Friday, November 26, 2010
Republicans: get on with the country's business
Because people still deny it, we needed--and still need--health care reform. We truly needed the "public option" so we could truly get and keep insurance premiums and health care costs lower.
I post this now because the Republicans are talking about repealing the health care reform we got this year.
I say again, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, literally, and yet we're ranked 37th--behind Costa Rica--in mortality rates. You're more likely to live longer in Costa Rica and 35 other countries than here in the US.
We needed change. We needed this reform. We've gotten it, watered-down as it is. It shouldn't now be taken away.
This next Congress needs to work and focus on our problems at hand, not on repealing health care reform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
America's mortality rate has a lot to do with our addictions to alcohol, easy chairs and TV, fat, sugar, drugs, violence, and a few other things don't you think?
Yes, they're bound to be connected, sure.
As for American health care being 'the most expensive' in the world, I really don't have a problem with that.
#1 if you're going to compare our costs with other countries where they make $10 a day in wages, you're going to have a bogus comparison anyway and #2 we have the most advanced care available and it's naturally gonna cost more than putting a bandaid on a cancer victim and watching them die.
So, if you're going to use cost and mortality rates to try to compare our health care to Costa Rica, or to much of the rest of the world, you're gonna have to go back to the drawing board and come up with some real arguments, not just isolated statistics yanked out of context.
You're gonna have to discuss WHY mortality rates differ and WHY costs differ.
But you're a Democrat, so I don't expect it.
You may now return to your shouting points. lol
First, I won't be sarcastic in my responses. It's unnecessary and ugly. Second, I won't demonize you because of however you vote. Same for that.
To call being the most expensive health care system in the world yet we are ranked 37th in mortality rates, internationally, "isolated statistics yanked out of context" is fairly amazing. For the rest of the world, there is a direct correlation.
Here's a link to hard statistics with verified and verifiable data and sources, showing how screwed up and broken our health care system works, along with some data on other countries, showing how theirs do work, by comparison, not that you'll go to it, read it, or be open-minded about it:
http://sickothemovie.com/checkup/
Mo Rage wrote:
"not that you'll go to it, read it, or be open-minded about it"
I see you aren't above a little sarcasm yourself after all. That's ok. Sarcasm in and of itself isn't necessarily 'ugly' if you have a sense of humor about yourself.
To suggest that there is ever a direct inverse correlation between the cost of something (anything) and the quality is somewhat naive.
So, if we spend less we'll get better care? Is that the rationale for spending less? C'mon. You know better.
America's mortality rate has a lot to do with preventable things Americans choose to do. We eat things that are bad for us. We exercise far too little. We add to that alcohol and drugs, dangerous and reckless lifestyles, a propensity for violence....
Rationing health care ala Obama isn't going to fix any of it.
Obamacare is unconstitutional because it forces people to pay a private company for a service whether or not they want it.
What part of 'separation of business and state' do Democrats not understand?
Democrats used to hate corporate welfare. Not anymore. Obamacare is corporate welfare big time.
Your take on things virtually always amazes me. This is one of those cases, of course.
To begin, no, I'm not above sarcasm but I don't go right to it, first thing, and actually try to make sure I don't go there. That said, I'm capable of it, as you can see.
The point is not that we spend less and get better care, the point is that we spend less and live longer. Our health care system is too expensive, period. That's why so many of us don't have health care--we can't afford health care insurance. Instead of tying health care to insurance and insurance rates and premiums, we should do what the rest of the world does and not tie the two together.
But we won't.
We're too invested in keeping corporations, their money and their lobbyists intwined in our government, sickly and sadly enough. So we get what we deserve.
"Rationing health care ala Obama", indeed.
If you don't think health care isn't already rationed then you haven't read anything I've written and haven't studied our health care system. Let me repeat: approximately 50 million Americans, right now, have no health care insurance at all because it's too expensive and so, have virtually no health care. If that's not rationed health care, then nothing is.
Tell me, what part of President Obama's Health Care Reform Act is "rationed health care" anyway? What are you talking about? Is it the part where he says the insurance companies can no longer have "pre-existing conditions" that kick people out of the health care insurance system? Is that it?
I thought not.
What you call "Obamacare" is no more unconstitutional than requiring people to have car insurance. That's not unconstitutional, is it?
And then there's your question: "What part of 'separation of business and state' do Democrats not understand?"
Uh, actually, it's "separation of church and state" that's an issue, when it comes up. There is no problem for anyone on "separation of business and state". I don't know where you created that one.
Democrats need to go after corporate welfare. Unfortunately, it pays those same Democrats too well to really go after it. Unless and until we force them to do away with it, they won't.
So let's start here and now.
You apparently don't understand the concept of rationing.
Rationing is the controlled distribution of a good or service by a person or entity which has the ability to control the distribution, regardless of the recipient's ability or willingness to pay for same.
There is no insurance company which has the power to ration health care. One would have to be delusional to think so.
Currently you not only have the right to choose another insurance company (if your current carrier isnt satisfactory) you can also pay for a doctor visit or whatever out of your own means.
If the government is able to control all health care (as the foolish proponents of a single payer system desire), that will no longer be the case. The government will be god, and decide who lives and who dies.
To quote you: "You apparently don't understand the concept of rationing.
Healthcare Rationing
By Trisha Torrey, About.com Guide
Updated October 08, 2008
Filed In:Glossary of Med-Speak
Definition:
"Most patients believe, unless they decide to pay for it from their own pocket, that if a treatment exists for a medical problem, then that treatment should be provided and paid for by insurance (or whoever takes care of their healthcare), regardless of the cost."
"Payers, and some doctors, however, will weigh the cost of a treatment against the expected outcomes to determine whether the treatment should be made available to a patient. This is called 'rationing.'"
For example:
"Rationing takes place when a treatment is denied by a health insurance company. Those rationing decisions are often made by weighing the cost of the treatment against the potential improvement in the patient/insured's health."
"A patient who needs a very expensive drug, which may only prolong life for a few months, will likely be denied that drug by the insurance company, although the patient can still choose to pay for it himself."
"A patient who wants plastic surgery to improve the shape of her nose will be denied coverage, because even though it may improve her appearance, it won't improve her health."
"Self-rationing takes place when a patient chooses an over-the-counter remedy for symptoms instead of going to the doctor, where he will have to copay for the visit and whatever drug is prescribed."
So you see, rationing of health care is, in fact, already taking place and has been for quite some time, given the exorbitant costs of health care in the US--and it's not in the patient's best health interests, either.
You don't understand the "public option".
Your own source admits that the patient can pay for it themselves if the insurance company doesn't. Therefore it's not 'rationed'.
To repeat:
"Payers,"--that would be insurance companies-- "and some doctors, however, will weigh the cost of a treatment against the expected outcomes to determine whether the treatment should be made available to a patient. This is called 'rationing.'"
No, it's not rationing if you can buy it yourself. The term rationing applies when the distribution of a product is controlled by one entity and there is no option to obtain it otherwise. That's rationing.
The article you posted inaccurately defines rationing, and sadly you do not seem to understand the concept well enough to see the error.
If the health care is available and the insurance companies decide who gets it and who doesn't, as is documentably the case, that's rationing, too, whether you acknowledge it's existence or not. Your denial doesn't take it away.
My article describes a clear type of rationing but it doesn't fit your needs and definition so you sadly seem to think because it doesn't fit your definition, it denies it otherwise. So be it.
Then Chevrolets are 'rationed' if your employer refuses to buy you one each year, even though he is under no legal or contractual obligation to do so. (The fact that you can buy it yourself doesnt matter. Your definition demands that we say they are rationed.)
And milk is 'rationed' if your grocery store wont sell it to you at 5 cents a gallon. Even though you can buy it if you are willing to pay what it actually costs.
And, according to your source, beer is 'self rationed' if I simply choose not to buy it. lol
So then any product and every product is rationed in your scenario.
If the word applies to everything then it really has no meaning whatsoever.
This would be a total misuse of the definition, therefore we can see that the definition from your article is a false one.
You're being intentionally obtuse and/or difficult in an effort, however weak, to make your point but it just doesn't fly.
I don't "need" a Chevrolet. And milk isn't that outrageously priced like health care is.
If I'm sick, then I truly need health care. If I don't get the health care I need, I can die and that's what's happening to thousands of Americans annually--they can't afford the health care they need so they either don't care that care or they delay until they can delay it no longer. Frequently, that is just before it kills them. Either that or it bankrupts them. Catastrophic health care cost is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America today but I guess better to be bankrupt than dead, eh?
Look it up. You can Google it, if you like. It's true.
Again, unless you work for a health insurance company or a pharmaceutical company or hospital chain or something similar, I can't imagine why you're defending this badly broken, outrageously expensive health care system of ours unless you're just one of the right-wing followers who thinks he has to patriotically defend this mess.
And believe me, I'm not asking you why.
I can tell you, however, you're going to LOVE my posts in the next 24 hours.
(Okay, now I'm being sarcastic).
your 'need' for something isn't what defines it as 'rationed' or not.
During WW2, the government rationed gasoline, and sugar and all kinds of things.
Nobody 'needed' gasoline (i.e. they didn't die if they didn't have it) but it was rationed.
Health care isn't 'rationed' now, but will be if the government is allowed to take it over.
No health insurer has the power to keep you from accessing health care. But the government seeks such power, to be the ONLY game in town.
I trust corporations very little and I trust an all-powerful government far less.
No one "needed gasoline" during the war?
Like the military?
Like the families here at home who wanted or needed to occasionally drive?
Are you kidding?
You may deny it now all you want but it shows your lack of knowledge and/or just sheer acceptance of what is--health care in America is already rationed.
The ones who can afford it get it.
Those who can't, don't.
And then there are the insurance companies who say who can and cannot have coverage, based on what they're paying for premiums and on what the cost is of the care. Just because you deny it doesn't make it so.
You say "No health insurer has the power to keep you from accessing health care" and consider me naive? Are you kidding? It's been proven that there have been many, many times, all across the country when the doctor has had to check with the insurance company to see if he or she can do what's needed for the patient.
Again, just because it hasn't happened to you or because you deny it, doesn't mean it isn't so.
It is. It is so. Insurance companies deny care all the time, right here in the US:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2008/08/25/how-crafty-health-insurers-are-denying-care.html
http://topnews.co.uk/215413-health-insurance-companies-deny-nm-policies-individuals-and-small-groups
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Post a Comment