MANDATORY health insurance

[BVS]

I honestly wish the informed conservatives would show their faces and the rest stay home... but then I guess Rush wouldn't have a "movement".

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by BVS

I honestly wish the informed conservatives would show their faces

I know! I can't believe they're letting these kooks dominate the tone of the opposition.

And then you have people who DO seem to be reasonably intelligent fruitlessly trying to defend this indefensible nonsense.

It'd be like me trying to defend the idea that George Bush planned the 9/11 attacks just because I didn't like his policy on Iraq.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I know! I can't believe they're letting these kooks dominate the tone of the opposition.

And then you have people who DO seem to be reasonably intelligent fruitlessly trying to defend this indefensible nonsense.

It'd be like me trying to defend the idea that George Bush planned the 9/11 attacks just because I didn't like his policy on Iraq.

Do you think that maybe Obama and his administration are being a little too nice where those kooks are concerned? It seems like Obama sometimes gives those people more patience and/or respect than they deserve - at town hall meetings and similar healthcare-reform-promotion events - rather than telling them, in not so many words, that what they're saying is nonsense and to shut up, like Frank did there. And doesn't giving them more patience and respect than they deserve end up giving them more credibility than they deserve?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

Do you think that maybe Obama and his administration are being a little too nice where those kooks are concerned? It seems like Obama sometimes gives those people more patience and/or respect than they deserve - at town hall meetings and similar healthcare-reform-promotion events - rather than telling them, in not so many words, that what they're saying is nonsense and to shut up, like Frank did there. And doesn't giving them more patience and respect than they deserve end up giving them more credibility than they deserve?

Maybe. . .

It was nice to hear Frank call that out, so maybe. I don't know if that would be very "presidential" though.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Maybe. . .

It was nice to hear Frank call that out, so maybe. I don't know if that would be very "presidential" though.

I don't think it's presidential to NOT say that comparing universal healthcare to the holocaust is nonsense.

Anyway, I agree with your previous post about public/private non-profit/private. Except that there should't be any for-profit private insurance companies. The idea of profit and industry should never be a part of the healthcare discussion. There should only ever be one motive in healthcare, and that's healing people or preventing them from getting sick in the first place. Money shouldn't come into it. Ever. This is why I hate the argument that for-profit health insurance companies are necessary because they create competition and competition breeds research and innovation.

If you're a company trying to find cures for cancer, aids, alzheimer's, parkinson's, spinal cord injury, whatever, your motivation shouldn't be money, it should be commuting a cancer patient or an aids patient of a death sentence and giving them the chance to live to see their children and grandchildren grow up, it should be to give an alzheimer's patient the ability to think again, to recognize their loved ones again, it should be to give a parkinson's patient the ability to control their body again, it should be to give paralyzed person the ability to walk or even run again. It should be to give people their health and their lives back. The motivation should be to ultimately live in a world where there's no such thing as a terminal disease or an incurable disease, not to make a buck.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

I don't think it's presidential to NOT say that comparing universal healthcare to the holocaust is nonsense.

Anyway, I agree with your previous post about public/private non-profit/private. Except that there should't be any for-profit private insurance companies. The idea of profit and industry should never be a part of the healthcare discussion. There should only ever be one motive in healthcare, and that's healing people or preventing them from getting sick in the first place. Money shouldn't come into it. Ever. This is why I hate the argument that for-profit health insurance companies are necessary because they create competition and competition breeds research and innovation.

If you're a company trying to find cures for cancer, aids, alzheimer's, parkinson's, spinal cord injury, whatever, your motivation shouldn't be money, it should be commuting a cancer patient or an aids patient of a death sentence and giving them the chance to live to see their children and grandchildren grow up, it should be to give an alzheimer's patient the ability to think again, to recognize their loved ones again, it should be to give a parkinson's patient the ability to control their body again, it should be to give paralyzed person the ability to walk or even run again. It should be to give people their health and their lives back. The motivation should be to ultimately live in a world where there's no such thing as a terminal disease or an incurable disease, not to make a buck.

Oh, I agree.

I just don't think the insurance companies really have anything to do with actual health care (or they shouldn't any way).

Really what they exist to do is to say--"You give me a little bit of your money every month and if something horrible happens to you we'll pay for the medical costs." The entire business is built on the assumption that the liklihood that something horrible won't happen to you is greater than the probablity that something horrible will happen to you. Which is fine, if you're a healthy person.

All insurance works that way, and I don't think that's bad--as long as you're not relying on insurance to pay for all of your health needs (which most of us are). It'd be like depending on the car insurance people to pay not only for accidents, but also for maintenance, oil change, new tires, broken air conditioner, as well as subsidize the cost of gasoline. Those insurers couldn't remain profitable unless they found away to get out of providing most of the benefits they're supposed to be providing. That's what the health insurance companies do.

[nathan1977]

It seems on both sides of this discussion that two separate but related issues are being conflated -- health care, and health insurance. No one legally can be denied health care in the US -- everyone has the right to care. In this country, if you don't have health insurance, you are still legally allowed to receive assistance, regardless of your ability to pay. State insurance covers the gap. This is particularly true for uninsured mothers, whose costs for delivery etc are assumed by the state. Health insurance, while related, is something different.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It seems on both sides of this discussion that two separate but related issues are being conflated -- health care, and health insurance. No one legally can be denied health care in the US -- everyone has the right to care. In this country, if you don't have health insurance, you are still legally allowed to receive assistance, regardless of your ability to pay. State insurance covers the gap. This is particularly true for uninsured mothers, whose costs for delivery etc are assumed by the state. Health insurance, while related, is something different.

This is an interesting point, and I'd like some clarification, please.

Do citizens of each state have state insurance, or is it a state-by-state thing? What is covered with this state insurance? While no one is denied health care, why are there stories of less affluent people mortgaging their home, going bankrupt, etc. for some procedures? Wouldn't the state insurance "cover the gap" as you say?

[corianderstem]

For the state insurance programs I'm aware of, you must qualify for them, usually by being considered "low income." I'm pretty sure that not all states have these programs. I don't know what the coverage level is for the various programs, if there's substantial out-of-pocket costs, or high deductibles, or what.

I might not get booted out of the hospital if I show up with no insurance and all my arms falling off; they'll sew my arms back on and send me on my merry way, but I'll be followed into oblivion with bills for all the gajillions of dollars I'd owe to the hospital.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It seems on both sides of this discussion that two separate but related issues are being conflated -- health care, and health insurance. No one legally can be denied health care in the US -- everyone has the right to care. In this country, if you don't have health insurance, you are still legally allowed to receive assistance, regardless of your ability to pay. State insurance covers the gap. This is particularly true for uninsured mothers, whose costs for delivery etc are assumed by the state. Health insurance, while related, is something different.

why does receiving health care become the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It seems on both sides of this discussion that two separate but related issues are being conflated -- health care, and health insurance.

Ideally you would be right, reality is you're wrong. Anyone who works within the healthcare field can tell you, health insurance now dictates, defines, and controls health care. They define what's elective vs non-elective surgery. They control price, and they are now even controlling medical definitions. i.e. labeling certain side effects as syndromes so they can market drugs a certain way.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

No one legally can be denied health care in the US -- everyone has the right to care. In this country, if you don't have health insurance, you are still legally allowed to receive assistance, regardless of your ability to pay.

Yes, if it's an emergency. If it's not, or if it's not defined as an emergency by the insurance companies, you can definately be denied.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BoMac

While no one is denied health care, why are there stories of less affluent people mortgaging their home, going bankrupt, etc. for some procedures? Wouldn't the state insurance "cover the gap" as you say?

Here's an example of why this happens.

A diabetic sees their podiatrists, the doctor starts to see the signs of early charcot foot but tells the patient they need surgery asap. Well if the patient doesn't have coverage, or even they do but it's just not that good, the surgery will cost them several thousand, and when you are on the line or hovering over the poverty line a couple of thousand can cause huge problems.

So the question is have the surgery and go late on the mortgage, or wait until it gets worse and the state pays for your amputation?

This is a real example we see in my hometown all the time. It's considered elective until it spreads a certain amount, then it's emergency and they can't save the foot. So you get a free amputation, but you're wheelchair bound for the rest of your life.

That's Nathan's definition of covering the gaps.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

That's Nathan's definition of covering the gaps.

Give me a break, BVS. I was defining terms. I haven't said what I favor one way or the other. I have some reservations about going from "everyone has the right to health care access" (which I agree with) to "everyone has the right to health insurance" -- however, as you pointed out in your examples earlier, the one has a direct bearing on the other.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by BoMac

This is an interesting point, and I'd like some clarification, please.

.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Give me a break, BVS. I was defining terms. I haven't said what I favor one way or the other. I have some reservations about going from "everyone has the right to health care access" (which I agree with) to "everyone has the right to health insurance" -- however, as you pointed out in your examples earlier, the one has a direct bearing on the other.

Ok, maybe I was a little harsh, I'm just tired of hearing people talk about how we have the best health care on the planet and even our poor get treated, and seeing examples of this day in and day out of my job.

The "covering the gaps" is a pretty big misconception, and many have it, it just sounded as if you were defending it... my apologies.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

Ok, maybe I was a little harsh, I'm just tired of hearing people talk about how we have the best health care on the planet and even our poor get treated

Having worked with urban poor in L.A., it is heartbreaking and maddening to watch people dumped onto Skid Row in front of the Union Rescue Mission who've gotten kicked out of hospitals. I don't know what the answer is, but to advocate for the status quo is stupidity and suicide.

The "covering the gaps" is a pretty big misconception, and many have it, it just sounded as if you were defending it... my apologies.

No defense here.

[diamond]

..

Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper


BY DARAH HANSEN, VANCOUVER SUNAUGUST 18, 2009




St. Paul's Hospital cardiologists peform a heart procedure.
Photograph by: ..., Vancouver Sun file
VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.

“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”

The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.

“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.

Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”

“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.

According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.

The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.

As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.

“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.

Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.

Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.

The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.

In all, Fraser Health is looking at a $160-million funding shortfall.

D’Angelo said Vancouver Coastal’s deficit is closer to $90 million — almost a third of which ($23 million) has already been absorbed through reductions in non-clinical administration efficiencies.

Vancouver Coastal performed 67,000 surgeries last year, an increase of 6,500 surgeries over 2007.

“What has now happened is that now our wait times are about 25 per cent lower than the provincial average,” D’Angelo said. “We have put a dent in that wait list.”

Brodie acknowledged surgical waiting times have dropped significantly in recent years, particularly for patients needing hip and joint replacements.

He said the proposed cuts threaten those advancements.

“It sounds like we are going backwards here,” he said.

Total health spending in British Columbia was $15.7 billion this year, up about four per cent over last year’s total of 15.1 billion, according to figures provided by the ministry of health.

Health Minister Kevin Falcon was unavailable for comment Monday on the proposed health-care cuts. A ministry spokesman said Falcon is away on his honeymoon until the end of August.

Elsewhere in British Columbia, the province will look to replace the head of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, after he announced he will step down at the end of the year.

Ramsden has said his decision to retire is not related to financial problems faced by the authority.

dahansen@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

PreviousNext



St. Paul's Hospital cardiologists peform a heart procedure.
Photograph by: ..., Vancouver Sun file

[BVS]

Surgeries get cut due to underfunding in our current system too

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by martha

Although I doubt she'll stop listening to Rush. He's just so correct about these things.

Rush response below. I'm not even sure where you begin with any comment on it. If you listen to this guy, congratulations, you’re at a very very special level of excess stupidity, and, well, I’m sorry but you need to be aware of the fact that you’re just not a good person, so time to perhaps have a re-think (if the ‘think’ part is possible), especially if you like to wrap these beliefs up in some foul, evil bastardisation of Christianity.

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh: "Rep Barney Frank Lives Around Uranus"

I mean you need quite a truly amazing the level of dumb to claim ‘Nazi’ over a fucking simple healthcare policy that virtually every other modern western democracy already has in place (or something similar), and then a truly amazing level of dickhead to respond to disagreement on that call with “Oh, well, you’re gay, so fuck you”.

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

If you listen to this guy, congratulations, you’re at a very very special level of excess stupidity, and, well, I’m sorry but you need to be aware of the fact that you’re just not a good person, so time to perhaps have a re-think (if the ‘think’ part is possible), especially if you like to wrap these beliefs up in some foul, evil bastardisation of Christianity.

A little much, don't you think? I mean, really, that's quite unnecessary.