Health Care/Insurance Reform

Ian, could you be more specific? Exactly what that has been proposed or which you forsee results in people standing in line waiting for surgery? What precedent in Medicair or Medicaid leads you to believe this?

Disclaimer: my family received all of our health care directly -- not indirectly through funding, unless direct care was unavailable or inadequate -- from the federal government. My husband retired from the military when our kids were in junior high and high school. Both kids were delivered in military hospitals. When my husband contracted legionnaire's disease, his life was saved by an active duty pulmonologist AFTER the clinical director of the [military] hospital told me she would transfer my husband anywhere I wanted him to go. (I had already interviewed the doc, who personally oversaw my husband's care 24/7, and who had a curriculum vitae second to none.) My second son had surgery 8 hours after he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis. The diagnosis occurred within 3 hours of walking into the hospital after radiology confirmed the pediatrician's provisional diagnosis, and the surgeon confirmed the radiological report. The delay in performing surgery was due to the fact that my 4-week-old infant son hadn't held down fluids for the previous 16 hours, and they wanted him fully hydradated prior to surgery. In short, my family is not merely healthy and happy because of a DIRECT provision of health care by the federal government, we are alive because of it. But this is not really relevant to the discussion, becasue nowhere in any of the bills Congress is considering is direct provision of medical care by the federal government being considered. Likewise, nowhere in their proposals are there federal gatekeepers determining access to care. But if there were, I would be far more comfortable with that than with profit-seeking insurance companies in that role.

Terry,
I thank you for your comments...I find that often we are mislead by unsubstantiated, scary stories which have been fed by those who only wish to undermine any change that is not directly beneficial to them.
I certainly don't see any evidence that "the government" will be in charge of decision-making health diagnoses...but there is much evidence that insurance companies are denying health saving care simply because it cost them more money than they deem necessary. In other words, it takes money out of their pockets!!!!!
I think both political parties have not done all that they should to protect the working class and poor people in particular, but it seems to me that the Democrats more often are responsive to this group than the Republicans.
There was little effort to bring any meaningful heath reform during the last few years under Republican leadership, that would affect large numbers of people in this group. Now, they all seem to have better plans than the current leaders, or so they say...anything to block the changes being offered.....Its time to take the politics out of health care and act in a responsible manner to take care of the American people who have sent them to office.

Unfortunately, Republicans are bent on preventing the prez from carrying out any of his plans, including blocking confirmation of all his proposed appointments to the federal judiciary. They're doing a good job of it -- clogging bills and appointments in committees and not allowing anything to come to a vote. They play politics while more and more people go without healthcare, or file for bankrupcy after incurring bills they can't pay.... And the beat goes on.

Terry....It seems we are v






















































Terry..
.It seems as if we are both on the same wave-link...My problem is with those who fail to allow their voices to be heard...this happens not just on this site, but in the real world also. Failing to take part and ownership of the problems that face us is a big stumbling block that allows those in the minority position to think we don't care about issues that affect us...I don't believe this is true but I don't know how to put a fire under the silent majority before its too late!
Speak up for yourselves...
Walk the walk as well as talk the talk that will open ears of all!
We live in a country that espouses a government that is

we the people...for the people and by the people...


Let's enforce this information on our leaders...Its NOT about them, but It IS about ..THE PEOPLE!

Sorry that the last comment is so out of kilter....hopefully the thought is understood. Terry...as you say..The beat goes on....However, Hope springs eternal!

You're right about the silent majority. It did finally sit up and show up at the polls, which is why BO got elected. Unfortunately, the view is very common that the programs he espouses are only supported by the minority. Ian, you said it yourself: only 10% want the health care plan he proposes. In fact, according to polls, not only do over 80% of the population want some form of reform, over 50% want the public option. Fox News and selective blogs don't tell the whole story. The reality is that the Tea Party is in the minority. In fact, the majority considers them a fringe movement. They're simply very vocal.

Here's the thing, Mamacita. During Georgeo Bush's second presidency, there was a tangible national malaise. Everyone I knew felt helpless and hopeless. Then BO was elected. Now the far right is so radical and hte rhetoric so vial, I woke up yesterday after a bad dream thinking Obama was dead, and all our hopes with him. How can we stop the far right dictating the tone of everying politic in the country? If you can help me figure that out, I'll be more than glad to join your movement!

I think that would be "vile" and not a small flask.

Terry, If I had answers to what you ask, I'd be a rich woman. The Democrats don't seem to know how to fight for the very issues that they propose....while the Republicans don't seem to be attracted to anything far beyond power itself! I would love to see a VIABLE third party which would be fair-minded to all, rich, poor And middle-class, conservative on issues when necessary, but willing to spend money that is required to have a healthy and educated populace...However, I don't foresee this happening in my lifetime.
That being said, I didn't think I would live to see any president have such active, and enthusiastic voter support and turnout as Obama had...the very memory warms my heart....yet now many of those who took part in the election are waiting with baited breathe for the public option to be a fait-accompil, and to move on to tackling the jobs issue! So much to be done.....Are we up to it? Or will we fail to realize that it will take time thus sub-com to the scare tactics and dirty misrepresentations that are always with us. Only time will tell what the future holds....but we can work towards the goal that all of us deserve better!

M- I couldn't agree more with your statement that "the Republicans don't seem to be attracted to anything far beyond power itself!" I keep reading about concerns and strategizing within the party to take back control of Congress, etc., etc., but they have no agenda other than stopping Obama from accomplishing anything. So they can become more popular. So they can win more seats .... I only hope that what galvanized the majority to show up and vote for Obama won't wane and that there will actually be a backlash against what's going on.

hey Terry, sorry..but wanna bet on it?????
I saw there is a proposed meeting to 'take back this great country of ours'...from what? a democratically elected government????

Ain't that just too much?

How many times do they have to be told: "You lost!"

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny....

Public option out but step one toward single payer? Dropping age for Medicair eligibility seems like a move in that direction.

So the bill failed which would have allowed the import of cheaper Canadian and European drugs. And the Medicair extension and public option are gone. What the heck IS in the bill Obama is pushing Dems to get passed?

Not much by the sound of it!

So! If I get this right...1 healthcare bill has been passed by the Congress, another different bill has been passed by the Senate....neither satisfies any of the disparate sides in the debate?????
Welcome to Politics 101....

Congress has two branches: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House passed a bill and sent it to the Senate which either rewrote it or wrote their own, which now goes back to House. The House can either pass it or send it back to the Senate with revisions, where all heck breaks out again. But you're correct on the fundamental point which is that neither bill pleases everyone (which is always the case in this country and most others). Liberals are treating whatever crap gets passed as a first step. But it may be hard for future steps because of the conservative (currently being called "independent") backlash which may unseat a bunch of dems in Congress this fall.

So, any updates since Dec? or has the topic faded into obscurity?

It's no longer a policy debate, Mary. It has become a partisan battlefield.

It's too bad...legitimate improvements, like portability, tort reform, and anti-trust exemption have just evaporated in the dust of conflict.

That's a problem with a 2 party system, too often it degenerates into an oppositional stance, and any worthwhile compromise is lost. We have had that here, recently, when an opposition leader was dumped by his party because he agreed with the Gov. The new leader's take is that however right the Gov. may be, an opposition leader must never agree. He calls it giving the voter choice. I call it not acting in the best interests of the people.

Agreed, Mary. To suggest that people should be separated into two broad, exclusive camps is absurd. I prefer the parliamentary system immensely.

Our system, unfortunately, has degenerated to the point where we no longer have two political parties with differing philosophical approaches....all we have is two rival street gangs. The citizens can take their pick of which one they want to pay protection money to. And if you're smart and well-financed, you pay both of them.

So, I gather it has passed...any comment from anyone directly affected?

Forgive my ignorance but what is tort reform?

Mary it seems feelings are running high on this subject. I guess there is no easy anwser.

Hello, G. Tort reform would place a cap on liability for malpractice, or otherwise limit damages for other than gross negligence or worse. In this country, juries sympathetic to plaintiffs with very expensive medical issues resulting from no real fault of the doctor have very often found "fault" with the doctor, knowing he had insurance that would transfer money to the plaintiffs, who had none, to defer costs of the medical issue. The result is that insurers charge up to a half million dollars/year for malpractice premiums for "high risk" specialties, and docs won't even practice in certain areas any more because of the "risk." E.g., there are some geographic areas without an OB/GYN who will do the OB part because they're not willing to deliver the babies because no matter what the birth defect or delivery-related injury (no matter how unpreventable), the risk is too high of a jury award to the parents to help them defray the cost of treating the consequences of "a bad outcome." Torts are supposed to be lawsuits for damages arising from fault, but what has happened too often in this country is that there have been damages awarded in the millions of dollars for injuries that weren't due to the negligence of the doctor. Doctors doing the highest risk procedures were the worst impacted, as you can only imagine. All this has led the the practice of "preventive medicine" in this country. That is, order every test to rule out any imaginable condition, no matter how unlikely, if ANY symptom is consistent with the diagnosis, so one can defend against a future lawsuit for failure to diagnose. Insurance companies are settling with plaintiffs because the cost of defending a suit is in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, so tens of thousands of frivolous lawsuits are filed every year knowing insurance companies will automatically pay $10-50,000 if a plaintiff will drop the suits. In this country, free access to the courts is a big hairy deal, but medical malpractice has become a "racket" for too many attorneys, and malpractice insurance premiums are having a huge impact on the cost of health care.