Official Health Care Debate Thread

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame

Here's a more relevant question to me:

How will Physician salaries be effected by this?
PCP and then specialist.

They will take huge hits. For example in radiology it will create more and more work where upon it will get back logged and delay reads as wellas dropping salaries further and further as they cut reimbursements. This will cause the best and the brightest to abandon the medical field, especially thespecialties where currently decent money can be made. Why put yourself through 14 yrs of post high school training to make 100K when you can find many morejobs like that with a 1/3 of the schooling. Most doctors want to treat and help their patients but incurring all that debt time and stress etc will really takethe incentives away.

 

[utvol23]

Some basic things that should be fixed first:

1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and thewhite house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed byphysicians to cover their !@! because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

2. Provide BASIC care to all citizens- everyone cant have bentley type care thus the wealthy would be able to upgrade their care but everyone cant have theRIGHT to it

3. Law changes banning self-referral

4. Prohibiting insurance companies from dropping patients with so called know previous medical conditions

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame

Here's a more relevant question to me:

How will Physician salaries be effected by this?
PCP and then specialist.

I don't know how much truth there is to this but my cousin informs me that Canadian doctors are paid more than American doctors are, on average.

Of course there are different rates of salary dependent on specialization and what not. But I am told on average, Canadian M.D.s are paid more.

This article explains it a bit. Seems like it was written in 2008.

I came across this rather interesting article that calls the idea of 'higher specialist doctor salaries in America as compared to Canada' a 'fallacious idea' and states the following factors seen in America:

- More market competition for patients
- Dizzy Malpractice Insurance levels for specialties like Surgery
- Large overhead costs of running a private practice

So, despite Specialists in America making about $100,000 higher than their counterparts in Canada, it supposedly equalizes after one takes the aforementioned factors into consideration.

The article quotes the 2001 figures for average Canadian specialists salary at about $125,000 while that of the American physicians at around $228,000 a year. The Canadian physician quoted on the article, a vascular surgeon, also claims he could earn more than his American counterpart in a "much more stable environment" - now, someone tell me what that stable means !

Read the article here


Now though the article quotes $125,000 as the specialist national average, this 2006 Article I came across on the Canadian Medical Association Journal says:
"The average gross annual income for a specialist in Quebec is $233 000 - $100 000 less than the national average"

While another news report based on a 2005-2006 Fee for service payments says:

"Average gross for a full-time family physician was about $211,600 per year, out of which taxes and overhead had to be paid. For a specialist, the average was $281,000.The highest average payments per doctor were in Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, while the lowest were in P.E.I. and Quebec."

Hmmm...I need to find more latest income stats on that to have a better idea. As of now, we know that many Canadian physician come to the United States for better post-graduate education and higher salaries. But negotiations are ongoing between Canadian physicians and the government to raise salary caps as one of the ways to tackle physician shortages.

I see Universal health care insurance coming in the USA anytime now and given the way Medicare and Medicaid currently compensates physicians, I would say physician incomes will only plummet further when insurance becomes universal. Foreign physicians too many not find America a financially great proposition in face of the falling value of the US Dollar in the global market - especially as compared to the Indian rupee..since India supplies the highest proportion of Foreign physicians in the USA.
http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/canadian-versus-american-physician.html


The high cost of malpractice insurance contributes to enormous medical bills for patients.

Why doesn't Obama go after the lawyers? That's a tough to answer.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Chi ILL

Originally Posted by wwsindicate

What I don't get is how almost every progressive country has a cheaper and more efficient health care system than the US, why do we always HAVE to be different JUST because we are America?

You answered the question yourself ...

That's a myth.

I personally have family in 2 countries with national healthcare and both say it sucks. It's not "awful" sucks but the care itself is not nearly as good as we have.

Clearly, what THEY'RE saying is subjective, and apparently, contrary to the supposed facts...

...

What supposed facts are you talking about?
Let's hash out these "facts".

Of course it's subjective but it's a much better opinion than those who've never experienced state run health care.

In all honesty, I've yet to really research this whole Gov't sponsored Heath Care system--which is why anytime this particular topic pops up, I try tostay clear from commenting, and read instead.

But on to the matter at hand, the "supposed facts" I referenced are what wwsindicate already intimated at.Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, if this style of health care is so awful, why is it the adopted and primary source of Health Care in many of theseEuropean countries, and Canada. Surely, if people were keeling over because of the supposed neglect stemming from the "long-lines" of a NationalizedHealth Care system, there would be EPIC remonstrations. And yet, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm quite sure a Nationalized Health Care system will create new problems--but then again, ask yourself--what hasn't. Can you name one government orprivate system in America, or in the world, that is free of problems. Even the current health care system has its problems. If it was pristine, Obamawouldn't dare tinker and suggest this ALTERNATIVE--which is the other part of the argument. It's optional. You don't want it, don't do it or bepart of it. You can keep your private system.

It seems like you have a very select few accounts, from the aforementioned foreign nations, like you relatives, who somehow disagree with what's going on.And in America, I'm not even sure whether many of the opponents to this system understand the dynamics of the proposed system, or are just reverberatingthe highly biased sentiments of their favorite FOX news anchor. Heck, I'm sure some of them are protesting simply because it's Obama's proposal.

Like I stated previously, I personally haven't taken the time to research this proposed Health Care Reform so I'll just stay on the side lines when itcomes to this issue. But I'll leave you with this--"Nothing is politically right, which is morally wrong..."--Abraham Lincoln.

Sitting back while millions of American are deprived of Health Care under the current system is morally wrong. That much, I know...

...

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame

Here's a more relevant question to me:

How will Physician salaries be effected by this?
PCP and then specialist.

Ill post some of the discussion I've read on this topic on different sites.

Here is a link to the healthcare plan :http://www.scribd.com/doc/6385377/Barack-Obamas-Healthcare-Full-Plan

The two paragraphs I have quoted below are the major ones that I foresee as having a potential to affect physician salaries or insurance reimbursements.

Obama's plan #1 Align incentives for excellence.
"Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will accelerate efforts to develop and disseminate best practices, and align reimbursement with provision of high quality health care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures."

Ok, HOW DO WE MEASURE QUALITY? Dr. ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D does a great job articulating this problematic aspect of the plan in his New York times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/he...p=1&sq=&st=nyt

she states:

"What does quality care mean, for instance, in cases of hopeless illness? When the outcome of care will not be good, how should good care be redefined? Suppose patients sabotage their own care, as so many unwittingly do. Who takes the blame?

And most important, what does it mean when science impudently undercuts accepted quality benchmarks? Only this past spring, for instance, two giant trials suggested that for some diabetics, tight blood-sugar control did nothing to safeguard them against some feared complications of diabetes and might actually endanger them.

Quality is a clear goal in product development, but in health it is still a shimmering intangible. All credit to the quality mavens; they are certainly fighting the good fight, and most of them deserve every laudatory adjective in Mr. Kenney's thesaurus.

But fortunately for us all, most of them are smart enough to realize that human beings are not cars."

Obama's plan # 2 WORK FORCE
" Primary care providers and public health practitioners have and will continue to lead efforts to protect and promote the nation's health. Yet, the numbers of both are dwindling, and the existing workforce is further challenged by inadequate training for new health threats such as bioterrorism and avian flu, antiquated funding and reimbursement mechanisms, and limited access to real-time information and technical support. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand funding-including loan repayment, adequate reimbursement, grants for training curricula, and infrastructure support to improve working conditions- to ensure a strong workforce that will champion prevention and public health activities."





Your Opinions?

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Chi ILL

Originally Posted by wwsindicate

What I don't get is how almost every progressive country has a cheaper and more efficient health care system than the US, why do we always HAVE to be different JUST because we are America?

You answered the question yourself ...

That's a myth.

I personally have family in 2 countries with national healthcare and both say it sucks. It's not "awful" sucks but the care itself is not nearly as good as we have.

Clearly, what THEY'RE saying is subjective, and apparently, contrary to the supposed facts...

...

What supposed facts are you talking about?
Let's hash out these "facts".

Of course it's subjective but it's a much better opinion than those who've never experienced state run health care.

In all honesty, I've yet to really research this whole Gov't sponsored Heath Care system--which is why anytime this particular topic pops up, I try to stay clear from commenting, and read instead.

But on to the matter at hand, the "supposed facts" I referenced are what wwsindicate already intimated at. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, if this style of health care is so awful, why have they been adopted by many of these European countries and Canada. Surely, if people were keeling over because of the supposed neglect and "long-lines" that stems from this nationalized health care system, there would be EPIC remontrations. And yet, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm quite sure a Nationalized Health Care system will create new problems--but then again, I ask you this--what doesn't. Can you name one system in America, or in the world, that is free of problems. Even the current health care system has its problems. If it was prestine, Obama wouldn't suggest this ALTERNATIVE--which is the other part of the argument. It's optional. You don't want it, don't do it or be part of it. You can keep your private system.

It seems like you have a very select few accounts, from the aforementioned foreign nations, like you relatives, who somehow disagree with what's going on. And in America, I'm not even sure whether many of the opponents to this system understand the dynamics of the proposed system, or are just reverberating the highly biased sentiments of their favorite FOX news anchor. Heck, I'm sure some of them are protesting simply because it's Obama's proposal.

Like I stated previously, I personally haven't taken the time to research this proposed Health Care Reform so I'll just stay on the side lines when it comes to this issue. But I'll leave you with this--"Nothing is politically right, which is morally wrong..."--Abraham Lincoln.

Sitting back while millions of American are deprived of Health Care under the current system is morally wrong. That much, I know...

...

Many European nations do not have national healthcare because it is better. They have it because they had different political/economic systems thatnecessitated it.

Switching from a national system to a private system is infinitely more difficult than moving from a private one to a national one. It's always easier togive somethign than to take it away obviously.
Many European nations have privatized sectors of their system throughout the years.

The problems with the current system are known. Why not try to fix those first before moving to a completely new system?

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Chi ILL

Originally Posted by wwsindicate

What I don't get is how almost every progressive country has a cheaper and more efficient health care system than the US, why do we always HAVE to be different JUST because we are America?

You answered the question yourself ...

That's a myth.

I personally have family in 2 countries with national healthcare and both say it sucks. It's not "awful" sucks but the care itself is not nearly as good as we have.

Clearly, what THEY'RE saying is subjective, and apparently, contrary to the supposed facts...

...

What supposed facts are you talking about?
Let's hash out these "facts".

Of course it's subjective but it's a much better opinion than those who've never experienced state run health care.

In all honesty, I've yet to really research this whole Gov't sponsored Heath Care system--which is why anytime this particular topic pops up, I try to stay clear from commenting, and read instead.

But on to the matter at hand, the "supposed facts" I referenced are what wwsindicate already intimated at. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, if this style of health care is so awful, why have they been adopted by many of these European countries and Canada. Surely, if people were keeling over because of the supposed neglect and "long-lines" that stems from this nationalized health care system, there would be EPIC remontrations. And yet, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm quite sure a Nationalized Health Care system will create new problems--but then again, I ask you this--what doesn't. Can you name one system in America, or in the world, that is free of problems. Even the current health care system has its problems. If it was prestine, Obama wouldn't suggest this ALTERNATIVE--which is the other part of the argument. It's optional. You don't want it, don't do it or be part of it. You can keep your private system.

It seems like you have a very select few accounts, from the aforementioned foreign nations, like you relatives, who somehow disagree with what's going on. And in America, I'm not even sure whether many of the opponents to this system understand the dynamics of the proposed system, or are just reverberating the highly biased sentiments of their favorite FOX news anchor. Heck, I'm sure some of them are protesting simply because it's Obama's proposal.

Like I stated previously, I personally haven't taken the time to research this proposed Health Care Reform so I'll just stay on the side lines when it comes to this issue. But I'll leave you with this--"Nothing is politically right, which is morally wrong..."--Abraham Lincoln.

Sitting back while millions of American are deprived of Health Care under the current system is morally wrong. That much, I know...

...

Many European nations do not have national healthcare because it is better. They have it because they had a different political system that necessitated it.

Switching from a national system to a private system is infinitely more difficult then moving from a private one to a national one. It's always easier to give somethign than to take it away obviously.
Many European nations have privatized sectors of their system throughout the years.

The problems with the current system are known. Why not try to fix those first before moving to a completely new system?

I think we would both agree that the majority of politicians--anywhere in the world--suffer, and are plagued by a frightening case of ineptitude/ineptness.Realizing this, do you really (and I'm inquiring honestly) believe that the problems with the current system will be fixed--in the slightest? Yes/No

If no, then wouldn't it be logical to at least, explore novel avenues--granted these will bring forth their own set of problems. And if you believe thatObama's proposal is the greater evil, the fact still remains--it's OPTIONAL. Furthermore, with two types of health care systems, the American healthcare consumer would have the power to decide for themselves, that which best fits them--as opposed to having the one option, the default system.

...

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

I think we would both agree that the majority of politicians--anywhere in the world--suffer, and are plagued by a frightening case of ineptitude/ineptness. Realizing this, do you really (and I'm inquiring honestly) believe that the problems with the current system will be fixed--in the slightest? Yes/No

If no, then wouldn't it be logical to at least, explore novel avenues--granted these will bring forth their own set of problems. And if you believe that Obama's proposal is the greater evil, the fact still remains--it's OPTIONAL. Furthermore, with two types of health care systems, the American health care consumer would have the power to decide for themselves, that which best fits them--as opposed to having the one option, the default system.

...

Politicians are not plagued with ineptness. They are plagued with corruption and criminality.
It is entirely possible to fix the current system. except it can't be done with criminal politicians who will not lift a finger against the lawyers andother white collar criminals who abuse and perpetrate fraud on the current system.

A new system will still ahve the same amount of corruption and criminality within it. Do you think that all the crooks will all of a sudden disappear?They'll get theirs as long as they are allowed to.
You can create 20 new systems and all that will mean is 20 new ways to steal for the crooks.

This is akin to a dude who's been married 5 times and is looking to marry again. Will marrying a sixth woman solve his problems or is he better off"fixing" himself first?

 

[hodog16]

Physicians in socialized medicine countries make less than US doctors, such as in Canada or the UK.

Physician salaries will be at risk because people will see cutting them as an easy way to cut back health care costs. Plus the fact that government runprograms like medicaid/medicare are running out of money leading to decreased reimbursement for doctors which further cuts into salary.

Obviously as someone who would be affected by that I'm not a fan, but if they cut salaries enough as UTVOL said people will pass on medical school, thosewho are in the medical field will be literally overworked and underpaid and some will leave, and this will cause the physician shortage to be even worse. Withsupply and demand in place that should keep physician salaries in check I like to think so hopefully it won't be as big an issue but we'll see.

One big issue with health care costs is the need for doctors to practice defensive medicine, by ordering a lot of unnecessary tests to make sure themalpractice lawyers stay away. Do something about capping malpractice awards and then the government may have my attention.

 

[360wavesandxbox]

so let me get this correct...if Obama passes this bill on public healthcare, then the people will still be able to choose private health care if they see fit?I dont understand what the issue is..a guy at work comes up to me every day talking about healthcare and how "MY BOY Obama" as he puts it is making ahuge mistake...
If Americans will have the option to choose which they want, it sounds like a win win for everyone...
Can someone with some knowledge of the proposed plan please give me some pros and cons, that arent subjective...I just want some clear cut pros and cons aboutthe FACTS, no opinions..

 

[theconditioner]

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
http://
-Margaret Thatcher




The problem with capitalism is that it can't succeed without state intervention.

-Me


Just a few thoughts:

-What good is it that the U.S. has the best quality health care in the world, when many people have no access to it?

-Current health care rationing via private insurers needs to be considered.

-Insurance companies suck, and should not be eligible for corporate status. Increasing shareholder wealth should not be such a company's primary priority.

-Individuals need to start focusing on their health more, in order for health care costs to decrease. However, we must consider the fact that these companiesare allowed to indoctrinate our population via advertising (yes, much of the population is influenced by ads, as evidenced by the immense resources and timeput into businesses' marketing functions).

-Basic health care (like check-ups, prelim exams) should be free for all, and patient checkups should be routine (every 6 months or so). The key is healthcomplication prevention.

-The food/restaurant industry needs to be regulated more stringently (for ex, no single meals at Applebee's with 6 days' worth of sodium in them -without providing any nutritional information to consumers). More transparency for all food organizations (and moredetailed labeling); perhaps a national awareness advocacy for health consciousness.

-For starters, we can funnel less funds toward death-dealing activities (defense spending) and contribute them toward covering health care costs.

-There will be trade-offs in the health care issue, no matter what.

edit: A few more thoughts.

- Greater emphasis on medical innovation.

-More efficiency within health care system (more communication amongst doctors, researchers, etc.) - a more streamlined system.

 

[littlepetewrigley]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their +#* because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

I haven't been keeping up with all the health reform rhetoric but, didn't Obama say something about "reforming" this? I do remember the partabout unnecessary tests being emphasized.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by LittlePeteWrigley

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their +#* because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

I haven't been keeping up with all the health reform rhetoric but, didn't Obama say something about "reforming" this? I do remember the part about unnecessary tests being emphasized.

They want to cut "unecessary tests" as in " simply not pay for them" so physicians will have no incentive to perform them.
However, physicians perform many of those tests to guard against malpractice suits.

Mosr people don't realize how expensive malpractice inurance is. Those costs become part of the service the physician provides and are passed on to thepatients.

 

[dagreatj]

i have to laugh at all these upset White people making fools of themselves at town halls.... They see the Blacks taking OVER and they HAVE HAD A ENOUGH . Asfor Health Care Reform it is needed and the Government should be an option along side the Private companies. It's funny because the White people that areupset probably don't even have health care and just don't like the fact that a $+%!%$ is running the show.

 

[theconditioner]

Originally Posted by DaGreatJ

i have to laugh at all these upset White people making fools of themselves at town halls.... They see the Blacks taking OVER and they HAVE HAD A ENOUGH . As for Health Care Reform it is needed and the Government should be an option along side the Private companies. It's funny because the White people that are upset probably don't even have health care and just don't like the fact that a $+%!%$ is running the show.

You're joking, right?

 

[utvol23]

LOL all I can do is laugh at your post DaGreat J. Way to bring race into it when it is not applicable in the least.

 

[360wavesandxbox]

At the very root of it all..anything Obama does will have racial undertones with it...and thats a fact...whether people choose to see it or not, thats on them

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by theconditioner

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
http://
-Margaret Thatcher

The problem with capitalism is that it can't succeed without state intervention.

-Me


Just a few thoughts:

-What good is it that the U.S. has the best quality health care in the world, when many people have no access to it?

-Current health care rationing via private insurers needs to be considered.

-Insurance companies suck, and should not be eligible for corporate status. Increasing shareholder wealth should not be such a company's primary priority.

-Individuals need to start focusing on their health more, in order for health care costs to decrease. However, we must consider the fact that these companies are allowed to indoctrinate our population via advertising (yes, much of the population is influenced by ads, as evidenced by the immense resources and time put into businesses' marketing functions).

-Basic health care (like check-ups, prelim exams) should be free for all, and patient checkups should be routine (every 6 months or so). The key is health complication prevention.

-The food/restaurant industry needs to be regulated more stringently (for ex, no single meals at Applebee's with 6 days' worth of sodium in them - without providing any nutritional information to consumers). More transparency for all food organizations (and more detailed labeling); perhaps a national awareness advocacy for health consciousness.

-For starters, we can funnel less funds toward death-dealing activities (defense spending) and contribute them toward covering health care costs.

-There will be trade-offs in the health care issue, no matter what.

edit: A few more thoughts.

- Greater emphasis on medical innovation.

-More efficiency within health care system (more communication amongst doctors, researchers, etc.) - a more streamlined system.

I agree Basic healthcare should be provided for everyone the problem is for the most part people will not take advantage of it. You can onlyprevent something if people seek the care in the first place and are willing to make sacrifices which alot arent. Ex. Patient is a smoker currently onDeath's door from end stage COPD caused by smoking. His only chance of extending his life longer is to quit smoking. Has he stopped smoking? Nope. Alsothink of the millions of people with diabetes we see them everyday coming in for complications getting their legs amputated but do they stop drinking soda,eating junk food, and controlling their glucose levels? NOPE. I can give example after example of people whose illnesses can be altogether prevented and hasabsolutely nothing to do with lack of care but rather lack of willingness to change on their part.

Also more emphasis on medical innovation would be great but if you take out the profit most of the incentive and innovation dies with it.

 

[theconditioner]

I agree Basic healthcare should be provided for everyone the problem is for the most part people will not take advantage of it. You can only prevent something if people seek the care in the first place and are willing to make sacrifices which alot arent. Ex. Patient is a smoker currently on Death's door from end stage COPD caused by smoking. His only chance of extending his life longer is to quit smoking. Has he stopped smoking? Nope. Also think of the millions of people with diabetes we see them everyday coming in for complications getting their legs amputated but do they stop drinking soda, eating junk food, and controlling their glucose levels? NOPE. I can give example after example of people whose illnesses can be altogether prevented and has absolutely nothing to do with lack of care but rather lack of willingness to change on their part.


That is why, in my opinion, public awareness is so important, as well as the affects of advertising through various media. If we can morestringently regulate things like food ads (by, for example, providing calorie and sodium/trans fat/msg content in commercials), then I think we'd see somepositive results. Not only would it make the public more aware of what they'd potentially be consuming, it would compel companies to reduce the unhealthysubstances in their food. As a result, they would be competing against one another to make more healthy food - a great thing. They don't want peopleknowing what is in their food - ignorance is bliss. But to change things, people must be more informed. Transparency.

Also more emphasis on medical innovation would be great but if you take about the profit most of the incentive and innovation dies with it.

Not disagreeing here at all. Profit incentives for innovation are necessary (at this point in time) for big changes in the field. But when it comes to thingslike insurance, that is a different story.

 

[mjd77]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Some basic things that should be fixed first:

1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their !@! because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

2. Provide BASIC care to all citizens- everyone cant have bentley type care thus the wealthy would be able to upgrade their care but everyone cant have the RIGHT to it

3. Law changes banning self-referral

4. Prohibiting insurance companies from dropping patients with so called know previous medical conditions

#1 is right on. Fixing tort reform would solve a huge part of the problem, but tort lawyers have the messiah and numerous congressman in theirback pockets, which is why it is not even mentioned in the plan.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by LittlePeteWrigley

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their +#* because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

I haven't been keeping up with all the health reform rhetoric but, didn't Obama say something about "reforming" this? I do remember the part about unnecessary tests being emphasized.

They want to cut "unecessary tests" as in " simply not pay for them" so physicians will have no incentive to perform them.
However, physicians perform many of those tests to guard against malpractice suits.

Mosr people don't realize how expensive malpractice inurance is. Those costs become part of the service the physician provides and are passed on to the patients.

wawa has it right.

Obama does want to cut out these "unnecessary tests" but doesnt want to do anything to protect the doctors who are now forced to perform to thesetests to avoid malpractice suits which could severly affect their career. In it passes as is the tests wont be done because the govt wont pay for it and thedoctors will wind up being sued by the patient.

 

[360wavesandxbox]

The top executive of Medicare gets about $150,000 annually. Here are the salaries of some health insurance executives for the year 2006: Ronald A. Williams,chair-CEO, Aetna Inc., $23,045,834; H. Edward Hanway, chair-CEO, Cigna Corp, $30.16 million; David B. Snow, Jr, chair-CEO, Medco Health, $21.76 million;Michael B. MCallister, CEO, Humana Inc, $20.06 million; Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO, UnitedHealth Group, $13,164,529; Dale B. Wolf, CEO, Coventry Health Care,$20.86 million; Jay M. Gellert, president-CEO, Health Net, $16.65 million; Raymond McCaskey, CEO, Health Care Service Corp (Blue Cross Blue Shield), $10.3million.

If you can afford health insurance, if you can get it at all, this is where a lot of your premium is going. Is it any wonder that the insurance companies arefighting reform?

That was taken from another poster on a different site..
This is my point. People are so worried about paying a little more to benefit other people that might not be deemed "worthy" by them..Um HELLO..wheredo u think your money is going now?
It always baffles me how people can be so insensitve to people of lower classes and not do anything for their benefit but insist on making the rich even richerwhile they themselves stumble along.. See the Banking industry and Car Industry and all the opposers of what Obama is doing...WAKE UP

 

[theconditioner]

Someone enlighten me on tort reform. Anyone? I'm being lazy and don't want to research it myself right now.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by theconditioner

I agree Basic healthcare should be provided for everyone the problem is for the most part people will not take advantage of it. You can only prevent something if people seek the care in the first place and are willing to make sacrifices which alot arent. Ex. Patient is a smoker currently on Death's door from end stage COPD caused by smoking. His only chance of extending his life longer is to quit smoking. Has he stopped smoking? Nope. Also think of the millions of people with diabetes we see them everyday coming in for complications getting their legs amputated but do they stop drinking soda, eating junk food, and controlling their glucose levels? NOPE. I can give example after example of people whose illnesses can be altogether prevented and has absolutely nothing to do with lack of care but rather lack of willingness to change on their part.

That is why, in my opinion, public awareness is so important, as well as the affects of advertising through various media. If we can more stringently regulate things like food ads (by, for example, providing calorie and sodium/trans fat/msg content in commercials), then I think we'd see some positive results. Not only would it make the public more aware of what they'd potentially be consuming, it would compel companies to reduce the unhealthy substances in their food. As a result, they would be competing against one another to make more healthy food - a great thing. They don't want people knowing what is in their food - ignorance is bliss. But to change things, people must be more informed. Transparency.




True but for the most part people are too stubborn to change their own destructive ways. Everyone knows that smoking causes cancer in fact it isthe #1 risk factor for many types of cancer not just lung, but millions and millions of people continue to smoke their lives away. The public has been informedto exhaustion of the dangers of smoking but that falls on deaf ears of many individuals.

 

[littlepetewrigley]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by LittlePeteWrigley

UTVOL23 wrote:

---

1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the
white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.




The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by
physicians to cover their +#* because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

I haven't been keeping up with all the health reform rhetoric but, didn't Obama say something about "reforming" this? I do remember the part
about unnecessary tests being emphasized.

They want to cut "unecessary tests" as in " simply not pay for them" so physicians will have no incentive to perform them.
However, physicians perform many of those tests to guard against malpractice suits.

Mosr people don't realize how expensive malpractice inurance is. Those costs become part of the service the physician provides and are passed on to the patients.




Do you have any ideas on a possible solution to this dilemma? How can this be ameliorated? It seems like finding a happy medium for all parties involved is notfeasible.