Who will read the Health Care Bill ??

[4RE KLR]

Isn't it ashamed that our legislators will not even agree to READ the bill before signing it into law.

http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/pledge-to-read


We should vote all their a$$es out of office.

[cobra de capell]

[Ron61]

Steve,

If they did bother to try to read it, most of them wouldn't understand it. I think the only words they comprehend are taxes and raise taxes.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

Most people are in favor of "universal health care" and many other high-sounding pieces of liberal desiderata as they are presented in the abstract with a Utopian vision by the Mainstream Media propagandists.

But no sensible person favors what cannot be afforded and what cannot be achieved when it will only make everyone poorer and ruins the research necessary to truly make progress in health care.

Ask yourself this, or better yet ask someone advocating universal health care this. When someone says he's in favor of helping others with health care, ask him how much he's recently given to charity to help those needing health care. We can safely assume that anyone can be generous with other people's money. Liberals do it all the time and never hesitate to tell us how wonderful they are for doing it. An unwillingness to do these things themselves is why liberals always want the government to do it. And where has this system worked out so far, Russia, England, or Germany? People who can afford the best still come to the US for the best health care.

[KevinW]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

And where has this system worked out so far, Russia, England, or Germany? People who can afford the best still come to the US for the best health care.

You quoted England, so i'll reply.

You've missed the point:

Yes, the US has a world-leading track record for innovation and technological development in healthcare. This is inarguable.

However, if you dont have the resources to fund the care, then this care is denied. (As a foreigner, if i got this wrong, please correct me)

This is the central issue of tax-based vs insurance/privately funded schemes.

In the UK, the policy of successive governments regardless of political doctrine, is that its better to deliver the best that a tax-based system can offer an individual, without regard to his/her ability to pay, rather than to deny care.

One further point: until a few years ago until local laws were tightened, europe (spain in particular) entertained a small band of US health tourists, because tax-based healthcare offered 'free' potentially lifesaving treatment, that these individuals had no means to fund in their home country.

While its easy to scoff and ridicule when you are healthy and earning good $$$$, you will have a totally different perspective when your policy fails to pay out on treating the complications and long term chronic needs that inevitably occurr when you are in the 65+ group.

It is this group, no longer earning, that actually represents the greatest burden of any western healthcare system (~85% of total resources in the uk), however so funded. How to treat, with dignity, those in their twilight years is the central issue that any policy-maker has to wrestle with.

[cobra de capell]

However, if you dont have the resources to fund the care, then this care is denied. (As a foreigner, if i got this wrong, please correct me)

Actually, at this point care is not normally denied. Most Americans that work have private health insurance; the poor that don't work can sign up for Medicaid. Medicare is offered to all seniors at 65 at a relatively low cost. Costs that are not covered by Medicare can be supplemented by a private policy that is also reasonable or both Medicare and supplementary coverage is offered by private insurance - cost is a little higher.

In the real world, medical coverage in the US is great, it just needs tweaking - it's getting expensive due to innovations, law suits and fraud in the case of the government run coverage. I'd say around 100 to 200 tweaks would do the trick - not a complete take over by the federal government.

I recently retired, now on Medicare and supplement insurance - coverage is good and if something drastic happens - coverage is available within that setup with few dollars out of pocket. So, no longer earning is not a problem except for those that cannot even afford Medicare and especially a supplemental policy would have a problem, but most of those people are on Medicaid anyway or can apply for Medicaid coverage at 65.

Another point - the relatively few that went to Spain, etc were those that wanted really cheap treatment, often optional procedures, by low-paid staff.

Here's the deal - the US can readily add those that do not have medical insurance to Medicare or Medicaid, done deal. But, no - the feds want to screw around with the entire system and make everyone pay more to provide coverage for everyone.

One additional important point - in America, no one is rejected that needs medical attention - they simply go to the hospital emergency room or to a clinic. The problem in this areas centers of illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico and within that thousands of Mexican mothers that want their baby to be an American citizen by having the baby in America. This must stop.

Aside from all that - the bottomline is that you live in more or less a Socialist country - we don't. We don't tell people how to live, how to eat, how to exercise, to stop having gay sex, not to take drugs or drink too much alcohol (well, we tell them but many don't listen), so why should we take on the responsibility for their health during their entire life time? People are free to make their own decisions and pay a price if they make bad ones.

In other words the cradle to grave ‘coverage’ by the federal government is simply BS in a capitalist country.

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

[i]

... Most Americans that work have private health insurance; ....

Not even close...
According to national statistics.

There are over 30 million people, currently with no health care at all.

[KevinW]

i enjoyed reading your reply, which was interesting and informative, and I'm happy to stand corrected where in error. However, we hear on this state of the pond, rightly or wrongly, stories of hardworking US citizens with insurance cover that then fails to cover them for chronic long term illness, requiring them to sell up to fund end-of-life care. It is the follow-up long term care needed for those chronically ill which represents the greatest cost burden of any healthcare system. Our system isnt perfect, i dont pretend it is.

Then you lost it in the last paragraph, which is, frankly, just insulting.

Have you ever been to England or Scotland (scotland has different healthcare provision to England and Wales) before and seen our system?

I think perhaps you have an issue with the word socialism.
I am not a socialist, btw, and nor is my country, regardless of who occupies No.10 (Brown/Blair/Cameron). That went in the 70s with Jim Callaghan.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

Not even close...
According to national statistics.

There are over 30 million people, currently with no health care at all.

I stated that "Most Americans that work have private health insurance"

From CNN.....

The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006.

That's 177.4 million in 2007 - may have gone down since that time, but a huge number. Therefore, "Most Americans that work have private health insurance".

I didn't reference those not covered but I doubt that your number is correct - I also doubt that you've excluded illegals. Besides, no one really knows what that number is, except apparently you.

Next time you question a post of mine, furnish a link that supports your numbers or get lost.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by KevinW

i enjoyed reading your reply, which was interesting and informative, and I'm happy to stand corrected where in error. Then you lost it in the last paragraph, which is just insulting.

Have you ever been to England or Scotland (scotland has different healthcare provision to England and Wales) before and seen our system?

I think perhaps you have an issue with the word socialism.
I am not a socialist, btw, and nor is my country, regardless of who occupies No.10.

It's doubtful that a Socialist would own a Cobra.....

Anyway, I've read sufficient material on the web to know that there are "socialist' issues with your health coverage system - for example....

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...t_cancer_drug/

Women Denied Key Breast Cancer Drug
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 January 2005, 18:00 CST

WOMEN with breast cancer still face a postcode lottery over the prescribing of drugs, a damning new report revealed today.

London has some of the best and worst areas for receiving a drug called Herceptin - which can double the survival time for some women with advanced breast cancer.

Southwest London has the best record in the country for giving the drug to women, but north-east London is still among the worst, more than a year after the medicine's watchdog said everyone who is eligible should get it.

It means a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in Wimbledon is almost certain to get the drug, while another in Edmonton, just over 20 miles away, has a less than one in four chance of doing so.

The figures emerged in a report from the influential Public Accounts Committee which shows Britain lags behind the rest of Europe in survival rates.
_______

The figures emerged in a report from the influential Public Accounts Committee which shows Britain lags behind the rest of Europe in survival rates.

Therefore, no thanks to the English system. Denying women in Edmonton seems strange, at best. Picking who will live or not seems like not a good thing to place in the hands of government. I pray that America doesn't not take that route.

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by KevinW

Yes, the US has a world-leading track record for innovation and technological development in healthcare. This is inarguable.

...is that its better to deliver the best that a tax-based system can offer an individual, without regard to his/her ability to pay, rather than to deny care.

Kevin; welcome to the debate. As I am sure you might have noticed, sometimes tempers flare a bit, but I am sure intentions are pure. I quoted 2 bits of text above that are central to the debate here, I think. We have the best track record for innovation and technological advancement. Agreed.
The second bit is telling...I emboldened the part of interest.
I don't want the 'best a tax based system can offer'..I want the best I can afford, period. The problem from here is that 'the best tax based system' requires the intrusion of the government into healthcare. From our perspective the government is absolutely unequipped to administer trash collection, much less life or death decisions. While it can be argued that both sides have some merit, after living with our governments intrusions for a lifetime I believe unequivocally that the negatives outweigh any and all positives for this type of system by a vast margin. This belief is confirmed by even a casual examination of our one government run healthcare system; the Veterans Administration Hospitals. I am sure there are plenty of horror stories at google-tip for you.
Thank you for participating!

[4RE KLR]

CDC

Yep
According to the Board of Insurance and surveys performed by State Farm and All State the numbers I quoted are correct.

They are also based on Americans and not people in the US. When the total population of the US is taken into account the number increases to over 40 million. Of coarse they are not about to "predict" or estimate the actual number of people that are not in this country legally.

You and I both know that many, if not most of those here illegally are not covered by insurance. However, the Government intends to insure them on your(s) (and mime) dime.

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

From our perspective the government is absolutely unequipped to administer trash collection, much less life or death decisions. !

Amen to that!

[4RE KLR]

The part that bothers me the most is what I questioned in the beginning (thread title)

Who do you think will actually read the bill before signing it into law?

63 people have signed it out of (what?) 543?

The point here is not whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for the USA. The question is who will sign it without reading it?

[Dan40]

To clear up some misconceptions on both sides of the Atlantic re: US health care;
Credentials" I have health insurance experience [an agency with over 100 insurance agents in 15 states]
My wife has a Masters in Health Care Finance and is a former hospital CFO.

1., Denial of health care for the poor DOES NOT exist in the US. ANYONE can walk [or be carried] into any hospital ER and WILL be treated BY LAW regardless of their ability to pay. The "POOR" are quite familiar with this law. Hospital ER's are commonly used as the 'family doctor' by the poor. Liberal do-gooders say this is 'demeaning' to the poor.

2. Non-payment by insurance companies. We have never had in force coverage denied by any insurance company. 10's of 1000's of policies.
That is not to say that companies don't drag their feet and investigate throughly to be sure they should pay a claim. All inquiries by a company are IMMEDIATELY thought to be a denial of a claim. That's part of the problem.
The other part of the insurance problem is the public attempting to save premiums by buying "Schedule of Benefit" policies. That type policy lists various illnesses and procedures and the amount the policy will pay for each different problem. That amount has no relationship to the actual charges. Say the policy stated $12000.00 for Gall Bladder removal. And the charges were $8000.[ VERY unlikely] The insured would receive a check from the ins. co. for $12,000.00. However, in the real world the actual charges would be more around $50,000.00. The ins, co. would still send out a check for $12,000.00. Thereafter the 'insured' will scream to all who will listen that the insurance refused to pay. Premiums on those policies could be $25 to $50 a month for a FAMILY. As an agency we would never write a "Schedule of Benefits" policy despite the clamor from many agents about how many of them they could sell. It is 'junk' insurance.

3. 30,000,000 uninsured in the US. That number is controversial in both its accuracy and whom it supposedly counts. There ARE NOT 30,000,000 US Citizens that are uninsured.

RE: an above post, even if there were 30 million uninsured US Citizens. That would be 30 out of over 300 million so the "MOST Americans are covered," would certainly apply.

One true thing is the there is a gap in LONG TERM CARE. But only in CUSTODIAL CARE, not "Acute" care. Acute care being the active treatment of an injury or illness.

The problems in US Health Care are not in quality of care or of uninsured Citizens. The problems are in skyrocketing costs.
Yes changes are needed, but scrapping a system that works extremely well BUT is very expensive is not the answer. The present leftist proposals want to reinvent the wheel rather than patch a flat tire.

[4RE KLR]

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

Why is that important? Voting is a political act - the blue dog democrats will step in and save the today, hopefully.

[Gregg(What's his name)?]

Steve,

I will read the document. When Congress reads the Declaration of Independence!

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

AGAIN, the thread is about:

WHO WILL READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE THEY SIGN IT

Either stay on topic or start a different thread!

Could be that one of the laws they already passed without reading, makes it illegal to read a bill before passing it. 'Vote' has been replaced by 'passed'.

ALL, D, R or I that vote for any bill without reading it should not only not be reelected but should be impeached and sent home, FOREVER, for malfeasance.



Was that close 'nuff to your topic???

[cobra de capell]

President Obama: "Good morning, doctor. What's it look like?"

Doctor: "Good morning, Mr. President. I'm afraid the news is not good. In fact, it's absolutely essential that we schedule the surgery for this morning. I've reserved the operating suite and a first class surgical team. They're ready to go now."

President Obama: "Now? Now? Right now?"

Doctor: "Yes, sir. In order to keep this from becoming life threatening, it's essential that we act immediately. Even the slightest delay could increase the risks unacceptably."

President Obama:"What about a review, calling in a specialist for a second opinion?"

Doctor: "Sorry, sir. No time. We need to cut, now. All your surgeons agree. Surgery is the only answer. Granted that the procedure is experimental, but we're comfortable with that. The team is expert. They've studied this for months and are very confident that they can do this."

President Obama: "And if we don't?"

Doctor: "Well, sir, we estimate that this surgery will become effective in 2013, by doing so it will prevent a complete collapse sometime after that."

President Obama: "You're telling me that I need surgery now, right this minute, that doesn't take effect for four years to prevent harm 'sometime after that' and that the procedure is an experiment and you guys have never done this before?"

Doctor: "Yes, sir, but it's a real crisis..."

President Obama, after a short but thoughtful pause: "Are you out of your friggin' mind, man?

"You want to put me under the knife, major surgery, right this minute, without a second opinion, without any preparation at all, in a procedure that won't even take effect for four years, to prevent possible damage even further down the road?

"You're nuts. Get out of here. You're a complete quack. Find me someone who knows something about medicine! Get…"