Hr676 a single-payer plan for health care would benefit all of America. What's holding it up?
The Senate Finance committee headed by Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley are going to decide which model of health care will be adopted by this country; they would not have been my first choice to oversee this crucial and necessary need. The fact that it is a finance committee, and not the health care industry, that will decide the type of national health care that will be adopted by the United States sends up a huge red flag in my mind. I believe that Senator Baucus has an agenda to keep America saddled with the status quo, and is resistant to any true reform of our failing health care system. The following is an explanation of HR676 and what I believe is really motivating Senator Baucus.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
And BTW. This I take it to be the high point of Jordan's #25:
"Health care should not be a choice, one should not have to pick between health care or rent or fucking food on the table. Not in a civilized world."
Do you see anything wrong with that?
27 - Jeannie Danna
Arch propaganda-(First of all...that 47 million uninsured number is thrown out quite a bit but what it doesn't take into account is that a chunk of those are actually young people who choose not to have health insurance even though they could because they're in good health and don't feel it's worth it. Also thrown into that 47 million is roughly 12 million who are here illegally and should not be receiving any type of welfare that's subsidized by legal citizens.)
Do you actually read an article before you attempt to tear it all to shreds? Please re-read and click on links Arch. Then we'll talk...:)
This article is actually about the fact that there are two major industries in this country keeping our health care system dysfunctional through bribery.
28 - Jeannie Danna
Is this from Fox News?-(Anyone in their sixties in Britian is refused most major procedures or costly treatments because they are too old to be deemed worth the cost. Is that what we want?)
PROVE this statement! show me a link...:)
29 - Jeannie Danna
What I quoted-(The US National Health Insurance act would assure universal coverage of all medically necessary services, contain costs by slashing bureaucracy, protect doctor patient relationship, assure patients a completely free choice of doctors and allow doctors a free choice of practice settings.)
That's right Roger, the wealthy have perfectly fine health care. They also control who receives a medical degree in this country so they can go visit their children! sorry :( I couldn't resist that one.
One more point on this response. What do Charles Manson and Senator Baucus have in common? They both have the same health care. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I certainly hope so!
30 - Doug Hunter
'"Health care should not be a choice, one should not have to pick between health care or rent or fucking food on the table. Not in a civilized world."
Do you see anything wrong with that? '
It does seem like such a moral truism in our current context, but the context obfuscates the central issues. In simpler terms if the world consisted of you and me and I decided I didn't want to want to work in the garden or help with the food or exchange you anything of value for it, should you be forced to work twice as hard for the rest of your life to do it for me?
The answer might very well be yes, but there is a distinct tradeoff. Food and healthcare don't just magically appear, someone is working their ass off to make it happen. Because our society is large and our services big and complex does not make that simple fact any less true.
31 - Doug Hunter
Jeannie, I'm not sure how to put a link up but a search for NHS healthcare rationing by age will bring up plenty of resources on the subject. Here is a quote from someone defending the system:
"This attempt to wring the last drop of medical benefit out of the system, no matter what the human and material costs, is not the hallmark of a humane society. In each of our lives there has to come a time when we accept the inevitability of death, and when we also accept that a reasonable limit has to be set on the demands we can properly make on our fellow citizens in order to keep us going a bit longer."
This sounds fine and dandy until it's one of your parents who is deemed not worthy of 'going a bit longer'. That's one of my concerns with any potential system, that we maintain the high level of care the responsible people in the US already have access to. You mentioned 47 million uninsured being roughly 15% of the population. Does the Universal plan include options to increase the number of doctors by 15%? The number of hospitals? The number of high tech imaging machines, etc?
If not, are we just simply going to shift the rationing to some other factor (like age) or who can survive longest on the waiting list?
32 - Jeannie Danna
#32 What the hell is your point? ('"Health care should not be a choice, one should not have to pick between health care or rent or fucking food on the table. Not in a civilized world.") No, you shouldn't have to choose! What is your occupation? I'm not trying to pry but I would be able to discern why you are so pissed off here if you told me that you worked for the big pharma or the insurance industry.
33 - roger nowosielski
No, he doesn't, Jeannie. Don't be mean.
34 - Jeannie Danna
Doug, It is too bad that you did not read the essay I wrote for my mother after living in long term intensive care with her for a little over a year. I am grateful for having her come back out of unconsciousness long enough to tell her just how much I loved her and what an important part of my life she was. The bigger fact of my mother's operation was that they did it for profit and not out of any real concern for her. Once she went into long term maintenance they realized they would be at the losing end of the stick. I don't want that kind of game played for someone's 401k!
This might sound callus to you but my mom should have stayed home in the loving care of her family until the end...
35 - Jeannie Danna
Doug, Can I point out that the number of students in medical schools has been tampered down for years in this country. No offense to doctors from overseas but I only have three doctors at the VA in Buffalo that are American. Then, take a good look at the school system in this country. The colleges are flooded with kids studying to be teachers; after they graduate they have to fight each other to work for a low paying profession that requires them to have a master's degree!
36 - Doug Hunter
Jeannie, I'm certain that would be an interesting read and you probably are correct(and would know best) what would have been best in that situation. My mother had ovarian cancer in her late 30's. It was caught at late stage 3 and any delay in waiting for anything would have greatly hurt her chances of survival. Somebody will die under the new system that would not have under our current one, and vice versa. That is inevitable.
Believe it or not I think that there is probably a way we can institute universal coverage to the benefit of our system and I would support that. The point of my #32 and my questions regarding Universal care is not to say I know those are bad ideas, but to point out that we need to rationally address the tradeoffs, not just rely on emotional appeals. There is more to healthcare than the uninsured. I listed my major concerns earlier in the comment thread, if those are addressed I'd be happy to see universal healthcare enacted.
37 - roger nowosielski
Doug,
I am going to respond to your #32 in full. You do raise an interesting question, which in turn, requires a measured response. That's why give me a little time, so I can deal with it properly.
Later.
38 - Cindy
Jeannie,
I didn't mean a link to a video. I meant the video itself. You know, like Dave did with his poolside chat.
You can take a video from youtube (or elsewhere) and put it into your article. Just so you know that. If you ever want to do that I'd be happy to help you.
39 - Jeannie Danna
Please check this out
40 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy, cool! yes...:) I hope you don't mind my multiple answer in the thread this morning. I sort of "smooshed" everyone together in that one. I swear I want to write tamer articles but I love this debate! It is important to fight for what I really believe in. HR676...:)
41 - Jeannie Danna
I agree with Doug!-(Food and health care don't just magically appear, someone is working their ass off to make it happen. Because our society is large and our services big and complex does not make that simple fact any less true.)
This is why we need a government that recognizes all of its citizens! I can't understand people saying we need to abolish our social programs. Whether people deserve food or health care is not up to us. If we truly are a human society then we will do what "Christ" said or what other "profits" have said. "care for one another. Of course if you are an atheist then I hope you say it!...:)
42 - Clavos
Jeannie,
You do realize that the form from moveon which you linked (in #41) is for a very different proposal than HR 676, don't you? The moveon petition is advocating a "mixed" system, with both government and private insurance, while HR 676 eliminates private insurance altogether -- even for those willing and able to pay for it, which is one of my principal objections to HR 676.
Cost is another. Based on my experience with Medicare (and BTW the alternate name for HR 676 is the "Expanded Medicare for All" bill), I think the optimistic projections of cost provided by the bill's supporters are grossly underestimated, probably deliberately so.
43 - roger nowosielski
Don't be stealing my punchlines, Jeannie. But you are more or less on the right track. I'm going to try to make a tighter argument, though, after an hour's nap or so.
Later.
44 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos,
Yes this petition was from my e-mail. I am always trying to please...;) so I figured what the hell...sign the thing If it floats your boat!
45 - Jeannie Danna
Medicare for all would be better than the monster we have right now.
46 - Clavos
Medicare for all would be better than the monster we have right now.
Based on my direct four years' experience with Medicare, that statement will only be true for those currently uninsured and without other resources; it will not be good for patients, it will not be good for physicians (PNHP notwithstanding -- they are not representative of the great majority of physicians), it will not be good for hospitals, and because the government will use its power as a single payer to radically cut fees and prices, it will almost probably eradicate R & D, particularly by the pharmas, who are the only entity currently doing serious research in medical chemistry and pharmaceuticals.
47 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie,
Did you address the objection to the bill (as stated in #44), concerning the elimination of private insurance altogether? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
48 - Jeannie Danna
My brother visited us yesterday. He is self-employed and his premium just jumped sky high and so far he has not used it once! He is making himself sick just worrying about what will happen if he uses it. So I have to ask why should you pay any premium at all?
49 - roger nowosielski
And he can't use the credits for "services not rendered," can he now?
Guess who pocketed the money? But to some, it's a million-dollar question.
50 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos,
I don't believe R & D is being carried out as aggressively as it would be if we had health care based on prevention instead of maintenance like the for-profit model we have now.
(because the government will use its power as a single payer to radically cut fees and prices, it will almost probably eradicate R & D, particularly by the pharmas, who are the only entity currently doing serious research in medical chemistry and pharmaceuticals.)
51 - Clavos
So I have to ask why should you pay any premium at all?
Please, Jeannie, don't be naive. The government's only source of money is us, the taxpayers. One way or another, we will all still be "paying premiums."
And while we're still on the subject of costs, keep this in mind:
Our government has been known to pay $600 for a ten dollar hammer. And they paid $5000 for my wife's $2500 wheelchair.
52 - Clavos
@ #52:
You say:
I don't believe R & D is being carried out as aggressively as it would be if we had health care based on prevention instead of maintenance like the for-profit model we have now.
That doesn't make any sense; R & D is based first, last, and always on money. Without money, there is no R &D, and without a possibility of a future profit from it, there's no money. The US conducts far more R & D than any of the UHC countries, because it provides an incentive for the expenditure, which is massive.
53 - Jeannie Danna
Here is a funny story that is NOT funny.
The first time I made chicken soup for Rick I made it like my grandma used to make it. We sat down at the kitchen table in my little apartment to eat. Just as Rick was taking his first spoonful I said "Watch out for the bones."
At the hospital emergency room after three hours and x rays the doctor determined that he had scratched his throat and probably it would "pass."
He had never used his insurance before and hasn't used it since yet he pays over 1,000 a month for a family plan.
I never leave bones in soup anymore...:(
54 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos, What kind of health care do YOU want?
I can't make my letters bold or fancy yet.
(I don't believe R & D is being carried out as aggressively as it would be if we had health care based on prevention instead of maintenance like the for-profit model we have now.)
That answer made perfict sense to me. If we ever got our S____! together in this country we would spend money on R & D of all kinds of things like stem cell research, cancer, aids, you name it. What do we spend money on now? The industrial military complex! Am I correct?
55 - Jeannie Danna
Damn! I have to leave for a couple of hours but I'll be back.
Hold that thought...:)
56 - STM
Rog: "Anyone in their sixties in Britian is refused most major procedures or costly treatments because they are too old to be deemed worth the cost. Is that what we want?"
Lol. That is absolute fucking bollocks. Anyone who's alive and kicking gets the same go as everyone else ... especially after all those years of paying taxes.
Quick, Doc, back me up on this one ... the Yanks are makin' shit up again and projecting the failings of their own medical system on to unsuspecting Poms.
I'm here doing your dirty work.
BTW, good Doc, it's the end of the three-day Queen's Birthday long weekend here.
You guys don't even celebrate that in the Old Dart, do you?
Probably best, though, as everyone knows that too much celebrating is bad for old-aged pensioners and near retirees who then might not be able to get medical treatment if they come too close to carking it.
57 - Bliffle
#46 Clavos claims:
"Based on my direct four years' experience with Medicare, that statement will only be true for those currently uninsured and without other resources;"
Based on MY experience medicare is as good as any service I've had under the numerous insurance company policies I've had.
" it will not be good for patients,..."
Why not? Seems good to me.
"... it will not be good for physicians..."
Why not?
"... (PNHP notwithstanding -- they are not representative of the great majority of physicians),"
Sez who?
"... it will not be good for hospitals,..."
Hospitals are already in trouble, largely because of cream skimming by the owners through holding companies.
"... and because the government will use its power as a single payer to radically cut fees and prices,..."
As it should, to counteract the exorbitant fees charged by monopolies.
"... it will almost probably eradicate R & D, particularly by the pharmas, ..."
Most R&D is ALREADY done by public agencies. The pharmas just get in on the marketing.
"...who are the only entity currently doing serious research in medical chemistry and pharmaceuticals."
the pharmas spend 3 times as much money on advertising/marketing as they do on research. And most of their research is to develop patentable differentiations from existing products so that they can demand outrageous prices for common medicines through their monopolies.
58 - Bliffle
The insurance companies should be reduced to bookkeepers for the single payer system, and should have NO policy function. They should derive their profit from competing for bookkeeping contracts vs. their employee, etc., costs, NOT from denying service and condemning people to death and ruin!
59 - Doug Hunter
"Most R&D is ALREADY done by public agencies."
Total NIH expenditure on all medical research: $25B
Pharmaceutical expenditure on drugs R&D as measured by government $38B
As measured by themselves (includes US companies overseas research facilities): $49B
It's difficult to have any meaningful discussion with people that have zero regard for looking at reality. They've got their emotions going on the inhumanity of rationing care by income or choice to pay for insurance and anyone that disagrees is part of an evil conspiracy to deny healthcare.
It really turns me off of this issue when you can't even have a realistic discussion of the tradeoffs because in fantasyland they don't exist. Perhaps as J stated earlier we should hope for a system where 'no one pays a premium', and healthcare will just magically appear when and where we need it.
60 - Clavos
Based on MY experience medicare is as good as any service I've had under the numerous insurance company policies I've had.
Insurance policies vary widely: HMOs are decidedly inferior (and much cheaper) to PPOs. With the exception of copays, my wife's Medicare coverage is inferior to what I have with my PPO, especially in terms of prescriptions, which in my wife's case, exceed $5,000 a month.
" it will not be good for patients,..."
Why not? Seems good to me.
See above, and remember that I did qualify my analysis by noting those currently uninsured will benefit those of us with adequate private insurance will not, and will likely experience a decrease in the availability and quality from our current levels of medical care. All of us will lose, particularly with respect to end-of-life care, as only hospice services will be available.
"... it will not be good for physicians..."
Why not?
Ask physicians. Medicare payments to physicians are less than private insurance payments for the same services, to the extent that Primary Care Physicians (PCPs -- "family" doctors) who actually have the time to adequately examine and treat their patients are becoming increasingly harder to find. Because of inadequate payment, PCPs must take on huge numbers of patients just to cover their office and personnel expenses. That translates into lesser care for the patients.
"... (PNHP notwithstanding -- they are not representative of the great majority of physicians),"
Sez who?
Say more physicians than those who support single-payer. But don't take my word for it, google it.
Hospitals are already in trouble, largely because of cream skimming by the owners through holding companies.
Some are, true, and the marketplace has already begun to force badly-run hospitals out of business. Here in Miami, the standout hospital is a private, for profit one; it is superior to virtually all the others, both for-profit and non-profit, as well as government-run (the VA medical center, with which I also have multi-year experience, and which, by comparison with other VAMCs, is, according to the Department of VA, one of the best in their system.
"... it will almost probably eradicate R & D, particularly by the pharmas, ..."
Most R&D is ALREADY done by public agencies.
Prove that. Let's see some linked data.
the pharmas spend 3 times as much money on advertising/marketing as they do on research...
Pharmas do spend more on marketing than on research, a circumstance inherent in competitive markets, but even so, they spend far more on research in their field than the public sector; and contrary to your assertion, most of it is in new product development, not "patentable differentiations from existing products," those differentiations require little to no research, merely tweaking of the formula, even patenting an original formula's "mirror," which requires zero research.
61 - Clavos
The insurance companies should be reduced to bookkeepers for the single payer system
A role which, rightfully, they will not accept, since they are not accounting firms. Instead, they will offer other kinds of insurance, and perhaps move offshore to friendlier markets.
62 - roger nowosielski
Check your references, STM. I did not make that claim, only cited somebody else's and retorted.
Sorry!
63 - roger nowosielski
#61: Good riddance.
64 - Andy Marsh
Like I've told you all before, there's a very easy way to get free health care in this country for you and your family for the rest of your life. It only costs YOU twenty years.
Invest I say! Fucking freeloaders, you all want something for nothing. Get out of my pockets!!!!!!!!!
65 - Andy Marsh
It comes in a variety of choices too:
USA
USAF
USN
USMC
USCG
Pick a card, any card!
66 - Clavos
Already did, Andy, already did.
One small correction: you can get the free medical care in far less than 20 years, I've got it after only two, but the price you pay is serious injury or illness or even both.
67 - Andy Marsh
Yeah Clav, I only did 19 years 4 months and 18 days and I still got mine!
Funny how that number of days has stuck in my head and I've been off active duty for almost 13 years now.
Thirteen years is easy to remember, I got a big dog right after I retired. A shephard/lab mix. He's going deaf, or pretending to go deaf, he gets up and lays down a lot more slowly than he used to too. He can get up on my bed any more, it's just to tall for him. Other than that, he's doing very well for a 70 pound dog over 13 years old. Must be that holistic dog food with the glucosamine in it! Maybe I should try it! Probably have to if all you liberals get your way and pick my pockets clean!
68 - Andy Marsh
And Clavos - two or twenty two, it doesn't matter, you did your time brother and that's what counts! God bless you, if there is one...
69 - Clavos
70 pounds is a lotta dog, Andy. Who eats more, him or you?
you did your time brother and that's what counts! God bless you, if there is one...
Right back atcha, bro...
"All gave some, some gave all"
70 - Doug Hunter
If you're clever and lacking morals you can also get labeled 'bipolar' and get free medical plus a monthly disability check for life. I've known people on this track I had my suspicions about, but who's to judge another person's mental health?
71 - Andy Marsh
He used to eat more, but I think I've got him beat since I quit smoking on April 1st!
What's really cool about him is he thinks he's a lap dog!
72 - Andy Marsh
Cigarettes...since I quit smoking cigarettes.
Sorry, felt I had to clarify that!
73 - Andy Marsh
Doug in comment 70 - You mean I could be double dipping???
74 - Jeannie Danna
What Bliffle Said!-The insurance companies should be reduced to bookkeepers for the single payer system, and should have NO policy function. They should derive their profit from competing for bookkeeping contracts vs. their employee, etc., costs, NOT from denying service and condemning people to death and ruin!
Why should the insurer decide what treatment, test or procedure a patient is eligible for?
75 - Cindy
Personally, people who spend 20 years fiddling around in the promotion of and cooperation with criminal acts don't get my vote for not being 'freeloaders'.