Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[sugarpop]

Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?

You ain't seen nothing yet....

[sugarpop]

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/stor...id=OTC-RSS-FH0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/sto...2454685&page=1

http://blog.taragana.com/n/cover-up-...rt-says-87021/

[sugarpop]

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may...l/me-dumping16

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may...al/me-dumping7

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...3/daily26.html

[Clodfobble]

Sugar, every single one of those is a case of a patient who died due to general hospital negligence. None of them were allowed to die intentionally due to lack of insurance. The point is no one is getting turned away from emergency care simply because they have no insurance. You get treated in the ER regardless of your insurance coverage. In my experience they don't even bother asking for it until you're leaving.

[sugarpop]

They are still dying. And in one of those situations, the husband was on the phone BEGGING for an abulance to come get his wife because they were refusing to treat her. I believe she died while he was on the phone with them. In addition, other patients were also calling 911 about the situation.

And they DO ask for insurance before they treat you. I had to go to the emergency room last year, and they asked me for it. I have taken my ex to the emergency room twice, and both times they asked him for it as well. If you're obviously illegal they might not ask, I don't know. I do believe it's easier for illegals to get treatment in some places than it is for the people stuck in the middle. For example, I actually know people who have trouble getting treatment, because they make too much to be on medicaid, but they don't make enough to afford insurance. It is freaking outrageous to not do something about the situation in health care. It's all great for those who can afford insurance, but for those who can't?

And the cost of many treatments is just way too high. It's freaking ridiculous. On one statement from a doctor last year, he was charging over $1000, and I only saw him for about 15 minutes. That's $4000 an hour. I seriously doubt he got that much from my insurance, but still.

[sugarpop]

Oh, and it was consultation. He didn't actually DO anything.

[TheMercenary]

Fucking Demoncratically controlled Congress is going to bankrupt this country....

In health bill, billions for parks, paths
Supporters cite prevention, but add-ons’ critics see pork

WASHINGTON - Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.

The add-ons - characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation’s health “infrastructure’’ - appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.

Critics argue the provision is a thinly disguised effort to insert pork-barrel spending into a bill that has been widely portrayed to the public as dealing with expanding health coverage and cutting medical costs. A leading critic, Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, ridicules the local projects, asking: “How can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?’’

But advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.

“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.

The Senate health panel’s bill does not specify how much would go to the community projects. A Senate staff member said the amount of spending will be left up to the Obama administration. A House version of the bill caps the projects at $1.6 billion per year and includes them in a section designed to save money in the long run by reducing obesity and other health problems.

It is not clear yet how the money would be allocated. The legislation says that grants will be awarded to local and state government agencies that will have to submit detailed proposals. The final decisions will be made by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

The proposal was inserted at the urging of a nonprofit, nonpartisan group called Trust for America’s Health, which produces reports about obesity and other health matters. Part of the group’s proposed language for the community grants was inserted into the Senate bill. It called for “creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment.’’ The group provided examples of grants for bike paths, jungle gyms, and lighting, though the Senate bill doesn’t list those specifics.

Jeffrey Levi, the group’s executive director, said that “it is easy to satirize’’ the projects, but they are needed to improve America’s health.

“We will see a return on this investment if you use this money strategically for proven, evidence-based programs,’’ Levi said in an interview, citing efforts to stop smoking and to promote physical activity. “We will prevent or reverse chronic diseases such as heart disease. . . . It will pay for itself.’’

While many may think the healthcare bill strictly aims to increase coverage, Levi said that is a mistaken impression. “This isn’t just about health insurance,’’ he said. “This bill is about creating a healthier country.’’

The group says that a modest community project can lead directly to improvements in public health. In a recent report, the group cited two examples from Massachusetts that it said were effective: Shape Up Somerville, which helped elementary school children lose weight by promoting physical activity, and the Physical Activity Club in Attleboro, which also helped children lose weight.

The idea of using the healthcare bill as a vehicle for preventing diseases has bipartisan appeal. President Obama has called for “the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that’s one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.’’ Enzi, too, has said that “reducing healthcare costs has to begin with promoting healthier behaviors.’’

But there is disagreement about the best way to do that. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who is working closely with Kennedy on the healthcare bill, has criticized the current healthcare system for focusing on “sick care’’ and has called for more investment in a variety of measures that would help prevent diseases, including the community grants, restricting junk food in schools, and encouraging children to be more active.

“We spend 75 cents of every healthcare dollar treating people with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, and only 4 cents on prevention,’’ Harkin said in a statement. “But the majority of these diseases can be prevented through lifestyle and environmental changes.’’

However, it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of a park or pathway, leading some critics to say such funding is an example how the healthcare legislation has spiraled out of control.

Enzi has said that instead of paying for pathways, it would be more effective to encourage lower insurance premiums for individuals who can prove they have taken steps to improve their health. He said that construction grants belong in other bills.

Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate health committee, has unsuccessfully pushed an amendment that would specifically prohibit the use of funds for sidewalks, streetlights, and other infrastructure projects.

Kennedy spokesman Coley said such proposed amendments are counterproductive, stressing that the projects would be modest and are not intended to replace larger ones that can be funded in other bills. Nonetheless, he said, the projects “may be a very cost-effective and long-lasting intervention.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...r_parks_paths/

[Happy Monkey]

They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.

I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?

According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it. Note this is just one plan being floated. But it is a comon theme among the schemes coming up with ways to pay it.

I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.

According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it.

And how would the insurance companies take a cut if companies fire them, and fund the public option instead?

According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.

It was floated (a new payroll tax), and I would have been fine with that as well, but IMHO, a tax would have to be considerably higher than 3% to oppress someone making $1 million.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

Aren't people still going to have to pay premiums that they can afford? Isn't THAT the whole issue, or at least part of it, that people can't afford paying so much? If so, it really isn't FREE, is it?