are biased as they have the profit interests of these large sectors of corporate America at heart. If we want to discuss revamping the way healthcare—and healthcare providers—are funded we need better sources of data. Lets look at the often cited “doctors make too much money” and are driven by profit claim closely…

I agree with you, in principle, that physician compensation needs to be addressed in any discussion on healthcare reform. However, it is INACCURATE to state that physicians in the US on average make A LOT more than physicians in two countries commonly suggested as having “better quality care” for less—the UK and Canada. The figures listed below are earnings BEFORE expenses and taxes….

Here are the references for the sources of this information which are ALL government sources in the respective countries…

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H118-4-2004E.pdf (Canada) See page 22 table 1-2.

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/primary-care/general-practice/gp-earnings-and-expenses-2006-07–initial-report *** (UK) see annex C, table 4 in the excel document

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm (US)

Canadian General practioners – $184,034 -277,280 CAN ($153,361 – 231,066 US)
Canadian Specialists – $203,104 -330,230 CAN ($169,253 – 275,191 US)

UK General practicioners- £215,186 – 321,577 ($316,450 – 472,902 US)
(Specialists in the UK make about the same amount and in many cases more than GPs)

US general practicioners (peds, family med. Internal med) – $156,010 – 161,420
US specialists – $247,348 – 321,686

***Now for the UK data pertaining to EARNINGS BEFORE EXPENSES AND TAXES YOU HAVE TO OPEN THE ZIPPED EXCEL FILE (SECOND DOCUMENT LISTED, ANNEX C, TABLE 4). IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PDF UNDER DOCUMENTS PAGE 2 AND 3 LISTS INCOME AFTER EXPENSES—THESE ARE NOT ACCURATE FOR COMPARISON TO THE NUMBERS LISTED ABOVE FOR CANADA AND THE US RESPECTIVELY…

…Look at these numbers carefully. Again, I think it’s most accurate to compare pre-tax and pre-expense earnings given the significant variation in these factors between countries. It’s also important to use “non-biased” government sources for data. Many articles that argue US physician and healthcare worker salaries are too high use US data from private accounting firms or other sources with ties to the insurance and hospital lobbies (which overestimate salaries) and then use random sources for UK and Canadian salaries that show only post-tax and post-expense income from these countries. If you do that, the foreign salaries look low because of higher taxes and high expenses in these countries which is an inaccurate comparison.

Notice that THE SALARIES OF PHYSICIANS IN THE US, UK, AND CANADA from the sources above are on par with each other. What does this mean? It means that it is quite possible to lower healthcare costs (as in the UK and Canada) and deliver “higher quality care” (as in the UK and Canada) without decreasing physician salaries because this issue is a total RED HERRING.

The percentage of medicare and healthcare dollars going to providers (docs, nurses, techs, etc) has been constant—about 20% of total cost according to CMS—since the 1960’s. In fact, adjusted for inflation the salaries for some physician specialties has actually decreased since the 1970’s while most have simply stagnated (when adjusted for inflation). So, if the “explosion” of cost related to healthcare has occurred in the past few decades and physician salaries have been constant during that time….how can it be that is THE cause or even A cause of the current crisis? ANSWER—IT ISN’T A CAUSE AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

Furthermore, if one looks at the references above and looks at hours worked by physicians in the US, UK, and Canada one finds these numbers…

UK – 44.4 hours/ week
Canada – 51.3 hours/ week
US – 60 hours/ week

So, US physicians work more hours for roughly the same pay AND pay more for their education (though medical education in Canada isn’t cheap either).

The (pseudo) issue of physician salaries is such a media hyped, politically motivated argument designed to maximize the profits of the bloated insurance company, hospital, pharma, trial lawyer fat cats and their lobbies while screwing over those who actually deliver care.

The issue is not how much physicians make but how they make it. I completely support the administrations suggestion that physicians SHOULD NOT be paid per procedure / treatment but rather based on outcomes. We should move towards a straight salaried payment system with compensation levels similar to that of our friends in the UK and Canada. In doing so some physicians would make less but many (such as those in primary care) would actually get a raise. We should also insure that ALL physician specialties are paid roughly the same amount with incentives paid for outcomes and level of experience.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxfelon:

You’re not playing ball. See my 12:50.

• Link
• Report this comment

brougham,

I don’t think that I offered up one study as some sort of “end of all studies” or the “definitive study of all things healthcare related”, etc. Further, I won’t dismiss a given study purely on the basis of who did it. I think that the best ’study’ is likely a study of all the good studies. That said, I’ll look through those that you have provided and if you care to critique the one that I provided and identify specific shortcomings, that would even have more value than a simple dismissal based on who did the study. You know what I mean.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some random ramblings:

From the discussions I’ve had with my doctors over the years no one has a lower opinion of the insurance industry than they do. Just mentioning the subject will make a particular one of them’s face turn red and began to use profanities that even I’m not familiar with.

Not on here, but in other blogs I’ve attempted to have Candaians give their thoughts on their healthcare system. What they think works and what they think doesn’t. I’ve never gotten good answers though because it always devolves into a peeing contest by Americans on different sides of the issue.

I do have two friends who are Canadians living here. One is in fact a naturalized U.S. citizen. Both of them seem to think the Canadian system works better than things do here. Both have employer provided insurance although one has a much better plan than the other one does.

I’ve read before that Canadians pay less in taxes than we pay in insurance for health care. I’ve never been able to verify this one way or the other. Does anyone know?

As to the analogy to “extended warranties” on automobiles I can shed a little light on that. I used to work in auto dealerships and repair facilitites. The warranties were sold for about 500% of what they cost the dealership. Since a new car then had at least a 3 year warranty, the warranty company was basically holding the money for 3 years until the manufacturers warranty ran out. As often as not, by the time the 3 years had passed and the customer needed their warranty, the company had gone bankrupt and the purchaser was SOL. And also unless it was explicitly stated in the warranty that something was covered it wasn’t regardless of what a salesman may have told the customer. (I’ve seen that fought out many times).

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxfelon:

O.K. Take your ball and go home.

• Link
• Report this comment

Db Gwinnett quote: “Lord help us. We’re doomed!”

And it only took you 70 days of Hope & Change’s administration to figure THAT out?

Some of us knew that the day after he won the election.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer,
You’re definitely right, it’s probably unwise to simply dismiss a study based on who conducted it. However, it is important to be aware of who is behind a study (on any topic) as it helps one understand potential biases of that study. Looking through the McKinsey “study”, however, I would point out that it’s not really a study. It comes across like a net-based infomercial. Pretty graphics & graphs with very simple conclusions (on an infinitely complicated topic) that are easy to understand. They are basically marketing these ideas to the public in a nice pretty package but if you dig into their references a lot of questions and problems arise.

For example, they reference the US infant mortality rate as evidence of lack of return on investment. This idea has been bantered about in the media constantly for years. While I agree that we have a lot of work to do regarding improving the quality care delivered in the US, the relative short-comings of our system are often dramatically overstated. Regarding this often claimed “high infant mortality rate”, see this 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report …. (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm)

….which states that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country”.

FYI, the OECD referenced on the bottom of most of the slides in the McKinsey infomercial = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The very source they use to compare outcomes of infant mortality between countries warns against doing just that.

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as “miscarriages” (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn.

This point is also supported by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios (males > females) at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.

The problem is we’re not all using the same definitions. This leads to inaccurate measurements and spurious conclusions about outcomes. Much like trying to compare salaries from country to country, definitions are very, very important (in the salary example being sure your source is using pre-tax, pre-expense figures for each country). If we’re going to compare outcomes from different countries we should be sure we’re all using the same measures, definitions and endpoints. The US system is broken and we need to fix it and the McKinsey point regarding life expectances is actually true. We do have a shorter life expectancy in the US. This is not good and the cause of it is debatable.

• Link
• Report this comment

You got the story of Ian Dobbin slightly wrong by conflating his experimental drugs with a bone marrow transplant that he received LATER from an anonymous donor. The donor was only required to supply the bone marrow — not the funding. All the funding for his health care came from the Yorkshire health services. He was completely covered by the government health plan.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/meet-ian-dobbin-from-the-gop-non-budget/

• Link
• Report this comment