Reply With Quote
There is a lot of red tape (not government-related, either), and appointment schedules are booked months in advance.
So, without revealing the surgery or the condition, to what do you attribute the wait?
There is a lot of red tape (not government-related, either), and appointment schedules are booked months in advance.
ES, I or I don't think anyone else is attacking you. Health
issues are very personal to everyone. And serious
health issues affect a family as a whole. I would never
attack anyone over it.
Some health issues can't be fixed by anyone. Sadly.
Money wouldn't help. And sadly government wouldn't
help. And sadly government has been proven to be an
impediment to good health, in my opinion. And some
doctors under government programs have sit themselves
up as the arbitrators of another's health or well being
or treatment thereof. Even to the point of sending
people home to die without even trying to help in
their last days. All in the name of budget restraints.
And yes I do know some insurance does similar things.
But you do have recourse.
I guess we need to define life-saving then.
I think Mr. McCreith's malignant brain tumor, over which he waited 4 months for a diagnostic MRI and then months longer for a consult with a neurologist is an unreasonable and unfortunate result of socialized medicine.
Is your condition that urgent?
I'm beginning to believe it's your situation that anecdotal. Because, I've never heard of anyone waiting 9 months for life-saving surgery...unless the wait is necessary (or unavoidable) and not simply bureaucratic.
Well, I don't think society is going to let us just kill the executives of malfeasant insurance companies, so some kind of reform is needed. People can't just pay premiums for years, and then get abandoned by their insurance when they get sick and left to die. To me, that's negligent manslaughter with fraud mixed in.
But part of the problems in the system are because market principles aren't being used, not because the government isn't regulating enough.
Mine is not that urgent. However, the issues with Mr. McCreith also exist in this country, especially the long waits for consults.
"market principles aren't being used"
market principles work great in text books and academia.
which market principles aren't being used today in health care? and why aren't they being followed?
like any for-profit enterprise, health care delivers the least amount of product, ideally zero, for the highest price. That's a fundamental principle.
Okay then.
If they do, it's not because we don't have socialized medicine. If anything, it's because the lack of tort reform and government meddling into health care had resulted in a lack of qualified specialists.
But, even at that, if you take away the 4 month wait -- for the initial MRI -- wait times for specialists are usually on a priority basis. Your general prac ioner, primary care physician, or whatever, has some la ude in moving you up the priority list should he deem it unwise to let you wait for the next available appointment.
Most specialist build time into their schedules for just such emergencies.
I'll relate a recent experience. I had a relative who, during a routine physical, it was discovered had a funky looking mole on their back.
Primary care physician referred him to a dermatologist, the appointment was set for the next week. Dermatologist didn't like the looks of the mole, excised it and submitted to a pathologist for biopsy. 4 business days later, he was told the biopsy was negative for melanoma or any other malignancy.
14 days from start to finish. And, I don't have that great an insurance either. In fact, I'll probably have some hefty co-pays and deductibles to meet but, the point is, ability to pay those was never a consideration. I'll get the bills and make arrangements to pay them out.
Conservatives address health care
By Barbara Barrett
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A group of conservative Republican senators put forth a plan Thursday that seeks to ensure every American has health insurance, a cause long championed by the political left.
The bill encourages families to find their own health coverage and offers tax credits of up to $5,400 per family. But advocates for the uninsured say the proposal could jeopardize low-income families and chronically ill patients, as well as the employment-based health-care system, which now covers 65 percent of Americans.
"It's time for a major debate on health-care insurance," Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said in a statement. "Not enough people have access to affordable health care, and the Congress has not done enough about this crisis."
Martinez was joined in introducing the bill by fellow Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Bob Corker of Tennessee.
The bill could bring health coverage to millions of Americans. But Burr said it also would begin taxing the value of health-care plans that many employers now offer workers, a controversial provision sure to face opposition. Such benefits are now tax-free, both for the employer and the worker.
"Our aim is to remove inequities in our tax laws and make tax relief for health insurance available to everyone," Martinez said.
The legislation would offer special tax credits to help cover the cost of health insurance and other health bills: $2,160 per person, up to a maximum of $5,400 per family.
The legislation, called the Every American Insured Health Act, comes amid debate this week in the House and Senate over the renewal of a states-run children's health insurance program, which Democrats want to expand to cover more children.
Polls show health care as one of the top concerns of voters.
But Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy for Families USA, an advocacy group in Washington, said the idea behind the new legislation isn't terribly new. Republicans have long been working to dismantle the employment-based health system that most Americans now use, she said.
"When we eliminate that tax break for [the system], we should do that with extreme caution," Stoll said.
Advocates for the uninsured fear that employers could drop health benefits altogether. And for many families, $5,400 won't buy a lot of health insurance.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
===================
So let's see. A family of 4 buys (goes out of pocket) for health insurance which costs what $12K/year, probably with $3000 deductible. And then next April 15th, they can deduct $5400 off their tax bill. So they are out of pocket for all the insurance (if they can find it), and out of pocket for the withholding taxes, of which they get back $5400. I can see this being jumped on by millions of poor families.
This still leaves the problems:
1. Finding insurance, esp if someone in your family is chronically ill.
2. Keeping the insurance from being cancelled.
3. Paying for insurance if you lose your job.
4. Fighting huge battles and delays with your insurance company that will do everything possible to NOT pay you.
yep, the Repugs are for for-profit, rip-off health care. And what is the hit on federal tax revenues for $5400 tax credits? Of course, the Repugs reducing tax revenues is all about their hidden agenda of "drowning the fed govt in a bathtub".
Last edited by boutons_; 07-27-2007 at 06:25 PM.
I heard some numbers today about socialized health care countries vs, the USA. I had to do with deadly diseases like cancer. Anyway, the survivability of all these were something like 15% to 50% better in the USA rather than any the socialized medicine countries. The reason being not having to wait as long for care of things like breast cancer, where the quicker it’s treated, the better success of curing it is.
It was also explained why the USA had lower life expectancies. It was because of diet, crime rates, auto accidents, etc. As Americans, we drive more miles per capita than any other country. These driving death numbers become part of the life expectancy statistics.
Here's the kind of for-profit/minized-care bull insurance company fight you don't have with a not-for-profit national health care system:
July 29, 2007
Obstacles to Care
Doing Battle With the Insurance Company in a Fight to Stay Alive
By DENISE GRADY
A glorious blend of forces came together to save Gordon Hendrickson’s life: smart doctoring, luck, kindness, and his own wisdom and abundant grit.
Only his insurance company tried to stand in the way.
Five years ago, when Mr. Hendrickson was 66, routine blood work found something amiss with his liver. One test led to another, and then to an awful diagnosis: pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest kinds.
His doctors thought he was among the lucky few with pancreatic cancer found early enough to be cured by surgery. But they warned him not to have the surgery in his home city, Albuquerque. They said the operation he needed, a Whipple procedure, was so risky and complicated that it should be done only by a surgeon who performed it often and at a hospital with many similar cases. But neither was available locally.
Albuquerque’s population was less than half a million, and the entire state of New Mexico had fewer than two million people, not enough to give local surgeons much practice with a relatively uncommon operation.
An experienced surgeon and hospital can significantly increase the odds of survival for people with pancreatic cancer, studies have found. Lower complication rates can also minimize the cost.
Mr. Hendrickson, a retired administrator for the YMCA and the Spina Bifida Association, had taken care in choosing his internist, Dr. Kristine Bordenave. They liked and trusted each other, and one morning, Dr. Bordenave canceled her other appointments to spend hours on the phone finding a major cancer center that would quickly admit him. It turned out to be the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
But his insurer, the Presbyterian Health Plan, refused to pay for treatment in Houston. The company insisted that the operation be done in Albuquerque and sent him a list of five local surgeons.
He went to M. D. Anderson anyway. But because Presbyterian would not pay, the hospital required a $5,000 deposit. Mr. Hendrickson and his wife had little money and normally threw away any credit cards mailed to them. But his wife happened to have one new card that she had not gotten around to cutting up yet. They decided that this was the one time when they should not worry about money, and they used the card to pay the deposit.
“I was a person who wanted to live,” Mr. Hendrickson said, adding that he assumed it would be cheaper for the insurance company to let him die.
The surgeon at M. D. Anderson told him that without an operation he had virtually no chance of surviving, and even with an operation his chances would be slim. Despite the long odds and the high cost, insurers cover the Whipple operation in patients who are candidates for it — less than a quarter of those with pancreatic cancer — because it offers the only hope of a cure and can prolong life.
Figuring that a small chance was better than none, Mr. Hendrickson had the surgery. It went well. But he was left with more than $80,000 in medical bills, which Presbyterian Health Plan refused to pay.
Dr. Bordenave said she was appalled: “No patient fighting for their life should have to fight for their insurance too.”
Mr. Hendrickson waged a long battle with Presbyterian. “I fought with the insurance company for over a year,” he said.
After Presbyterian rejected two appeals, he took his case to a state review board, where he represented himself because he could not afford a lawyer. Presbyterian showed up with two lawyers, a doctor and a nurse. Dr. Bordenave and a gastroenterologist from Albuquerque testified on Mr. Hendrickson’s behalf.
Mr. Hendrickson and his wife had studied the details of their insurance policy and had also learned — with the help of M. D. Anderson — that in the previous five years, the five surgeons Presbyterian had recommended had performed a total of five Whipple operations.
Ultimately, Mr. Hendrickson won the case, and Presbyterian Health Plan paid the entire bill.
A spokesman for Presbyterian said the case had led the company to allow more patients to be treated at high-volume centers if there was evidence that the results would be better.
Mr. Hendrickson said it was “tough to stand up to attorneys and doctors. I don’t know why I was able to do it. I’m stubborn, I guess. I don’t like to be told what to do. Too many people, I know, they just let it go and they die.”
In June, Mr. Hendrickson went back to M. D. Anderson for a five-year checkup with his surgeon, a visit paid for by Presbyterian.
“He told me that I was cured of pancreatic cancer,” Mr. Hendrickson said in an e-mail message. “I shouted from the rooftops.”
=================
There are 10s of 1000s of stories like this every year, causing incredible stress and anger on people with serious and/or fatal diseases, with the insurance companies running up huge expenses in resources to fight/disqualify their own clients' claims, the costs which of course are charged back to the policy holders. Total insanity.
^^The point being boutons. He got the operation at the place
he wanted. Under National Health, he would not have gotten it and
if he had come to the U.S. for it, you can bet your bottom dollar
National Health would not have paid for it, period. End of story.
And that is a fact. You can carp all you want about our system
and it is expensive, but it is one of the best.
Not surprising.
Not surprising.It was also explained why the USA had lower life expectancies. It was because of diet, crime rates, auto accidents, etc. As Americans, we drive more miles per capita than any other country. These driving death numbers become part of the life expectancy statistics.
I never understood why it is thought that the people who brought you the Post Office and the DMV could do better.
I never understood why it is thought that the people who brought you the Post Office and the DMV could do better.
Well, we haven't completely privatized the most ferocious fighting Armed forces (government run I might add) on God's green earth yet, but were trying....and don't those Republican Senators who won't give poor kids insurance have a very generous Congressional health plan that, eh,gawd...is run by the Government....
dan, Republican Senators or dimm-o-crap Senators for that
matter do not give you anything. It is paid for by the
citizens of this country by taxes taken from them. Just
because someone has a low income doesn't mean they
cant afford to take their kids to the doctor. It just means
they have to spend their money in a different manner.
You know like not buying that new color TV or game for
the kids. You would think we are in a health crisis because
kids don't have insurance. With few exceptions most
children see a doctor for colds and minor things. Not
major illness. Immunization programs should be
mandatory and paid for by government. But then you
have the same groups carping about forcing shots on
kids and that these shots cause all kinds of side effects.
Which is not the case. When they do cause side effects
it is rare. Most doctors will let people pay for care over
time if the patient will just talk to the doctor about it.
.Just because someone has a low income doesn't mean they
cant afford to take their kids to the doctor. It just means
they have to spend their money in a different manner.
You know like not buying that new color TV or game for
the kids
Hey ray what if they don't have the money for new color tv either? What if they are dirt poor? I really enjoy how most conservatives slip in the caveatwhen talking about the poor in this country. As you notice ray doesn't want to sound like a heartless son of a b*tch so he will slip in the ' It just means they have to spend their money in a different manner.
You know like not buying that new color TV or game for
the kids' remark. See that way ray can get away with saying his tax money shouldn't go towards helping the poor. He can now attack poor people...
July 30, 2007
An Immoral Philosophy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem — “After all, you just go to an emergency room” — and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we’ll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.
The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage — a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.
Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.
So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?
( and never forget that dubya's Medicare bill made it IL- ing-LEGAL for the feds to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma. )
Well, here’s what Mr. Bush said after explaining that emergency rooms provide all the health care you need: “They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through Schip; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”
Now, why should Mr. Bush fear that insuring uninsured children would lead to a further “federalization” of health care, even though nothing like that is actually in either the Senate plan or the House plan? It’s not because he thinks the plans wouldn’t work. It’s because he’s afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can’t do the same for adults.
And there you have the core of Mr. Bush’s philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it’s hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.
This sounds like a caricature, but it isn’t. The truth is that this good-is-bad philosophy has always been at the core of Republican opposition to health care reform. Thus back in 1994, William Kristol warned against passage of the Clinton health care plan “in any form,” because “its success would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas.”
But it has taken the fight over children’s health insurance to bring the perversity of this philosophy fully into view.
There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you’re afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.
And the public understands that. According to a recent Georgetown University poll, 9 in 10 Americans — including 83 percent of self-identified Republicans — support an expansion of the children’s health insurance program.
There is, it seems, more basic decency in the hearts of Americans than is dreamt of in Mr. Bush’s philosophy.
============
You're doing a heckuva job, dubya!
Your right, it's a very conveeeeeeeenient guilt avoidance technique....let the kids starve, and no free- because it's their fault their parents have ed up spending priorities...
They all do it. I am surprised nobody has caught on to that but all of them will provide multiple caveats. Especially when talking about the CHIPS program you will surely encounter the "well they shouldn't spend money on tennis shoes' , or ' if they don't buy plasma TVs they could afford it'.. etc...
..don't forget the dreaded lone-star card...everyone's buying beer and smokes...
...people would be amazed if they knew how many kids don't even get enough to eat during the summer school break because for many, theirs more month than money....
ing kids need to work!!
So, when's World Vision, Save The Children, and UNICEF gonna set up shop in some American hole?
Seriously, where are all these starving children?
Yoni has implied no starving children live in the USA..only kids that are very,very hungry..
I haven't implied it, I've flat out stated there are no starving children living in the United States of America except those from whom food is withheld by criminal act.
There's a huge difference between hungry and starving. Nobody voluntarily starves in this country. No- ing-body.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
