Author Topic: Talking Heads - Healthcare Reform (Read 102594 times)

bellemere · « **Reply #360 on:** September 27, 2009, 04:32:30 PM »

The Times today discussed the fears of Medicare enrollees that the Health Care Reform would end up taking away some of their benefits and giving health care to poor people and illegal immigrant.
Thye point out that all four bills wouold actually improve Medicare, by reducing their payments for drug coverage and medical care; The House bill proposes eliminating that "doughnut hole" in the drug coverage, (a real nightmare for those who take expensive drugs) and eliminagting copays for preventvie carel the kind of "checkups" that forestall more expensive care later.
Some of the bills propose lower payments to hospitals; oppostion says that might make hospitals les open to taking Mediacare patients, a practice that could have terrific backlash against a hospital The congress would very soon have to address that if it happened.
Pickin' up my phone again romorrow.

Steph · « **Reply #361 on:** September 28, 2009, 08:38:26 AM »

Yes, yes, I am so glad that more and more writing is being done that medicare is not harmed in the way the right is portraying it. If I hear death panel or organ replacement one more time, I will scream. The bills are not addressing these issues.. Why of why is it fair to frighten people like this.

Babi · « **Reply #362 on:** September 28, 2009, 09:26:57 AM »

I received a response from Senator Cornyn's office, basically an article from
one of their newsletters on the subject. It seems Sen. Cornyn, who is on the
Finance Committee, feels that the plan proposal now in front of the Committee would be disastrous for Texas (..and presumably for other States..), in that it would send Medicaid costs up by billions.
I sincerely hope the plan now in the hands of the Finance Committee is not
the only one being promoted. If their fears regarding Medicaid are well founded, the plan is not going to be acceptable to most of our States. It is
the States that foot the Medicaid bills.

bellemere · « **Reply #363 on:** September 28, 2009, 09:57:05 AM »

Medicaid is actually a partnership, feds contribute a basic amount; states have the option of adding to it as much as they feel they can add. I think I read where Mississipi adds the lowest amount, New York the highest.

bellemere · « **Reply #364 on:** September 28, 2009, 01:49:51 PM »

I read that 61 percent of Massachusettw Medicaid funds go to nursing homes. Another big chunk goes to care for the disabled. And of course, our burgeoning prison population gets Medicaid. Who wlse is going to insure them? And another huge chunk goes to group homes for developmentally disabled and mentally ill people. I don't know the exact percentages of each of the last groups, but i think it is pretty sizeable. Do you know what percentage of Medicaid goes to nursing homes in your state?
Now it is a very common practice, one recommended by lawyers and estate planners, for people to deed their homes to their children in order to be sure of getting medicaid help if they have to go to a numrsing home. In other words, keeping the assets for the children and making the taxpayers pay for your nursing home care. This makes us all tempted to practice this deception. Back when
Senator Kennedy was first getting into Health
Care reform, he proposed an affordable insurance policy for long term care tha people could buy for about 70 dollars a month. Don't know what happened to that. WE have to make decision aout this soon. ther is a five year "look back" provision in Medicaid; they will attach the house if it was transferred less than 5 years before your application for Medicaid care in a nursing home. We honestly dont know what to do.

nlhome · « **Reply #365 on:** September 28, 2009, 03:00:16 PM »

Medicaid costs will go up whether or not there is health care reform. People who lose their jobs or cannot get insurance and then get seriously ill will end up on Medicaid as their money is used up, and that is happening to more and more people.

There definitely is a five-year look back for Medicaid. The people who get stuck in that are the middle income folks. Poorer folks don't have an estate to worry about, wealthy individuals either can afford the nursing home or the long term care insurance, plus they have the legal help to adjust their assets so they can get Medicaid.

I don't know what we would do about our home - if we were to do that to prepare for the potential of nursing home stays, then we'd be asking the taxpayers to pay for our care so that our children can inherit.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #366 on:** September 28, 2009, 03:35:59 PM »

Aren't we talking about taxpayers providing medical care? I would put my home in my children's name, althougth I no longer own a home. The system must be changed and if it will help bring change about then I will do it. Besides, the income which purchased the home has already been taxed. It is not as if one were cheating. Simply alloting assets to their place in advance of one's death. Practical and pragmatic, to me.

nlhome · « **Reply #367 on:** September 28, 2009, 04:56:29 PM »

People on Medicare are already receiving health care paid for by the taxpayer - it's a way of sharing the costs between the individual and the taxpayer. But, Medicare isn't enough, so people pay a lot out of pocket or for supplementary coverage, unless they are low income and low assets. Then they get more government help. Some people look at this as the same as highways, schools, libraries, etc. The cost of having a healthy, educated and functioning society. Long term care may be no different, at least in some ways. But there is an element of fairness, too.

Babi · « **Reply #368 on:** September 29, 2009, 07:24:23 AM »

Basically, the government's income is all from the taxpayers. Face it, bottom line, we pay for everything, including government itself. And those debts the government runs up...those are ours, too.

Steph · « **Reply #369 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:55:28 AM »

I keep learning about medicaid.. But we do have friends and she has a particularly ugly form of Parkinsons.. She has been in a nursing home for about 15 years now.. Still alive, still alert, but cannot move or talk much.. They had a good deal of money, but the costs of private care has used it all up and her husband has now sold their last asset, the house and moved into a teeny apartment, so he can use the house money to keep her where she has been for so many years. So I can see what some people will do to stay off medicaid. Hard decisions.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #370 on:** September 29, 2009, 01:12:41 PM »

It seems to be a moral decision; how can we allow our fellows/ourselves to become beggars in order to support greedy vultures whose prey is the needy?

ANNIE · « **Reply #371 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:03:04 PM »

Well, we could start by demanding torte reform and get rid of those horrible fees that drs have to pay to insure themselves against someone suing them. The law lobby does not want this to happen.

And, we would make sure that the people who can't afford insurance are put on something like Medicaid. Within the welfare system, maybe?? Oh, it already it, isn't it?? Those of us who are paying for their own insurance right now should be able to continue doing so if we like what we have.

At this time, the health system, cannot refuse to serve anyone who comes to their door. Well, at least, the hospitals' doors. But even that is controlled by number and the hospital can close their doors at a number that means they are full and the EMT's must find another hospital to submit their patient to the emergency room.

We have at this time a serious shortage of nurses and techs. Nurses are retiring by the truckload. What worries me is that if my dr is close to retirement, and he/she doesn't like the new healthcare bill, he/she will retire early. And then we will all be in a terrible mess.

nlhome · « **Reply #372 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:50:22 AM »

Those of us who like our insurance are lucky. For now. If nothing is done, it's likely that our insurance will not cover us as well or be as available, unless we are on Medicare. Every year my employer's insurance costs more, and increases co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums. Some employers are dropping insurance coverage for their employees. Others have dropped promised coverage for retirees. The percentage of people happy with their current coverage will decrease, even without reform.

The uninsured have access to emergency hospital services, yes, but not the maintenance or preventative care at clinics and doctors, which could mean they would avoid the more costly emergency services. And those services for the uninsured cost all of us in increased rates at hospitals and through insurance premiums, and taxes, because someone has to pay for that. It is estimated that a family's health insurance premium has an additional $1,000 in premiums a year because of the cost to the system to pay for the uninsured.

bellemere · « **Reply #373 on:** September 30, 2009, 09:24:40 AM »

Yikes! That seems high, but is probably close to accurate.
I read where the Senate Finance committee has failed to pass the public option. And that insurance companies are spending 1 million dollars a day to try to kill it althogether. Where is that money coming from? Your premiums? Denied claims? Senatory Olympia Snowe (love that name) is stillpresenting the "trigger " option: if the private companies don't control costs within a certain nmber of years, the public plan would go into effect. Is this just anothr method of killing it> Or would it work? They are getting a huge number of new customers with this bill, many of them on government subsidy. Hello? Socialized capitalism?
And what about the quality provision? Doctors' networks? I have a primary care doctor who has never spoken to my gyno, the urologist I see frequently, the dermotologist I see once a year, or the Women's Health Center where I get my mammograms. And what will promote an increase in the number of primary care physicians? How about scholarships to med school, or interest free-loans to set up a primary care practice? How about overtreatmen? Is the doctor who orders more tests and procedures a better doctor than the one who orders fewer?
Whew! dont want my blood pressure rising. I am outta here, as thekids say.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #374 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:06:18 PM »

It seems logical to work on health care as a system, as a whole, with clear goals including the cost of physician's education and eliminating the ne4ed for malpractice insurance. With objectives such as that a single payor is the answer. Maybe overhauling health care would result in a surplus of lawyers who could then enter med school? I shall continue to dream, it's so much better than reality.

bellemere · « **Reply #375 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:19:00 PM »

Right. It is a system, with interrelated elements. In all the yelling about health insurance, what's being overlooked is improving health CARE.
I think there will always be a need for some malpractice insurance,. Doctos can be negligent. What do they call the dunce who graduated last in his Med school class? Doctor.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #376 on:** September 30, 2009, 01:22:20 PM »

Harsh, Bellemere. The last place graduate is still the winner on a long list of qualifying tests. Take, for example, a list of IQ scores for Mensa members. The one with the lowest IQ is still in the 98th percentile.

bellemere · « **Reply #377 on:** September 30, 2009, 05:28:48 PM »

Perhaps I was too harsh. But doctors can be negligent and can break the law. And their mistakes can have fatal consequences for a human life. They have to be accountalbe. It sometimes isn't enough to say, "Sorry." And go on to do more harm.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #378 on:** September 30, 2009, 06:08:01 PM »

There is a case of criminal negligence playing out now. An MD who lost his right to perform surgery in Oregon managed to obtain a license in Australia where he is charged with manslaughter http://www.piurl.com/1uNF Malpractice doesn't begin to cover this sort of abuse.

Steph · « **Reply #379 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:58:07 AM »

There are a small percentage of doctors who have no moral values. They seem to be bright, but they enter practice and immediately spend time figuring out how to outwit the system and get lots of money for doing nothing. Miami seems to be full of them for a variety of reasons.. Fraud in that part of our state is increasing each year. For every one they put in jail, five more seem to pop up.

ANNIE · « **Reply #380 on:** October 01, 2009, 08:13:52 AM »

Has anyone here read John Grisham's book "The King of Torts" about the torte lawyers and how they work?? That was quite an eye opener for us and it still goes on. The lawyers are the ones making all the money in that field. Scary stuff, discovering how lawyers are advertising just to bait the people to find out what is going to make a big case against different entities,ie, doctors, cigarette companies, auto makers, etc, etc.

bellemere · « **Reply #381 on:** October 01, 2009, 11:18:15 AM »

A plague on both their houses. Your state Board of Registration in Medicine is required to publish its decisions to suspend or revoke medicl licences. they have plenty of work . Reading the allegations is most instructive, from violation of Drug Laws involving prescriptions for pain killers like Oxycontin; sexual molestation of patients. removing the wrong organ (went in for a gall bladder, took out a kidney) slapping a nurse in the face with a file folder, and more and more common , drug addiction.
Not pretty reading.
This is a peer group process. Only if there has been a violation of civil law does it get prosecuted.
Doctors in our town got together and told a patient-molesting gyno to get our out of town. He obligingly moved to the next county and was finally arrested for the same thing.
Two great films from the lawyers point of view: A Civil Action, with Robert Duvall and John Trevolta, both terrific. and The Verdict with Paul Newman. The latter drew a criticism from our doctor friend; they had a sleazy guy with a villain's mustache play the guilty doctor and for the lawyer they got Paul Newman! The first prents a corporate polluter; the second a flagrantly lying doctor.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #382 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:18:02 PM »

What is the ratio? One in ten, one in twenty, is a psychopath. Probablilty suggests that the professions would have a certain number of these ogres; given that many of them are of superior intelligence skews the numbers even higher. Since their modus operandi is manipulation, well, what more needs to be said.

bellemere · « **Reply #383 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:13:07 PM »

Mass Medical Society nails about 200 a year, half of those for drug or alcohol abuse. They offer temporary suspension and treatment or supervised d practice. The others are for a mixture of irregularities, most not prosecutedbut some are seriuous evough to bring revocation for years or for good. But some are subject to civil lawsuits.
Doctors are just human beings, after all. "I did n't mean to make a mistake" is not a justification when someone is dead or permanently damaged.
Very few doctors go through life with no complaits against them.
Maybe a doctor who goes a certain nmber of years with no complaits shoud get a reduction in premiums, like a safe driver does on car insurane? Hey, whom do I write to with that idea?

mrssherlock · « **Reply #384 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:34:09 PM »

I don't know whom you need to contact but good luck; you should get a share of the savings for such an innovative cost reduction idea.

Steph · « **Reply #385 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:55:10 AM »

There are so many fair and honest doctors, but for some reason they hate to punish their bad boys. It was explained to me once by a friend who is a doctor, that all doctors make mistakes and they are reluctant to punish.. figuring it could have been them.. Does not help the situation.

bellemere · « **Reply #386 on:** October 05, 2009, 09:14:43 AM »

Senator Snowe appears to be maddingly coy about her vote to endorse the Finance Committee's bill. She says her prime concern is affordability. If it is not truly affordable, then the "must buy" mandate is unfair. She does have a point. She comes from Maine, and if people leave the gorgeous shoreline tourist towns, like the 'Bush family's summer home of Kennebunkport, the interior of the state has pockets of shocking rural poverty. Even in the tourist towns, supposedly well to do, there are loads of small business men, lobster fishermen, restaurant owners. etc. who do not have a lot of employees, are seasonal, and could not afford to offer health insurance,. Sp what is the solution.? Drop the mandate and lose tons of people who are low risk and could afford it if they wanted to make it a priority, or raise the level of subsidy which is now up to families of 4 making 66,000 a year> That means even more money into the pockets of the insurance companies, if there is no government public option insurance. Is there another way?

Steph · « **Reply #387 on:** October 07, 2009, 08:34:22 AM »

I am convinced we must have a public option to keep the insurance companies in line.. They are soooo greedy.

Babi · « **Reply #388 on:** October 07, 2009, 09:05:56 AM »

The insurance companies may be getting a bit sensitive to all the (well-earned) criticism. One of them (don't recall which one) is now putting out ads
about how they really want to make people happy.

bellemere · « **Reply #389 on:** October 07, 2009, 09:41:14 AM »

Insurance companies have had it so good for so long they dont see it as greedy, just "money on the table" for them. Insurance is the only business that makes money by NOT giving customers what they pay for!

ANNIE · « **Reply #390 on:** October 07, 2009, 11:27:13 AM »

Truer words were never spoke, bellmere!!

Steph · « **Reply #391 on:** October 08, 2009, 08:31:49 AM »

Bellmere,, Oh me, you are so right.

bellemere · « **Reply #392 on:** October 11, 2009, 12:26:53 PM »

This week the fur realy begins to fly. The insurance interests are determined to fight the cost saving features of the bill because they figure , rightly, that some of it will come at their expense/ And there are FIVE bills up for debate. Ridiculous. We will have to listen to so much hot air from both sides, instead of reasonable compromises. Makes you sick, if you can afford to get sick. The conservatives in particular seem motivated solely by a desire to hand the president a humiliating defeat.

Steph · « **Reply #393 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:48:33 AM »

When did our legislatures decided that fighting , not whether the bill is good or not was the important thing. I am ashamed of them. Why do we vote.. So that we get this nonsense of conservative and liberal.. Health care should not be a political football, but a right of every citizen.

ANNIE · « **Reply #394 on:** October 12, 2009, 08:07:14 AM »

Between the politics and the lobbyists, we are gonna be sorry that this even came up.
I read somewhere this weekend that at the end of the ten yrs that it will take to get this done, they will still have 25 million people without insurance. Doesn't sound too promising to me.

nlhome · « **Reply #395 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:17:21 AM »

Because of all the competing interests, the lack of will by Congress and, sad to say, poor leadership by the Democrats in keeping to the goal, it appears our "reform" will be keeping all the things bad about our system and destroying what is good. I am dismayed by what is going on and saddened that the President cannot get Congress to work for the good of the people in this matter. I have bad feelings about this.

bellemere · « **Reply #396 on:** October 12, 2009, 09:32:18 AM »

if we dont get reform now, some financial pundits predict that at some point in the future, fifty percent of all the money spent in this country will be spent on health care, if current trends hold. Think of that. Where will the money come from for education, roads, etc. That must be an exagerration, but the trend is still there. Call them! Early and often. One phone call equals ten emails, remember.

maryz · « **Reply #397 on:** October 12, 2009, 11:01:58 AM »

It is discouraging. I'm finally finishing the biography of Frances Perkins, and she tried to get health care for everybody as part of the New Deal, along with Social Security. And this was back in the 1930s. $:-\$

ANNIE · « **Reply #398 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:38:00 AM »

Yes, Frances Perkins had many good ideas. But, when I look around SS and Medicare are both failing so maybe that wouldn't have happened if it had been passed back in the '30'. Frances gave up healthcare to get social security.
And ten years later, my family benefitted from SS, when my father died and my mother was left with two children and a mortgage. Back then, SS was sent to my mother and she was also paid benefits for my brother and I. Kept us afloat, believe me. Fortunately, Mom had just started a new job with our school running the cafeteria.

Steph · « **Reply #399 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:35:58 AM »

Social Security would be just fine if they would simply extend the tax to every cent of salary.. instead of putting a cap on it. The high earners can be taxed in that way to help all when they retire. If we could just get a way to cut out the huge fraud involved in medicare we would again be just fine.

News:

Author Topic: Talking Heads - Healthcare Reform (Read 102594 times)