House healthcare bill draft released

[30ashopper]

affordable health care in this country should not be a privilege

I'd be all for supplying that. How about we implement national catostrophic coverage (a national HDHC plan) for anyone who meets certain financial criteria, and pass a mandate plus requirements that insurers can't descriminate?

Do you think something like that would be a better solution than the "all-you-can-eat-because-it's-free!" style coverage Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama want to see passed?

 

[Andy A]

It is only worth that much if it is a loved one, I guess. What a grass, unfeeling presentation by the NYT. What do you think we research and develop drugs such as Sutent for? The hope is that by extending one's period of life, a better more sustaining drug or even a cure might be found.
Maybe we should all be euthanized at the age of say 70 or "put down" if we have some catastrophic disease as soon as it is determined we can only survive a year or two.
Often I find some of the attitudes and opinions presented by the public to be totally opposed to what I have always been taught and without serious merit. This is one of those cases.

 

[CampCreekLou]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?em Why We Must Ration Health Care
By PETER SINGER
Published: July 15, 2009

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?


The costs of the current health care system are becoming increasingly clear, and public sentiment for a more systematic approach may be growing. We’d like to know what you think about the prospect of rationing.



If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.” And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform.

What a great article.

Too bad, Senator Max Baucus is lying. Of course you will have to ration the care. It is not free, it has to be paid for somehow, out of limited resources. Canada does it. The U.K. does it. These are the countries we are modeling with this proposal.

So, do you accept rationed health care for your loved ones, or do you reject the notion of socialized healthcare as proposed by the Democrats?


[The author, Peter Singer: "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."]

 

[30ashopper]

What a great article.

Too bad, Senator Max Baucus is lying. Of course you will have to ration the care. It is not free, it has to be paid for somehow, out of limited resources. Canada does it. The U.K. does it. These are the countries we are modeling with this proposal.

So, do you accept rationed health care for your loved ones, or do you reject the notion of socialized healthcare as proposed by the Democrats?


[The author, Peter Singer: "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."]

I don't have any problems with heavily rationed care when that care is provided in the form of a government entitlement. The Pelosi bill is a travesty on multiple levels and will need to be rationed. First it offers plans at levels of care private plans offer today plus additional coverage you normally wouldn't expect, like un-anounced maternity coverage and no medical exclusions. Second it subsidizes at income levels that include roughly 37% of the country, and expands Medicaid to cover another 37%. On top of this, some percentage of folks who don't qualify will be covered by Medicare.

Now think about that - the government will offer up standard "all-you-can-eat" insurance coverage that will potentially save 80% plus of the country money or provide them with free healthcare.

In a very short time, a majority of the country will be on the government plan.. and the costs will skyrocket. Heavy rationing is all but guaranteed.

Which is just fine as long as they don't get in the way of those that want to purchase private coverage that isn't rationed.

 

[scooterbug44]

Of course they will have to ration care - the idea is that everyone should be able to get basic and emergency medical care w/o bankrupting themselves, not that everyone is entitled to a Tiffany & Co. IV rack, an Armani gown, and Nobel prize winners as their 24/7 personal physicians.

You want to scare me, you'll have to do better than the idea that the government may not want to pay ten or hundreds of thousands for experimental medicine that won't cure me, when my $$ private health insurance won't pay for a generic birth control prescription OR for me to have a baby.

 

[Winnie]

affordable health care in this country should not be a privilege

Why does affordable health care = full-benefit health insurance for all?

I'd be all for supplying that. How about we implement national catostrophic coverage (a national HDHC plan) for anyone who meets certain financial criteria, and pass a mandate plus requirements that insurers can't descriminate?

Do you think something like that would be a better solution than the "all-you-can-eat-because-it's-free!" style coverage Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama want to see passed?

That would go a long way to fixing the problems with our current system! Why do people feel the need to "insure" for regular healthcare?

Of course they will have to ration care - the idea is that everyone should be able to get basic and emergency medical care w/o bankrupting themselves, not that everyone is entitled to a Tiffany & Co. IV rack, an Armani gown, and Nobel prize winners as their 24/7 personal physicians.

You want to scare me, you'll have to do better than the idea that the government may not want to pay ten or hundreds of thousands for experimental medicine that won't cure me, when my $$ private health insurance won't pay for a generic birth control prescription OR for me to have a baby.

Why in the world would you need insurance to pay for your generic birth control prescription?? Surely it isn't expensive enough to bankrupt you. Not only that, you already know whether you need it or not - it's not catastrophic nor an emergency. Well, I hope it's not an emergency.

I was speaking with a 20-something year old last week who was remaining in college an extra semester because the school pays half her insurance premium. She told me she "had" to have good insurance because of her yearly gyn. exam! Grad. school at Columbia!! I was speechless. Then her BF told me it was a good thing he had the insurance plan because he had gotten so ill last winter he had to go to the doctor. I asked if he were admitted for treatment. No, but he was given a prescription to fill. :shock:

 

[scooterbug44]

Winnie - I was trying to make the point that they want us to expect far more from government insurance than from private health insurance.

Birth control pills and pregnancy are very basic and common women's health concerns - much more so than experimental kidney cancer drugs - and both options are not covered by many private health insurance plans (I refer to this as the damned if you do, damned if you don't coverage). BTW, that prescription I used as an example was over $700 a year - and I know other women who pay more far than that.

P.S. Those 2 students you were talking to should get a refund from their college - they're freaking morons.

 

[Winnie]

Winnie - I was trying to make the point that they want us to expect far more from government insurance than from private health insurance.

Birth control pills and pregnancy are very basic and common women's health concerns - much more so than experimental kidney cancer drugs - and both options are not covered by many private health insurance plans (I refer to this as the damned if you do, damned if you don't coverage). BTW, that prescription I used as an example was over $700 a year - and I know other women who pay more far than that.

P.S. Those 2 students you were talking to should get a refund from their college - they're freaking morons.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm still of the opinion that insurance should be for unexpected accidents or illnesses. BTW, you know we currently are able to put money in a health savings account, tax-free, for medical expenses, right? It's a great tool. Better than insurance for regular planned expenses.

I am all for government subsidized birth control (including vasectomies and hysterectomies) and prenatal/maternity education/care. I think those would be great investments of tax dollars. Or even a worthy charitable goal.

But, that is not at all the same as everyone having insurance that covers an annual check-up, dental care, eye exams, etc. I don't mind at all people purchasing those types of policies if they feel it is worth it to them. I do oppose government mandating such coverage and tax money subsidizing it for those who can't afford it.

Both of those students are English majors (more or less) so I guess Columbia can't be blamed for their fiscal ignorance.

 

[Lynnie]

Why does affordable health care = full-benefit health insurance for all?



That would go a long way to fixing the problems with our current system! Why do people feel the need to "insure" for regular healthcare?



Why in the world would you need insurance to pay for your generic birth control prescription?? Surely it isn't expensive enough to bankrupt you. Not only that, you already know whether you need it or not - it's not catastrophic nor an emergency. Well, I hope it's not an emergency.

I was speaking with a 20-something year old last week who was remaining in college an extra semester because the school pays half her insurance premium. She told me she "had" to have good insurance because of her yearly gyn. exam! Grad. school at Columbia!! I was speechless. Then her BF told me it was a good thing he had the insurance plan because he had gotten so ill last winter he had to go to the doctor. I asked if he were admitted for treatment. No, but he was given a prescription to fill. :shock:

And, these are the interns (figuratively speaking) to the politicians who aren't reading the bill!

 

[30ashopper]

One thing is for sure, there's blood in the water over this thing right now. Democrats bumping into each like bumper cars trying to figure out what they want, how to pay for it, and how to pass it. Republicans are talking with centrist dems about bi-partisan legislation, but every time something gets put down on paper Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid grabs it and rips it up. The CBO is running around proclaiming the current bills as complete and total failures at reigning in costs. It's a comedy of errors up there in Washington right now - all in all pretty entertaining stuff if you ask me. 1994 all over again.

The sad thing is we really do need some reform, but this Congress doesn't seem capable of working together to deliver anything that actually solves even a few the core problems. Politricks as usual apparently.