Universal Health Coverage

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby BigJon » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:48 pm

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:
BigJon wrote:So what made them suck so bad?

Where did I say they sucked so bad? I said I used to have them.

Sorry, i misread an earlier post. Care to share your experiences, good and bad? You said they still debated treatment. From your perspective, is it a successful organization or is it failing?

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:
BigJon wrote:...I knew you were smarter than the average bear, you get it.

What is it that you think I get? Yes, I understand that a HMO pays (most of the discounted) bill, from money they acquire by selling a policy to me. They keep most of the money they charge me, most years, and make an indecent profit even after the bills and their hefty operating expenses are paid, also out of the money they charge me. My gripes with them lie in their profit margin (excessive), their "review of medical necessity" strategy for delaying or denying payment for medically recommended services, and their pricing and acceptance policies (fewer policies at a higher premium to low-risk applicants).

From the tone of your "you get it" I suspect that you think I've agreed with you on something. I also suspect that you're wrong but just out of curiosity, what is it?

You agreed that the HMOs are not providing insurance. That is a pillar of my plan, nothing like an HMO would exist that combined insurance and treatment selection.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:22 am

jamiebk wrote:
Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:
Sadly, I'd now count HMO's as part of the insurance industry.


...and, I would agree with you

BigJon wrote:You agreed that the HMOs are not providing insurance.


You're back to nitpicking and weaseling for the sake of amusing yourself. I decline to wrestle the pig.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby OperaTenor » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:42 am

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote: I decline to wrestle the pig.


Just where I increasingly find myself in these discussions.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby jamiebk » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:16 pm

Looks like we are Image
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby BigJon » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 pm

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote: You're back to nitpicking and weaseling for the sake of amusing yourself. I decline to wrestle the pig.

I fail to see it. It is fundamental to my plan. Care to comment on the fundmentals, other than been there, done that?
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:43 pm

Study: China’s Army Harvesting Body Parts From Live Prisoners, Particularly Falun Gong Members

Like many civilian hospitals in rural China, military hospitals turned to selling organs to make up for government funding cuts in the 1980s, the report said.

But military personnel could operate with much more secrecy, it said.
“Recipients often tell us that even when they receive transplants at civilian hospitals, those conducting the operation are military personnel,’’ the report said.

Hospitals in Canada’s biggest cities — Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto — confirmed “a substantial number’’ of Canadians had travelled to China for dubious organ transplants, Kilgour said.

“We’re in the three digits, up over 100 (from Canada each year), and the trend is accelerating,’’ Matas said.

To curb what they called a “disgusting form of evil,” the pair asked pharmaceutical firms to stop selling organ anti-rejection drugs to China.
They also asked countries to post travel advisories warning about China’s alleged organ harvest, asked states to cease offering follow-up care for patients who had dubious organ transplants in China and asked foreign doctors to cut ties with their Chinese counterparts suspected of such practices.

The authors said states should enact legislation to ban citizens from traveling to China for organ transplants from unwilling donors, although they admitted that such cases would be difficult to prosecute.


Just another example that someone will always find a service to fulfill a need. How does Canada know who’s traveling to China for organ transplants? I wonder how many Americans are also going?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby jamiebk » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:51 pm

sheesh....two words: Quality Control.

I don't think I would be comfortable heading to another country for organs. I guess desperate people will take desperate measures.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby Marye » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:54 pm

I must say, Haggis, everytime I log on to read something you are making a crack at Canada. :( Not sure I want to be here anymore.
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:13 pm

Haggis isn't making a crack at Canada - the original news article was written by Canadian authors. They used Canadian sources. Not that surprising. You may notice Haggis also wondered how many Americans were involved.

If anyone is being criticized, it's the Chinese organ transplant industry. I personally find that whole topic abhorrent. Gives me the shivers.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby analog » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:52 pm

Face it, in some circles life is not regarded so highly as here.

Anyone remember that movie "Dirty Pretty Things", where Audrey Tautou(sigh) works in a London hotel that's home to a black market kidney ring?
I suppose something had to inspire that tale...

HG Wells in his tale of Dr Moreau's island sorta posed the question (among others) of how far ought science go.... :?:
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:59 pm

Marye wrote:I must say, Haggis, everytime I log on to read something you are making a crack at Canada. :( Not sure I want to be here anymore.


Marye,
What Selma said. I just was wondering how the Canadian hospitals tracked the transplants.

I like Canada, it's clean...... :wink:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:26 pm

Don't these guys realize we'll follow all of those socialiist European countries down the crapper if we do this?!

Wall Street Journal

Better Health Care Together Campaign
February 7, 2007 11:19 a.m.

Below is the text of a press release from AT&T, Baker Center, Center for American Progress, CED, CWA, Intel, Kelly Services, SEIU and Wal-Mart, announcing the launch of their 'Better Health Care Together' campaign.

An unusual partnership of organizations today launched the "Better Health Care Together" campaign. The announcement included a set of four common sense principles for "achieving a new American health care system by 2012." Founding members include AT&T, the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy, the Center for American Progress, the Committee for Economic Development, the Communications Workers of America, Intel, Kelly Services, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Wal-Mart. The campaign founders pledged to convene a national summit by the end of May and recruit additional business, labor, government and nonprofit leaders to sign on to the principles and form a wide-ranging coalition.

The principles document that each founding member signed begins:

America's health care system is broken. The traditional employer-based model of coverage in its current form is endangered without substantial reform to our health care system. It is being crushed by out of control costs, the pressures of the global economy, and the large and growing number of uninsured. Soaring health costs threaten workers' livelihoods and companies' competitiveness, and undermine the security that individuals of a prosperous nation should enjoy. We can only solve these problems -- and deliver health care that is high quality, affordable, accessible and secure -- if business, government, labor, the health care delivery system and the nonprofit sector work together.

Specifically, the four principles are:

1. We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage;

2. We believe individuals have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health;

3. We believe that America must dramatically improve the value it receives for every health care dollar; and,

4. We believe that businesses, governments, and individuals all should contribute to managing and financing a new American health care system.

"Wal-Mart is committed to high quality, affordable and accessible health care. But our current system hurts America's competitiveness and leaves too many people uninsured," said Wal-Mart Stores Inc. President and CEO Lee Scott. "Government alone won't and can't solve this crisis. We have to work together -- business, labor, government and our communities. We also need to empower people to take more responsibility and more control over their own health care. By following this campaign's common sense principles, we believe America can have high quality, affordable and accessible health care by 2012. We can slow the growth of health care costs in this country and guarantee the uninsured access to good health coverage."

"What unites us here today is our belief that it will be a far greater America when we finally get health care for every man, woman and child," said Andy Stern, President of SEIU. "We can't keep tinkering, hoping that incremental change will fix our broken health care system. We need fundamental change, and it is going to take new thinking, leadership, new partnerships, some risk taking, and compromising to make it happen. But that is what we all owe our country."

"There has to be a way for Americans to access group coverage outside the traditional employment relationship," said Kelly Services President and CEO Carl Camden. "Our WWII vintage health care insurance system is woefully out of step with the global economy and the needs of more than 22 million American free agent workers who prefer a more flexible approach to work. Current workforce trends will only re-enforce the movement away from traditional employer-employee relationships. Workforce mobility and flexibility have been historic strengths of the American economy. Unless we act, and act soon, on health care reform, that competitive advantage will be at serious risk."

"The U.S. healthcare system delivers results below international norms at high cost, and consumers and industry suffer the consequences," said Craig Barrett, Intel Chairman. "The simple principles and the diverse champions announced today will create a framework to develop workable approaches to the problems. In particular the ideas on consumer empowerment to drive system efficiency are completely in line with the Dossia personal health record effort that many of today's participants have helped kickoff."

CWA President Larry Cohen said, "Our current system puts a huge strain on employers that provide quality benefits for employees -- both current and retired -- and their families. It forces many U.S. businesses to compete not on the quality of their products, services and performance, but instead on the cost of health care benefits. It is long past time to move health care -- a public good -- from the corporate balance sheet to the public balance sheet."

The campaign's founding members said they will work to engage leaders at all levels -- from local communities to Washington, D.C. -- to bring about real and meaningful change to America's health care system. The founders said the campaign will:
• Recruit selected business, labor and civic leaders committed to making health care reform a reality;

• Convene a national summit of the membership by the end of May;

• Enlist support for the principles from national, state and local elected officials, policymakers, candidates and opinion leaders; and,

• Launch education initiatives to persuade workers and customers that the current health care system should be reformed to reflect the "Better Health Care Together" principles.


Center for American Progress President John Podesta said, "Every person in America should have quality, affordable health care coverage. This coalition of business, union, and policy leaders can help break through the forces of the status quo and ensure that result by 2012."

Committee for Economic Development President Charles Kolb added: "CED is honored to join this campaign. As a business-led public policy organization, we have long been concerned about the viability of our rapidly eroding employer-sponsored health insurance system. CED's business Trustees are currently working on a set of market-oriented, incentive-based reforms that we hope will play a constructive role in achieving today's common sense principles for reform."

"As they listen to Americans struggling to afford health care, and companies reeling at its costs, officials in both parties sense that the time to fix our health care system is now upon us," said former Senator Howard Baker. "I believe these principles can form the foundation for genuine bipartisan progress in the next few years."
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby BigJon » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:14 am

Let me make sure I get this straight.

Health insurance is now being declared a right?

Now I want my house and auto insurance paid by the gubby too.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Shapley » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:21 am

Did I miss something in there? I didn't see any declaration of health insurance as a 'right' in the text. Perhaps I overlooked it.

I did find this interesting:
Specifically, the four principles are:

1. We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage;

2. We believe individuals have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health;

3. We believe that America must dramatically improve the value it receives for every health care dollar; and,

4. We believe that businesses, governments, and individuals all should contribute to managing and financing a new American health care system.


I wonder how the individual's responsibility will equate to coverage? Does this leave the door open to exclusion of those who place their health at risk through individual actions such as smoking, taking illegal drugs, skydiving, or eating fatty foods? I agree that we have a responsibiliby to take care of our health. If we mandate coverage for all Americans, failure to exclude or otherwise penalize those who engage in risky behavior punishes those who act responsibly, does it not? How do we balance these two? Do we prohibit certain risky activities such as smoking and skydiving? We already prohibit the taking of illegal drugs, but what do we do about those whose failure to comply with the law results in excessive health costs?

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby analog » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:40 pm

I don't think it'll make us socialist, rather it'll make medical care like legal representation - you get as good as you can afford.

These two lines jumped out at me..

1. --------
"There has to be a way for Americans to access group coverage outside the traditional employment relationship,..." and "...It is long past time to move health care -- a public good -- from the corporate balance sheet to the public balance sheet."

Sounds like employer sponsored health coverage is a golden goose with its neck on the chopping block....
Any bets whether congress keeps theirs?

2. ------
".....the ideas on consumer empowerment to drive system efficiency are completely in line with the Dossia personal health record effort that many of today's participants have helped kickoff."

They could be streamlining the paperwork with this new "Dossia" system keeping a dossier on everybody:
http://www.omnimedix.org/news_pr2006-12-06.html

Let's pray they can keep it benign.
If it lowers the industry's ratio of administrators-to-workers that's good.
If it monitors my shopping habits that's bad. I don't want NSA and ATF tracking me should I decide to tinker with hobby rocket motors.


a.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby BigJon » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:55 pm

Shapley wrote:Did I miss something in there? I didn't see any declaration of health insurance as a 'right' in the text. Perhaps I overlooked it.

I did find this interesting:
Specifically, the four principles are:

1. We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage;

That's how I read #1.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby barfle » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:18 pm

Just got this joke in the mail. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.

The FIRST patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week. The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery scheduled for a month from then. Why the different treatment for the two patients?

The FIRST is a Golden Retriever. The SECOND is a Senior Citizen. Next time take me to a vet..............

Or, perhaps let me get my medical care in a competitive marketplace, where I am not only free to chose my provider, but I am also responsible for the bill.
:crazy:
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6123
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby dai bread » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:34 pm

...if you can afford it. Any vet here will do the same as in that joke, and the bill will make your eyes water.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Postby barfle » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:56 pm

dai bread wrote:...if you can afford it.

Part of the problem is that medical care is so systemized that there is no competitive marketplace. One dentist charges the same as the next dentist, because the insurance companies have determined how much they will pay the dentists, and since the dentists want to stay in business, they accept that.

Neither the customer nor the provider determine the price of the service. If shopping were possible, you could afford care. It wouldn't be Mercedes Benz or Ferrari care all the time, but it would generally be adequate. Now the only way to "afford" health care in the US is to be able to afford insurance.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6123
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:02 pm

In the debate over health care, many people support the idea of a government-run, single-payor system that will supposedly guarantee equitable distribution of treatment. However, in granting government the authority to ration all medical care, we grant them the power to withhold it for whatever purpose they see fit. The British have begun to discover this dynamic, as the Daily Mail reports that the National Health Service will begin denying smokers access to medical care until they prove they have quit -- through a blood test. The NHS decision also carries more than a little aroma of hypocrisy. Its funding comes in large part from tax revenues — on tobacco. The British government realizes £13 billion in those tax revenues.

THIS is EXACTLY why I fear national health care. Will they consider denying obese people as well? To those who engage in sex without condoms? Every risk factor adds cost to the delivery of nationalized medical care, and at some point the single payor will start to act to reduce those costs and freeze out those higher-risk patients. In the UK people who don’t wear seatbelts or cyclists who don’t wear helmets risk their insurers reducing payouts by 25% for the reason that they feel those people contributed to their own injuries.

You guys who support nationalized health care are living in LALA land if you think that once you have given the government the authority to make your most sensitive health care decisions that they won’t try to force you to meet their requirements before you’ll be “permitted” care.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users