Notifications
Clear all

email from the Pres

Page 4 / 7
 

promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 6:34 pm  

Life is not a conspiracy. If it was there would be a shortage of tinfoil hats.


ReplyQuote
Linda from Michigan
(@Linda_from_Michigan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 550
August 1, 2009 6:40 pm  

I'm not saying it is. I am saying it is just business on the pharms part. Pure and simple. Perhaps individuals that work for them - scientists - have more in mind than the all mighty dollar, but the pharms are the ones that decide what they market. Palliative vs Cure. $$$$ over the long term vs honorably curing a disease/erradicating plights. And how about all those folks (politicians) who have their portfolio full of pharms?


ReplyQuote
promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 6:49 pm  

Yep, those freakin' pharms making money hand over foot. Employing people. Finding cures and better ways to keep us living longer. It's all their fault.

Anything you wanna say about the lawyers and all those lawsuits that keep the cost of going to doctor or maybe are factored into the cost of producing medicine. How about these guys. You think that might be a factor also. Ever wonder why window blinds have warnings not to put the string around your neck.

Trial lawyers are a big factor in cost of lots of product and yep, medicine and drugs are on their hit list too. I should add it costs a lot to defend a case taken by a trial attorney that is working on contingency. Ever thought about that cost.

By the way, I'm not against attorneys.


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 7:09 pm  

If medicare and medicaid are as screwed up as you think they are, and I agree, why would you think this would all get better with the government taking over health insurance.

And how about some other options to lower cost. How about tort reform? Hard to happen when the trial lawyers are one of the biggest donors to the Dems. How about insurance companies having to compete across state lines? Those are starters and don't involve the government being the provider.

from what i read the gov't is not the only provider (medicare and medicaid) but an option. but, if there is an affordable option, i can see a lot of private insurers suddenly becoming more competitive.

the gov't is not "taking over", it is trying to create an option for those who cannot afford insurance on the open market.

edited to include the fact that i agree with the fact that tort review (or reform) is something that could certainly help matters. for example, pres. obama talked about multiple tests - many docs are afraid not to miss any tests lest they misdiagnose and be sued. it's tough to be a doctor, i am sure that malpractice insurance is huge cost of caring for their patients. perhaps this can also be brought into the whole health care reform debate.


ReplyQuote
Jules
(@Jules)
Trusted Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 541
August 1, 2009 7:10 pm  

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

Us. The U.S. population at large.

Overweight. Sedentary. Smokers. Drinkers. Druggers. Poor diet. Diabetes and complications. Heart disease. Hypertension. Lifestyle-related health problems. But everything should be paid for and any adverse outcome must be someone else's fault.

It is going to be hard or impossible to effectively factor personal responsibility into controlling costs of health care without clever attorney's finding ways in which whatever rule violates their client's rights because of X, Y, or Z excuse.

Ideas, anyone?


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 7:16 pm  

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

Us. The U.S. population at large.

Overweight. Sedentary. Smokers. Drinkers. Druggers. Poor diet. Diabetes and complications. Heart disease. Hypertension. Lifestyle-related health problems. But everything should be paid for and any adverse outcome must be someone else's fault.

It is going to be hard or impossible to effectively factor personal responsibility into controlling costs of health care without clever attorney's finding ways in which whatever rule violates their client's rights because of X, Y, or Z excuse.

Ideas, anyone?

reading through the plan, i note that preventive care and checkups are to be covered, encouraged, and preferred over catastrophic care. what you are describing is what we have now. lifestyle choices - we are all responsible for ourselves. but i have a friend who just told me today that she simply cannot afford a doctor visit for something that could turn into something bigger, she does not have affordable insurance. if she could take care of that now, and not end up in the er, i'd be happy.

edited to say: unlike me, she is an athlete.


ReplyQuote
Linda from Michigan
(@Linda_from_Michigan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 550
August 1, 2009 7:16 pm  

That is why I believe preventative and alternative treatements need to be covered If they were and people took responsibilty for themselves there may not be as much disease. Some insurance companies already offer certain types of preventative care for no additional costs. Others have a clause where if you smoke you have to pay an extra amount every month for your premium.


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 7:18 pm  

hi linda from michigan - we were posting at the same time, but that is included in the proposal.


ReplyQuote
promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 7:21 pm  

there is absolutely no indication that the democratic majority wish to make tort reform a part of this plan. none whatsoever.


ReplyQuote
Linda from Michigan
(@Linda_from_Michigan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 550
August 1, 2009 7:22 pm  

Anita,

Good. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Linda from Michigan
(@Linda_from_Michigan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 550
August 1, 2009 7:23 pm  

BTW - Promoguy - Cool pics! 😎


ReplyQuote
promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 7:26 pm  

don't try to get on my good side, 😀


ReplyQuote
promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 7:27 pm  

Why can't this be looked at over the course of a year?

/rhetorical actually


ReplyQuote
East Ender
(@east-ender)
Expert
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5404

ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 8:20 pm  

there is absolutely no indication that the democratic majority wish to make tort reform a part of this plan. none whatsoever.

but i agree it should be, as i stated. this is where we who have such feelings notify our representatives and encourage like-minded folks to do the same.


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 8:25 pm  

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

for those who have it, watch out - when you become ill, you may be told that what you have is not covered. and if you lose it and have a pre-existing condition to your next insurer you may not be able to get it again.

health care system is healthy for those who have it, or can afford private. but, for the millions who are not in this position, not so much.


ReplyQuote
Betty
(@Betty)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2045
August 1, 2009 8:44 pm  

How about the other elephant in the room. Why should people have kids they can't afford let alone their insurance?


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 687
August 1, 2009 8:54 pm  

How about the other elephant in the room. Why should people have kids they can't afford let alone their insurance?

you are right. people should not have children if they are ill-equipped to raise them properly.

the children still need health care. and people need to be able to afford health insurance even if they made choices that put them at disadvantage. i'm not perfect and i don't want to think of people who "deserve" vs people who don't "deserve" health care or health insurance.

edited to say: i promise not to weigh in any more on this issue, everyone's made up their minds, including me. i am going to advocate for health care reform, some will not. accepted. i will continue to read the thread though, because some good info is being shared in here. i may pm someone, if that's ok.


ReplyQuote
promoguy
(@promoguy)
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
August 1, 2009 8:54 pm  

Would you agree then that it would be wise that no plan should go forward without tort reform? I would be very surprised if you said yes


ReplyQuote
Betty
(@Betty)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2045
August 1, 2009 9:43 pm  

I'm a total advocate for health care reform, I think most agree the health care system needs some to a lot of reform. But the idea of the federal govt running this, scares me to death. It will mean the death of most health care providers as well. How many employers are going to be willing to pay for more expensive insurance when you have the cheap govt insurance? It could been so many people unemployed again. It could be another massive hit to an economy that is already on the brink.

I know rushing into this is a huge mistake. This is massively important and should be given discussion and dialoge before we rush into anything.

I think you're a little crazy to make up your mind at the beginning, without really knowing where this is headed.


ReplyQuote
Bombi
(@Bombi)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2104
August 1, 2009 9:56 pm  

State officials can dramatically improve the func­tioning of their state health insurance markets, es­tablish portability and personal ownership in health insurance coverage, and make major im­provements in how they finance health care for the uninsured. Massachusetts, a state with a conserva­tive Republican governor and liberal Democratic legislature, has recently enacted comprehensive health care reform. Not surprisingly, many state of­ficials from around the country are carefully exam­ining the Massachusetts health plan, trying to dis­cern what is applicable to or appropriate for their own states

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1953.cfm

The plan that Massachusetts is operating under seems to be successful. It appears to be fair.


ReplyQuote
Irijah
(@Irijah)
Advanced Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 171
August 1, 2009 10:10 pm  

watch this...it's free to watch...

http://www.watch-movies-links.net/movies/sicko/


ReplyQuote
dntw8up
(@dntw8up)
Trusted Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1866
August 1, 2009 10:27 pm  

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

Us. The U.S. population at large.

Overweight. Sedentary. Smokers. Drinkers. Druggers. Poor diet. Diabetes and complications. Heart disease. Hypertension. Lifestyle-related health problems.

The elephant in the room is a common misconception, but many studies show people with so called lifestyle-related health issues actually spend fewer health care dollars over the course of their lives than healthy people, because of decreased longevity. Here's a link to one such study:

"...The study found that although annual health-care costs are highest for obese people earlier in life (until age 56 years), and are highest for smokers at older ages, the ultimate lifetime costs are highest for the healthy (nonsmoking, nonobese) people. Hence the authors argue that medical costs will not be saved by preventing obesity.

Their results tell us that that life expectancy from age 20 is reduced by 5 years for obese people and 7 for smokers. The consequence is that healthy people live to incur greater medical expenditure subsequently on average, more than compensating for the earlier excess expenditure related to obesity or smoking..."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

On Thursday I read a short op-ed piece in the NYT that seems germane to the discussion on this thread: "...many people don't understand the way American health care works right now. They don't understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn't be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html

So for all of the current administration's posturing on health care reform, it seems to me like trying to solve problems without identifying the specific problems needing to be solved.


ReplyQuote
dntw8up
(@dntw8up)
Trusted Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1866
August 1, 2009 10:36 pm  

Hey EE!

Your link to the Hoover Inst. made me grin - I have a very good friend who is a fellow there, and I never miss an opportunity to remind him that he and his Hoover cronies are scary crazy, off the deep end whack jobs! 😀


ReplyQuote
Ms Information
(@Ms_Information)
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 411
August 1, 2009 11:08 pm  

don't try to get on my good side, 😀

and just where might we find that side;)? I'm sorry, but your continued negative attitude is getting tiresome. I don't want to personalize this, but you seem to represent a very vocal minority that is apparently trying to sabotage health care reform.

I don't understand the kind of poison that some bloggers and even one national news station is spewing out. Hey everyone, stop listening to the lies and GET THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF.


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 7
Search this website
Close Menu