Why the Dem candidates' feeble health insurance proposals are a bad idea

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Even though there's a growing push for single-payer health insurance, all the candidates except Kucinich, and a lot of people on this board, are saying that such ideas are unrealistic, that the Republicans will never agree with them.

What is wrong with these people? They're supposed to be such hotshot political strategists, and yet they've forgotten rule #1 of negotiating:

Always ask for the gold-plated version of what you really want, even if you think you won't get it. Let the other side say no. Don't say no to yourself.

By trying to keep the private insurance companies involved, the Dem candidates have given the Republicanites that much less to chip away at before we're back to the current system of price gouging, arbitrary denials, and the rip-off known as health savings accounts.

The Dems should start by demanding single-payer. They may have to negotiate down to something like the Edwards proposal, but if they start with the Edwards proposal, the Republicanites will demand cutbacks until we're almost back to the current system.

I would like to see all the Dem candidates with one voice demanding single payer and backing down only so far as to establish a parallel government insurance system that competes with the private insurance companies on price and services, since it doesn't have to make a profit. Eventually, the private insurance companies would either get out of the health insurance racket or bring their prices and services in line with the government.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. We Are Total Wimps

Single-payer is the only thing that has ever been demonstrated to lower costs while increasing quality. Everything else is a fart in the wind.

[ulysses]

2. it amuses me that those who advocate these proposals

are usually the ones who are most quick to remind us that politics is the art of compromise. Evidently, compromise is giving your opponent the advantage before you even sit down to talk.

:thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

36. "giving away the advantage"

You nailed it!

However, what it's going to take is each and every one of us DEMANDING single-payer!

They know that until we do that, they can waffle and play footsie with the insurance companies all they want....

[antigop]

3. I think this is the reason..................

http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=F09

Look at how much went to the Dems.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Oh, yeah, and then there's the issue of campaign finance reform

:eyes:

[Adelante]

10. Oh, God, don't get me started

:nuke:

I'm only just settling down from some other outrage.

[bobbolink]

37. Well, that just made my day....

GAK!

Yes, I intellectually knew this was the brake on the whole process, but you sure made it clear!

Thanks for posting this, and I now have it copied to show to everyone.

Dang, this stinks!!

[Milo_Bloom]

5. Yes and no...

Do you know the %'s behind this statement, b/c that is the important thing in the equation, "Even though there's a growing push for single-payer health insurance"

Yes, the first rule of negotiation is that you as for the gold plated version; however, if you ask for something people view as rediculous, you never get the negotiations off the ground, you simply get dismissed.

For example, if an agent for an average baseball players comes to the table and demands A-Rod money, very few baseball owners will take that agent seriously anymore.

If the public is not (at least 45%) behind a single payer system, the demand would simply end up being ignored and used to show how "out of touch" the Democratic candidates are.

What you really need to do is find out what most people want and then go a little beyond it to start the negotiations, ultimately coming back to what you wanted in the first place.... If you start too far beyond your intention, you diminish your chances of being able to negotiate at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I think single payer could be sold to the public with a simple statement,

especially if every Democrat from dog catcher on up to presidential canddiate said it early and often: "Your health care should be determined by your doctor, not by some insurance clerk working from a check list."

If every Democratic politician at every appearance pushed single payer and explained a bit more about it over time, the public would get it.

Look at how Republican candidates consistently pushed the message of lower taxes.

This is not 1994. The private system is literally killing people and driving many of the rest to distraction. People I never would have imagined as calling for single payer are doing so.

If the Democrats blow this one, blow the potential to be as revolutionary as FDR, and instead let the Republicanites and the corporate contributors scare them with "the American people are on our side" (the same tactic used with the IWR), then they'll fade into irrelevance.

Remember that voters have an alternative to voting Democratic or Republican--not voting at all. Fifty percent are there already, and their numbers will grow if they don't see the Dems making an effect on their daily lives.

The voters know the Republicans are worthless. Now it's up to the Democrats to prove themselves.

[sandyd921]

9. Also if the multi-million dollar salaries

of health insurance CEOs were stressed by Democratic politicos. I don't think most people in this country are sympathetic to a system in which a greedy few are getting filthy rich on the backs of sick people.

[bobbolink]

38. So, do you know that well above half of those surveyed repeatedly

reply that not only do they *WANT* single-payer, but they are willing to pay more taxes to get it????

[eridani]

47. According to the Pew Foundation, Republicans are behind universal health care--

--even if taxes are raised, by a 51%/49% margin. Self-identified Dems back it at 90%+, and independents are in between. Unfortunately, politicians are more afraid of insurance companies than they are of the public.

I get furious that Dems won't advocate a basically popular policy like this. The Rethugs are STILL. as a minority party, putting abolition of Social Security on the table and publicly advocating it. Does it bother them at all that this is an overwhelmingly unpopular position? Not in the slightest--they keep repeating it, and hope to make it an inevitable reality by that tactic. Why the goddam bloody hell can't Dems do the same on behalf of a POPULAR policy? :nuke:

[auntAgonist]

6. there is an excellent article that you can

read here:

http://theportalgates.net/

Improving Medical Practice and the Economy through Universal Health Insurance

Donald W. Light, PHD

----

It was published in the New Jersey Med Journal. Feel free to check it out. PM me if you'd like to see more at that site. (there's some pretty good discussion there)

aA
kesha.

[Hawkowl]

8. We have no leaders

We have no leaders running for pres as of yet. At least none, that are getting big name media coverage. No one with courage enough to stand up to the corporations. Hillary, Obamama, and Edwards carefully hedge their bets and parse their words until they can discern where most of US stand on an issue. Right now we are the leaders, pushing their pompous asses from behind with a cattle prod.

Once some candidate gets a clue and starts making bold initiatives, like single payer health care, restoring taxing corporations, and ending the Iraq war IMMEDIATELY, that person will win.

Gore, Clark, or Kucinich are leaders who make bold statements, but they don't have the spot light of the corporate media-- yet. Their day may come as the public tire of pablum spewing milquetoast jello spined ego maniacs.

[kath]

21. "pablum spewing milquetoast jello spined egomaniacs" -.

Good one! Can I quote you on that?
Fokkin' PSMJSEs - yep, sums up the sorry state of way too many of our so-called Dem leaders. I'm sick TO DEATH of 'em.

[AnOhioan]

11. One Dem has consistently talked about single payer

My Rep and my choice in the Presidential primary contest....Dennis Kucinich

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. I know--I supported him in 2004

:-)

I think it's one reason that he gets so little attention in the media. The Big Boys don't want the public to think of single-payer as an option.

[Vinca]

12. Now is the time for Democrats to go for single payer.

Republicans are losing 2008 for themselves and if we get a super majority - which seems likely - that's the time to open Medicare for all and get rid of the criminal insurance companies. If it doesn't happen now, it will never happen. How many more people have to die for lack of health care?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Yes, the Dems are still acting scared of the Republicanites

Non-binding resolution, indeed! It's a sign of weakness and sounds non-serious, which is why more Senators didn't go along with it.

The Democrats can't get it through their heads that the voters rejected the Republicanites, which means that they (the Democrats) have an opportunity to set their own agenda.

Maybe it's time for the Republicanites to be scared of them. :evilgrin:

[bvar22]

15. Totally agree!

Unfortunately, the other Democratic candidates have blown a bunch of smoke in the air by saying they support "Universal HealthCare". Most of their plans are nothing but corporate subsidy plans that DO little to lower the cost of healthcare.

The REAL problem is that few people know the difference between "Single Payer Universal HealthCare" (Dennis Kucinich) and Mandatory Health Insurance (all the other Dem candidates and some Republics). Many people at DU don't even understand the difference. How many voters in the Primary will know that Edwards, Clinton, et are not talking about "Single Payer" when their campaigns (and camp followers) are repeatedly trumpeting that their guy/gal supports "Universal HealthCare"?

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

Americans (Democrats & Republicans) want Single Payer Universal HealthCare(Medicare for ALL). This should be in the Democratic Party PLATFORM for 2008, no matter who the candidate is.
DEMAND IT!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.



Note: I tried to recommend, but the 24hrs has expired. This needs to be reposted frequently.

[rinsd]

28. The poll does not say that. The poll is about universal healthcare

If you ask most people if you want universal health care even if taxes go up they say yes.

If you ask them would you like private insurance to be banned and everyone is covered under a government system, you will get a different answer.

Single payer is one of several variations of universal healthcare(which include MediCare expansion , mandated health insurance etc). To say it is supported on the same level as the concept of universal health care is not quite true.

[bvar22]

32. On the other hand,

if you asked them if they were in favor of reducing the cost of HealthCare by elimanating duplication, inefficiency, corruption, overhead costs, and waste in the HealthCare Industry by extending the existing MediCare system to ALL Americans, a GREAT MAJORITY would scream "YES".

Its all in how you load the question.
Inflamatory rhetoric aside, don't you believe that it is time for the USA to join every other developed nation and consider quality single payer HealthCare a Human RIGHT?

I'm ashamed that nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iraq have better healthcare systems than the USA.

[rinsd]

33. Response

"if you asked them if they were in favor of reducing the cost of HealthCare by elimanating duplication, inefficiency, corruption, overhead costs, and waste in the HealthCare Industry by extending the existing MediCare system to ALL Americans, a GREAT MAJORITY would scream "YES"."

And if you asked them if they would like a chicken in every pot, you would likely get a yes as well. Its not that people weep for private iunsurance, they do not view the care provided by MediCare/MediCaid or even the VA as equal.

"Inflamatory rhetoric aside, don't you believe that it is time for the USA to join every other developed nation and consider quality single payer HealthCare a Human RIGHT?"

Yes, no imflammatory rhetoric there. ;-) I think the benefits of single payer are vastly overstated by its proponents setting it up for a big fall.

[bobbolink]

44. So, do you have a dog in this race?

[IronLionZion]

16. I wish someone would tackle the tremendous amount of price-gouging

at every level: prescription drugs, lab tests, medical equipment, etc.

The military industrial complex and the health care industries are perpetrating what is probably the biggest robbing of a nation the world has ever seen. At least the energy industry robs other nations.

[ieoeja]

17. But your proposal is fascist.

Disclaimer: I am using the "f" word as it is supposed to be used, not as the usual gratuitous insult.

Given the following three choices for health care:

o socialist - gov't owned hospitals with gov't employed doctors
o fascist - gov't pays doctors, hospitals, etc to provide health care
o free market - do you feel lucky, punk?


I prefer the first option, but only the latter two are being debated. I don't believe either of those options are going to solve shit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Odd definition of "fascist," but I'd be fine with your first option, too

:-)

[pschoeb]

19. Like the fascist Health Care System in Canada?

nt

[ieoeja]

20. I guess

I don't know anything about the health care system in Canada.

I know enough about the culture and history of the United States to feel confident in predicting that any ongoing program that directs taxpayer money to private industry will become grossly inefficient and corrupt. I believe the best solution down here is government offered healthcare, not insurance.

[pschoeb]

29. The problem is for-profit institutions

In Canada 95% of the hospitals are not-for-profit institutions(called hospital corporations with elected board of directors) and the rest are Federally owned. There are only recently plans in Canada to allow a kind of for-profit hospital following in the footsteps of Britain's stupid initiatives under Thatcher. The US has over 10% for-profit hospitals, combined with for-profit insurance and unregulated Pharmaceuticals, getting rid of any one of the three would be a big help, I think getting rid of for-profit insurance would be the biggest help, followed by ridding unregulated Pharmaceuticals, and finally not allowing for-profit hospitals, and then making for diverse number of hospital organizations that have local elected oversight. I think a single system of Federally run hospitals, with the only democratic oversight being Congress, would be horrible, and even a State controlled hospitals would not be that great.

[Greyhound]

22. Apparently most DUer's don't even know what Dennis Kucinich and

John Conyers have proposed, there is no mandate of any kind in their plan. They simply want to allow the Medicare system to be expanded to make everybody eligible and to let it compete with private insurance in "the marketplace". IOW, you get to make a choice, if for some reason you actually want to pay the exorbitant fees that private insurance charges, you are welcome to, if OTOH, you want to enter the Medicare system for a fraction of the costs, you are free to do that as well.

Of course everyone knows that nobody in their right mind would, given the choice, elect to pay 3 or more times as much for scarce and ineffective health care and would opt for Medicare.

[rinsd]

23. How would that make private insurance provided medical care scarce and ineffective?

"Of course everyone knows that nobody in their right mind would, given the choice, elect to pay 3 or more times as much for scarce and ineffective health care and would opt for Medicare."

Why would Medicare suddenly offer better care? Its not as if suddenly Medicare would have a monopoly on doctors or hospitals, it would be purely a pay mechanism.

People are suing in Canada right now to be allowed to purchase private insurance. If the impression is that the state system is lacking, people have shown no problems with paying extra via insurance. Or even if the system is not lacking in quality care but amenities, again people have been willing to shoulder additional costs.

[Greyhound]

25. It wouldn't make it so, it already is.

What we laughingly call health care now, is scarce and ineffective, Medicare had nothing to do with that. The privatization of health care took care of that.

And before you tell me how wonderful your plan is, I'm very happy to hear it, but the fact is that an overwhelming majority of the insured are extremely dissatisfied with theirs.

As for your reich-wing talking point about how horrible the Canadian system is, that has been proved to be nothing but lies so many times now, that if you don't know it, it is only because you refuse to look at it.

[rinsd]

27. Take a deep breath

"As for your reich-wing talking point about how horrible the Canadian system is, that has been proved to be nothing but lies so many times now, that if you don't know it, it is only because you refuse to look at it."

I never said boo about the system. I pointed out your fallacy that people would definitely opt for an expanded Medicare vs. going with a private insurer. I was pointing out that people are suing to be provided with that option in Canada where such an option is illegal.

"And before you tell me how wonderful your plan is, I'm very happy to hear it, but the fact is that an overwhelming majority of the insured are extremely dissatisfied with theirs."

Which is why I would hardly offer my plan as evidence of the strength of health care. I think the idea of expanding MediCare is a good one. Its the "cripples will walk, blind will see" attitude that emnates from advocates that tends to be abrasive.

"What we laughingly call health care now, is scarce and ineffective, Medicare had nothing to do with that."

Is MediCare better than private insurance care right now? Does it have less hoop to jump thru? Is it less restrictive? What is the advantage of Medicare vs. private insured care beyond cost?

"The privatization of health care took care of that."

I must have missed that time when health care was nationalized.

[Greyhound]

34. OK fine. I have had the "debate" over the Canadian system so often that

I was just heading it preemptively off the tired and recycled lies. I'm done with that as the information is out there, and those that haven't found it aren't looking, if that doesn't include you, my apologies.

Your declaration that it is a fallacy that people would opt for Medicare over private insurance does not make it so, and the fact that the some upper-class Canadians are unhappy about their options in no way makes their objections significant. Study after study, poll after poll, as well as election results, prove that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are satisfied with their system.

Although far from perfect, there are indeed fewer hoops to jump through with Medicare than private insurance, and the expansion of Medicare will inevitably bring about improvements to it. It is less restrictive the care provided identical or superior, and the cost differential is not insignificant.

Privatization of the health care system did, in fact, take place in this nation over the last 20 - 25 years. While we never had a nationalized system, before the disaster of "saint raygun", the majority of health care facilities in this nation were municipal or charitable. Now, through corporatization, we have far fewer facilities and thereby a greatly diminished capacity, which not coincidentally, is a major factor in the disproportionate increase in the price. Another negative aspect of this is our inability to effectively handle the existing case load, and when disaster strikes, as it always does, the systems are completely overwhelmed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Uh...

"I never said boo about the system. I pointed out your fallacy that people would definitely opt for an expanded Medicare vs. going with a private insurer. I was pointing out that people are suing to be provided with that option in Canada where such an option is illegal."


Canada has its own right-wing bozos. Why they want a U.S.-style health "care" "system" is beyond me, unless they're rich and think they can jump the lines or have their face lifts covered.

[pschoeb]

35. People in Canada have always had the ability to get private health insurance

This covers things that are not covered under the regular health care, like say private hospital rooms, or extended in home services. There was a ban on allowing private insurance to cover things that are already covered under Provincial Health insurance, this was overturned recently in Quebec's Supreme court. My opinion is that this is bad, certain people get upset about their wait time for certain services and are rich enough to be able to pay for private insurance. This means now the rich would rather opt out, which is cheaper for them, than increasing taxes, which would help everyone but hurt them.

[bobbolink]

43. You're right on that! What keeps costs down is having *everyone* in the same pool.

It's sad that so many groups around the world are now trying so hard to destroy what is best about what they have.

It's like that old cycle just keeps repeating... people seem to have to lose something before they can really appreciate what they have.

:(

[boobooday]

24. I agree with you

Nothing else is going to get it done.

[Nederland]

26. Don't start with single payer

Start with universal coverage. Specify the goal, not the means.

[kath]

31. no - the problem with the "universal coverage" plans out there is that they keep the insurance

companies in the picture. The blood-sucking, parasitic insurance companies need to be eliminated from health care in this country. They suck VAST quantities of money out of the system, and provide nothing of value in return. We need a SINGLE PAYER system, like virtually every other developed nation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Yes, there are countless people like me, who pay thousands of

dollars a year for high-deductible insurance, NEVER use up our deductibles, and basically give the insurance companies money for NOTHING.

Unless you're rich, a high-deductible health plan is a license for the insurance companies to print money, because most people never meet their deductibles.

And to top it off, I greatly fear that if I ever did use up my deductible and really needed to have some high medical bills paid, the company would cancel my policy.

USA Today had a cover story on that problem a couple of weeks ago.

[Nederland]

71. They don't have to

You can have universal coverage without insurance companies. The important thing, IMHO, is to give the power to the people. Give people control over who their doctor is an how much money they pay and you'll avoid the pitfalls that terrify people like the poster in the thread just below this one.

[fuzzyball]

30. What is "wrong" with those people is that they are REALIST

as opposed to ideologues dreaming of Utopia.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Just "utopian" ideas that work in most other countries

except here, where the corporate media have most people brainwashed.

[fuzzyball]

46. I hope you never develop a painful hip joint or knee problems

and be living in G Britain or Canada. Because it is not
life threatening, you may wait a long time before surgery
can be scheduled. I am sorry, I prefer what we now have over
socialized medicine. If I work hard and get myself up in the
top 87% of population who have health insurance, I will not
have to put up with a lot of pain. And it is not that hard
to get into the top 87% IMHO.

[eridani]

48. So what?

Your access to speed kills tens of thousands of your fellow citizens. Sounds sociopathic to me.

[Solon]

49. My Grandmother had to wait a YEAR, for knee replacement surger, IN THE US...

and she has excellent insurance. I have a friend who developed pain cysts near her ovaries, they cause a LOT of pain. She doesn't wait, hell, she doesn't even get TREATED, her insurance refuses to cover them, and she owes the hospital money because of previous removal of the cysts(they came back). So much for our excellent health care system. So spare me your horror stories about GB or Canadian Health Care. One of my Grandmother's best friends lives in Manchester, England, and her mother was given HOME care, for years, by a doctor, because she couldn't move out of the house that well, and last year, her friend broke a hip on ice outside her house, and she got treated promptly. So stop spreading LIES!!!!!!!!

[fuzzyball]

57. A broken hip is an emergency, hip pain is not considered

emergency and you go to the back of the line awaiting
surgery. I don't know what kind of insurance your friend
has, but no one in my family had to wait for anything to
get treatment, including surgery.

[Solon]

60. Well, fuck, aren't you special?

Here's a dollar, buy a fucking clue. My friend had, as the insurance company put it, a "preexisting condition", because of a bad bout of STOMACH FLU she had YEARS BEFORE THE CYSTS SHOWED UP. Can you say BS, why yes you can, and before you ask, she gets her insurance through her work, and can't afford it on her own, so she has no choice in plans either. This is considered Standard Operating Procedure at ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES, by the way.

Just to clue you in, almost ANY time you need a specialist in this country, you are put on a...wait for it, a WAITING LIST! Like my grandma, who had to wait for knee replacements. Shit, my mom is lucky to be able to get something as simple as a dentist appointment for a root canal, or to get a tooth pulled, she has had to wait for up to 3 months, again another insured person.

Then there is me, gainfully employed, pinched nerve in left shoulder, causing excruciating pain, and because, at the time I woke up with it, I was within the 90 day period before insurance kicks in for my job, the Insurance Company refused to cover ANY expenses related to the pinched nerve. I need, at the very least, an MRI, so the doctors will know where to cut, because I require surgery to fix it. Plus, and this is the kicker, if I DON'T get it fixed, I will lose COMPLETE use of the arm. So please spare me your fucking objections.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. My, how compassionate of you--and how ignorant of my circumstances

We should all just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and have gold-plated health insurance, huh?

Good Lord, I'm self-employed, have been for 14 years, and as an individual buyer over 50, I CANNOT get affordable health insurance with less than a $5000 deductible.

I have knee problems, and I can't get them fixed because the deductible is a killer.

This has been an extremely educational experience for me.

At least in Canada or the UK, I would have the same chance as anyone else to get a knee replacement and it wouldn't be dependent on my sense of entitlement as an affluent person.

Gee, wouldn't that be a horror, making the affluent wait in the same queue as poor folk? It might intrude on their sense of superiority, their sense that just because they're luckier than other people who work just as hard, maybe harder, they deserve special treatment.

It's enough to turn a person socialist, and ever since the Reagan administration, I've been seeing so many examples of self-righteous affluent people who think their money makes them worth more as human beings that I'm about 1/4" from socialism.

[fuzzyball]

52. 87% of US residents HAVE health insurance...you call that

gold plated? And if you are destitute and on welfare you
get medicaid. The healthy folks can try harder to pull themselves
out of the bottom 13% like the rest of us 87% did.

[Solon]

53. You know, the whole "Fuck you, I got mine!" attitude you display...

Isn't exactly endearing to this website, maybe you should move to another website, where such attitudes are more welcome, might I suggest Free Republic?

[fuzzyball]

58. If 87% of people have health insurance, that is hardly a

privileged position. And amongst the other 13% are a lot
of young healthy people who prefer not to pay insurance
premiums. Those who can not afford health insurance should
have access to a government funded hospital. Those of us who
have worked our butts off to get above the bottom 13% should
get what they deserve, treatment of their choice.

[Solon]

59. First, its closer to 15 percent, not 13 percent...

And of those, about a quarter of them are under the age of 18. Also, I find this revealing: Those of us who
have worked our butts off to get above the bottom 13% should get what they deserve, treatment of their choice.

I guess the rest of us don't DESERVE anything, you pathetic little shit.

[fuzzyball]

62. I said you deserve to be treated cheaply at a government run

facility. But not at a private hospital supported by
hard working folks.

[Solon]

63. Look, I know you view the poor as a bunch of lazy fucks...

Seriously, what the fuck are you doing on this board again?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Some people are in desperate need of certain types of life experience

that make it impossible to be so enamored of insurance companies and other such bloodsuckers.

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. You sound just like my

right-wing brother, the one who isn't a doctor and isn't self-employed. :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I'm not on welfare--and I DO have insurance

It's simply worthless, and for most people, getting more so all the time. You may experience the same if you're over 55 and self-employed.

Even union workers are losing benefits.

Glad you've made it to the ranks of wonderfulness where you no longer have to be bothered by the concerns of ordinary mortals.

[fuzzyball]

56. If you are having financial strains, I empathise with you

and I mean that sincerely. My wife's job involves dealing
with insurance companies, and I hear there are a lot of them
that have large deductibles & co-pays.

We have a fairly decent insurance but there is still that $3000
deductible to meet every year. Overall we are getting very good
healthcare so I can't complain.

I am not in favor of centrally controlled healthcare because the
control shifts from me to them. I like the freedom to choose the
doctors and hospitals. We had HMO for several years and I hated it
but stayed with it because we had young kids and HMO's will save
you money. If HMO's are that restrictive in choosing doctors and
hospitals, I would hate to think of how bad it will be if health
care was dictated from Washington DC.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Canadians do have freedom to choose doctors and hospitals, as do

Japanese. You may be confusing single payer health care with a national health service, which is what the UK has.

And I'm not having financial "problems." I'm finding that the cost of insurance per month plus the high deductible together is too much. I can either afford the premium (if it's low) or the deductible (if it's low), but both are never low, so affordability is a problem.

The "high deductible" system actually discourages people from getting preventive care. With doctor's appointments at between $100 and $200 and tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies starting at $300 (usually higher), oh, and did I mention that AFTER the $5000 deductible I'd still have to pay 20%--you don't have to have "financial problems" to be discouraged from seeking medical care.

That's the U.S. version of rationing.

[pschoeb]

74. Actaully that is incorrect, technically 40% don't have private health insurance

16% have no form of health insurance and are ineligible for Medicaid or Medicare, 13% have no insurance and are eligible for Medicaid and 11% have no insurance and are eligible for Medicare. Therefor the 15% are actually not in the bottom because they don't meet the financial requirements of Medicaid.

And this isn't even looking at the numbers of people who only have insurance for portions of the year, if they get sick or diagnosed with a chronic illness when they are not covered there's a good chance they will have to wait a full year of premiums before any new insurance will cover these pre-existing conditions.

20% of those who are between 18-64 and work in fulltime jobs don't have any insurance and are ineligible for medicaid, are you saying people who work fulltime are not working hard?

You might wonder why this percentage is higher than the 16% percent for the total population, it's because everyone over 65 is counted as insured because of Medicare, and there are also programs aimed at insuring kids who have no insurance that often their parents aren't eligible for.

Are you saying that people who earn more money, actually work harder?

[Porcupine]

69. I have no health insurance NOW.

And I have chronic back problems that give me debilitating headaches. I get ZERO treatment and support.

Tell me how keeping parasitic health insurance companies in the loop helps me?

[bobbolink]

39. "Always ask for the gold-plated version of what you really want"

You are soooo right, and we need to give these people who claim they represent us some lessons!

Of course this is what has to be done! Put *everything* into a health care bill! Some of it will be negotiated out, but it will be harder and harder to throw out the whole thing, if we start demanding more and more.

Preach it, sistah! :hi:

[depakid]

45. The only real solution is to cut the parasites out of the system

health insurers do not "produce" health care- quite the opposite- they drain dollars out of the system for the express purpose of denying people care or engaging in adverse selection or lobbying. It's a substantial amount of waste that could and should be eliminated in favor of forming a single large risk pool- and it could be accomplished rather "simply" by expanding and then merging Medicare and Medicaid.

No need to draw up a grand new scheme when we've already got the bare bones of a much more efficient system already working every day. Moreover, we could keep elements of federalism in place (as does Health Canada) with a federally defined basic benefits package that allowed states (like the provinces) to offer more than the floor level benefits if they wished- provided that they could come up with the additional funding.

Thus, states like Texas would have to provide the minimum- and more progressive states like Oregon could go further with their basic benefits package, if citizens were clever enough to finance it beyond their "federal revenue share."

Private supplemental insurance for things not covered by the basic benefits package would still be available- as it is in Canada. Individuals could purchase it- or employers could offer it as a perk.

But everyone would be covered- everyone could walk in to a family doc, without worrying about deductibles and co-pays. And people wouldn't lose their homes or be sued and harassed by collection agencies when a family member got sick or injured and had to be hospitalized.

In the end- everyone other than the parasites would pay less and be better off.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Yeah, what depakid said!

:hi:

[fuzzyball]

61. A very recent example of WASTE in our healthcare system..

One of my kids came home from school 3 weeks ago complaining
of excruciating pain in the abdominal area. She had no history
of any such pain. The pain was persistent and so we took her to
a large medical practice. I told the doctor that my kid's symptoms
were exactly the same as I had experienced 15 years ago. Not only
that but I told the doctor that this problem has manifested in
several members of my side of the family.

The doctor ordered chest & abdominal x-rays, blood tests of every
imaginable type, and a urine test. But did not order the test which
would have pin pointed the problem I had suggested. All tests came
back as normal.

A week passed and my daughter had not even a hint of pain anywhere.
That is exactly how my attacks had come. Severe and unbearable pain
coming out of no where and once it is gone, you are like new again.
Then my kid had the same pain attack again. This time
it was late at night so the medical office was ofcourse closed. We gave
the kid tylenol and a heating pad and the pain subsided after a few hours.
The next day we were back in the doctor's office. The doctor ordered
more blood tests. And again they came back normal. But I insisted on the
doctor to order a ultrasound of abdominal area. The doctor was not happy
about me telling him what to order. He said kids at 15 do not get gall
bladder problems. But the test was ordered.

The ultrasound clearly showed presence of small gall stones, about 5mm size.

What is clear from this experience is the following:

1. Doctors are not very good at instant diagnosis. I have never seen them
sit down at a computer terminal and run a diagnosis program. No doctor
has even a fraction of the memory capacity for all combinations of symptoms
which a good software can perform.

2. Doctors order every conceivable test to arrive at diagnosis by process
of elimination. This is an expensive proposition to the patient. There may
be a desire to protect themselves from possible mal-practice law suits.

No wonder health insurance is so damn expensive. There is waste galore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. And this all happened with you "choosing your own doctor"

as the promoters of private insurance love to say. Never mind that people in most countries choose their own doctors.

Obviously, the doctor you chose was an arrogant asshole who was trying to pad his income if he didn't listen to you.

A good doctor would have ASKED if anyone in your family had had problems like this before. A good doctor listens to the patients and takes time with them. (My brother, who is a doctor, says that he can make a nice living on 8 patients a day and doesn't need to schedule them every 15 minutes.)

A moneygrubber (or one employed by moneygrubbers) is interested in "processing" as many patients as possible in the shortest amount of time and getting the maximum amount of billing from them.

[fuzzyball]

72. And you can bet it will be a different doctor next time

We picked this doctor simply because it was a minor emergency
situation and he was the first one available at the place where
my wife works in the business office. When I was on HMO, I suffered
through many episodes of gall bladder attacks and the doctor kept
prescribing me ulcer medication. You are stuck with your primary
physician and there are limitations on changing them.

[pschoeb]

73. This actually might have been the insurance company's fault

The doctor did the right thing as what you really want to do in a situation of a child in acute abdominal pain, is rule out the possibilities that require immediate intervention, the standard procedure is full blood panel(not really very expensive) urine test, and chest and abdominal x-rays. Even if the doctor had done an ultrasound right away before the other tests, and found the gallstone, he probably would/should have ordered all the tests he did, because just because one has a gallstone, doesn't mean it is the cause of the symptoms, as many people have gallstones and are completely unaware of them and asymptomatic. So the presence of a gallstone doesn't rule out conditions that might require emergency intervention.

Often a doctor will also do an abdominal and pelvic ultrasound, but these are largely to look at problems(like gallstones) that don't need immediate attention. The doctor's screw up came on the second visit, when one has a suspicion of gallstones, and other possibilities are ruled out, one can usually wait to see if there is a repeat acute attack and then order the ultrasound, no need to order one right away, as the acute pain could have been nothing serious at all. My guess is that insurance companies, who have an interest in care guidelines to help determine what they will cover and the appropriateness of procedures, and the whole "managed care ideology" that holds sway over US doctors is at play. There are probably guidelines that say no need for immediate Ultrasound, as a way to try to cut costs, this can be bad for women, who often get unnecessary appendectomies, because they have a ruptured ovarian cyst that can mimic appendicitis and can usually be looked at with a pelvic Ultrasound.

Gallstones are tough because they can cause abdominal pain, fever, nausea and vomiting, which could be indicative of things that need immediate treatment, like pneumonia, Intussusception, or obstructed bowel, all of which are much much more common in children than gallstones.

[area51]

54. kick.

As other DU'ers have said, we need to join the civilized nations with single-payer, universal healthcare.

By fighting against this, the republinazi party proves once again that they're anti-life.

[gravity]

68. Single payer is not the way to do it

Saying you are going to abolish all private insurance is not going to gain you any ground, and people are going to claim your idea is too radical to even consider it. The American public doesn't want to be forced into socialized medicine, so no one is going to consider suporting it.

The public wants assurance that they still can choose private medicine if the government program sucks. If the governments program is good enough, than majority of the population would switch over and insurance companies would have to lower prices or go out of business. If you want to negotiate with congress, just ask for excessive benefits from the government program.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. I'd be willing to take that as a COMPROMISE position, not as the

starting point of negotiations.