GOP Set to Propose Its Own Health Bill

[DarrinS]

"private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost."

YOU LIE!

medicare/medicaid has overhead of about 3%, while private insurance overheads run 15% - 20%+.

In related news, the US postal service is kicking ass and taking names.

[ChumpDumper]

The average healthcare bill is cheaper than a cellphone bill

I have to call bull on that one.

[Winehole23]

In related news, the US postal service is kicking ass and taking names.

The correct word is unrelated.

Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s.

[Wild Cobra]

Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment

by Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff
Originally printed at http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.
An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

One critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.
"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.
But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.

Health plan hasn't evolved?
The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.

Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.

"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."
Patients like Wagner can appeal a decision if they are denied coverage. Wagner appealed twice but lost both times.
However, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. Doctors said that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.

No kidding. Want an example of nationalized health care, look at the Oregon Plan.

It really stinks.

[hope4dopes]

Thats an unsubstantiated myth if I've ever seen one. But if you can provide actual figures to back it up I would gladly see them.

can you provide figures that disprove it.

[spursncowboys]

The correct word is unrelated.

Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successful

[ChumpDumper]

can you provide figures that disprove it.

You made the initial claim.

Back it up.

[Wild Cobra]

I know where they come from. And all those companies are ready to adapt to different conditions. After all, all these drug companies have no problem selling their same medicines to other countries at 1/3 the cost they sell them to the US. But all those companies do provide an actual healthcare service, much like a doctor.

This argument doesn't work. Yes, they sell to other companies cheaper, but they have a market that they otherwise wouldn't have, and that market has no right to sue in court. Knowing you have no liability costs allow a much cheaper product.

How do you justify the for-profit insurance company though?

Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successful

Yep, liberals love Amtrak and Light Rail.

Are their any light rail systems anywhere that are not subsidized with tax dollars?

[Winehole23]

...

[spursncowboys]

This may be true of R&D, but is not true for health care. Just compare the cost of Medicare to private insurance.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=21

Medicare gets free marketing. They don't have to pay employees. There is no control between the two. Plus the cost of medicare is what the person is paying, not what it costs.

[hope4dopes]

You made the initial claim.

Back it up.

uhh no I didn't

[Winehole23]

Did you get that from the onion? Next you'll say Amtrak is successful

I never said the USPS was successful. I never said anything about Amtrak.

Since there is no public subsidy for the USPS and hasn't been for a long time, the comparison with Amtrak and health reform is unsustainable. The USPS is irrelevant to this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

uhh no I didn't

In every category, the private sector outpaces the public and does it for less the cost.

There's your claim.

Back it up.

[Winehole23]

Medicare gets free marketing. They don't have to pay employees. There is no control between the two. Plus the cost of medicare is what the person is paying, not what it costs.

Yes, Medicare delivers health care much more cheaply than the private sector, for a variety of reasons including lower overhead. That was my point. Thanks for backing me up.

[spursncowboys]

I never said the USPS was successful. I never said anything about Amtrak.

Since there is no public subsidy for the USPS and hasn't been for a long time, the comparison with Amtrak and health reform is unsustainable. The USPS is irrelevant to this thread.

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.

[MannyIsGod]

can you provide figures that disprove it.

There's a reason they call it burden of proof.

[ChumpDumper]

Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person.

Whereas private insurers want to spend as much money as possible on one person.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.

Such a nationalist.

[hope4dopes]

There's your claim.

Back it up.

notice the different names peanut.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine. Like in Oregon, they don't want to spend too much money on one person. This IMO is a preview of our national healthcare. Instead of everyone having the great american healthcare, everyone will have a mediocre blend, and maybe even our doctors could leave, like Indians are doing.

Can you simply provide figures to back up what you said? There's no need for anything else. If what you said is true, then I'm sure the information supports it. Why all the song and dance?

[MannyIsGod]

notice the different names peanut.

So then you don't agree?

[ElNono]

This argument doesn't work. Yes, they sell to other companies cheaper, but they have a market that they otherwise wouldn't have, and that market has no right to sue in court. Knowing you have no liability costs allow a much cheaper product.

Really? I'd like evidence of this. You can sue drug manufacturers in pretty much any country I know of.

Profit = incentive to develope the newest and best hot product.

The problem is that middle-men companies do not develop or produce anything.
Tell me, what is the newest best hot product from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc?

[Winehole23]

Ok. Fine. However, can you find a govt. program in the last 60 years that costed the amount of what it was projected to cost? This goes to the cost of socialized medicine.

Why should I? I'm not arguing for the proposed reforms, or for any of the claims proponents make for what it will cost. You don't have to convince me that gov't forecasts and estimates err on the side of optimism.

I was just pointing out the disparity of costs as between public/private. Medicare slays the private sector on cost.

This goes to refute your blanket assertion upstream that the private sector does everything cheaper.

[spursncowboys]

Yes, Medicare delivers health care much more cheaply than the private sector, for a variety of reasons including lower overhead. That was my point. Thanks for backing me up.

But's it's not cheaper. It's just cheaper to the patient because Ours, our children, and our grandchildren's taxes are going to pay for it.