Health Care Reform Debate-Megathread

[Slam_Bradley]

Should we get single payer health insurance or any plan that is too much of a "free health care plan"...well, wait until you see what happens to utilization. Last Friday a local clinic had a "free" flu shot clinic (I put "free" in quotes because it was a county clinic and thus our county taxes ultimately paid for it...there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Guess what happened? They were out of vaccine by noon. It's a microcosm of what will happen with "free" health care overall...shortages and, ultimately, rationing.

And yet there are shortages and rationing under the much-vaunted (but not by anyone outside the U.S.) system we have now. There is a shortage of flu vaccine virtually every year. So using your logic, the capitalist system is a failure because it's not keeping up with the demand.

My sons are both very susceptible to lung infections. So I was going to get them the H1N1 vaccine, because it tend to settle in the lungs. It's not available. Not here. I have insurance. My private physician can't get it. Yep...capitalism is working really swell there.

This "rationing" bugaboo is a straw-man. It a large portion of the population isn't able to get health care because they can't afford it and have no insurance, you have de facto rationing anyway.

[king mob]

Homeopathy can't. I'd say that homeopathy is crap concentrate, but I hate to use the word 'concetrate' in the same sentence. You'd be hard-pressed to imagine a more scientifically useless treatment than homeopathy.

And how is it a good thing that it's only used for minor stuff? Obviously they're not going to treat, say, AIDS with a homepathic regimen of water-pills. Approving its use for minor problems just means that taxpayers are paying out small amounts of their own money multiple times over for absolute nonsense. It's like taking the position that government subsidization of faith healing is OK so long as it's only used for head colds and acid reflux.



As far as I, and any scientifically-minded person is concerned, there is no room for debate. The only acceptable answer is 'no.'

It's a minor part of treatment and although it obviously isn't used for major conditions, it provides some care for patients so why not use it as it costs us very little?

All the information is here.

[mortari]

If we can have a single payer or public option it would cost less than I spend now on the same.

Only problem is that EVERYONe would be covered.

How can that be a bad thing?

[Loren]

It's a minor part of treatment and although it obviously isn't used for major conditions, it provides some care for patients so why not use it as it costs us very little?

Because it's medically useless. It's 100% a waste of money. They're giving out placebos, and getting charged pharmacy prices for it. I'm half-amazed that homeopathic providers don't get charged with fraud for what they do.

Is it that hard for the government to only cover treatment that's actually scientifically proven, and not complete and utter hogwash? If you give the OK to homeopathy, the most ridiculous of all the 'alternative' treatments, then that's just an open door to covering every other stupid and unproven treatment. Cumulatively, that means taxpayers end up paying for lots of worthless nonsense.

[mikekerr3]

It's a minor part of treatment and although it obviously isn't used for major conditions, it provides some care for patients so why not use it as it costs us very little?

All the information is here.

Because it doesn't work, and keeps people from seeking medical care from legitimate sources.

Homeopathy is in the same league with Voodoo, except the practitioners look more respectable.

[Charles RB]

What I take away from this article is that the public option is an important piece of the puzzle.

Yeah, that definately points to the "mandatory insurance" version of the US bill as being a horror waiting to happen.

As far as I, and any scientifically-minded person is concerned, there is no room for debate. The only acceptable answer is 'no.'

For homeopathy, fine. Acupuncture, however, gets covered because tests show it releases endorphins and can ease symptoms of things like chronic pain.

This "rationing" bugaboo is a straw-man. It a large portion of the population isn't able to get health care because they can't afford it and have no insurance, you have de facto rationing anyway.

I do wonder why a number of Americans seem frightened by rationing when they already have a form of rationing.

and keeps people from seeking medical care from legitimate sources.

If they're getting it on the NHS, they've gone to the legitimate sources (GP, hospital etc) and would likely be getting it in conjunction with proper care, on grounds that "it'll keep the daft sod calmer".

"It doesn't work" is an argument against the NHS covering homeopathy, but you've used a rubbish one there.

[7thangel]

Beck hosts FBI expert to compare health reform effort to the actions of "a hostage taker"

Beck invokes civil rights marchers having fire hoses turned on them to spur opposition to health reform



more lies and misinformation...and ridiculous leaps in logic.

[dupersuper]

Beck hosts FBI expert to compare health reform effort to the actions of "a hostage taker"

Beck invokes civil rights marchers having fire hoses turned on them to spur opposition to health reform



more lies and misinformation...and ridiculous leaps in logic.

If we're lucky he'll get permanet laryngitis...and it won't be covered by his plan.

[king mob]

Because it's medically useless. It's 100% a waste of money. They're giving out placebos, and getting charged pharmacy prices for it. I'm half-amazed that homeopathic providers don't get charged with fraud for what they do.

Some are but as shown, it's a small part of what the NHS provides and if it actually does help people with minor conditions then what's the problem if they're not being charged anything for it beyond what they'd pay in taxes for the NHS anyhow.

Why shouldn't the NHS try treatments that aren't conventional such as acupuncture, if there's postitve signs of response from such treatment.

Is it that hard for the government to only cover treatment that's actually scientifically proven, and not complete and utter hogwash? If you give the OK to homeopathy, the most ridiculous of all the 'alternative' treatments, then that's just an open door to covering every other stupid and unproven treatment. Cumulatively, that means taxpayers end up paying for lots of worthless nonsense.

That's quite clearly not going to happen if it's regulated, and the NHS regulates this part of their treatment heavily, which is more than can be said if one decides to go private and then they'll be told all the bollocks under the sun.

[TheJLab]

As a Canadian I tend to get nervous about my dental and eye ware insurance when I switch employers. I couldn't even imagine feeling the same way about general healthcare.

That being said, I watch and read US politics both for the lulz and for the insight into debating and PR tactics. As far as I'm concerned, insurance companies actually have death panels, no one but my doctor has ever had input on what my coverage is.

The latest turn of events, forcing consumers to purchase insurance is insane. Mandatory driving insurance makes sense, as I can opt just not to drive, I can't opt into being without medical issues.

[7thangel]

Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’

In the state of New York, insurers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims. So when Guardian, a major insurance company, was faced with the high-cost claims of 37 year-old muscular dystrophy patient Ian Pearl, it decided to cancel its entire line of coverage in the state of New York rather than pay for Pearl’s claims. In an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, it was revealed that one executive at the company refers to patients like Pearl as “dogs” that the company can simply “get rid of”:

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s. In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl “dogs” that the company could “get rid of.”

A federal court quickly ruled that the company’s actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

The cost of Pearl’s annual treatment is approximately $1 million a year. The Pearl family is unable to receive the quality health care that Ian needs. “One-on-one skilled nursing is essential,” Mrs. Pearl said.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...elf-of-high-c/

an excerpt

He said Guardian has for years used private investigators to find pretexts to deny coverage. An investigator came to their door, he said, to get proof that he does in fact fly back and forth to New York and that his two-employee company really operates in New York. Investigators went to Mr. Pearl's job sites.

"The insurance companies are cheating in order to have obscene profits," he said.

Guardian, a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over $292 million in 2007. It paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves, according to its annual report. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

The insurer also canceled similar policies in New Jersey and South Carolina, and earlier ceased offering any health plans in Colorado, but did not cancel all of the policies in every state in which they were offered, said John Fried, the Pearls' attorney. The company took the action only against those plans where claims were highest, he said.

The insurer discontinued the coverage late last year, but was required by law to continue paying for Ian Pearl's care for another year.

In 2006, Guardian began an initiative called Moving Forward, which was "designed to increase Guardian's competitive position by reducing what it paid out in claims," wrote Judge William Pauley, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in his summary judgment in Guardian's favor in July.

The move would help the company lower overall rates to compete better for more business.

The judge found that the company had not violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), because it canceled entire policy lines. The Pearls also claimed Guardian violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but the judge found that only HHS can enforce that law and that private citizens cannot sue under it.

[carabas]

Okay, that's just sick. Revolting.
If these bastards are willing to go to those lengths, just canceling whole lines to avoid actually having to paying out once in a while, then clearly any health plan that is not a full and complete single player plan is simple something they are going to wigle out of on technicalities.

Why are these people, and I use the word losely, in the health business anyway? War profeteering was full?

[Mac Danny]

If you are against health care reform or your taxes going to fund some other deadbeats problems then please endorse the following, other poor uses of your tax dollars.

Disband the police force, Why should you pay to protect your neighbors stuff? If you want protection buy a gun and protect yourself.

End public schools. Education isn't for everyone, why should the government mandate that my kid learn? it's up to me to decide what my kid learns or not!

Disband the Fire Department. If my idiot neighbor is going to set his house on fire, why should I pay to put it out? he's the idiot!

Disband the Military. If I want to protect my country it is my right to do so, but don't spend my hard earned dollars on a military. Especially if they are going to do things like "aid foreign countries"

End the court system. Who has a better way to decide right and wrong than the average American! My taxes shouldn't pay for your legal dispute.

While we are reforming health care, lets close the monopoly exception for health insurance companies. Lets get a little competition in this "free Market"

IN regards to rationing, we have it now? How many times have you been turned down for a procedure or test because your insurance wouldn't cover it? How many people have a cap on what their insurance will cover? I know I do and it sucks.

Every year I get 100,000 in dental insurance coverage. If i exceed that it's out of my pocket. I am lucky I don't have a similar cap on health insurance.

Resistance to health care reform is out of fear. Fear of the devil you don't know.

Bottom Line, 45,000 people die every year from not having enough money to pay for their medical bills. If you are not for Health care reform then you are for killing 45,000 Americans every year.

[Loren]

Every year I get 100,000 in dental insurance coverage. If i exceed that it's out of my pocket.

Best to hold off on those diamond-studded dentures, then. Or at least spread the expense across two years.

[The Chief5425]

Bottom Line, 45,000 people die every year from not having enough money to pay for their medical bills. If you are not for Health care reform then you are for killing 45,000 Americans every year.

Your source for this?