Health Care Reform in the US

[thereom4]

Again, you need to read the Founders' other writings, to get a sense of what they meant---as opposed to relying upon the modern senses of words in isolation.

For example, this:

"‘With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - letter to James Robertson from James Madison

Or this, from Thomas Jefferson:

"‘Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Madison again:

"‘The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Jefferson again:

"Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare."

More available on request, but you can find it as easily as I.

Also, you will note that the preamble used the word "promote". Not "guarantee", not "furnish", but merely "promote"...

I'll just say this, if medical advances then, were what it is now, I highly doubt we'd be having this debate over reform. A healthcare bill, any healthcare bill would be passed. Why? I don't know......yellow fever, typhoid, smallpox, and any number of other diseases (some of which were curable) that people were dying from then would probably sweeten the pot a bit. Don't bother looking, you won't find evidence of this in any of the FF's writings. I checked. I guess they would have chosen to let people die from disease.

[KidLazy]

I think people should study the topic more in depth before opening their mouth and screaming nonsense.
(Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths')



*Well... only half of people in a National Science Foundation survey knew the Earth circles the sun once every year (Is America scientifically illiterate?), and 37 percent of American citizens are incapable of identifying their home country on a map of the United States (Poll: 37% of American Unable to Locate America on Map of America). Crazy-religious people are killing this country with their ignorance, yet they are proud of it... Please Lord, help us.

[I_luv_saber]

I've always found these polls dubious to say the least...

It's not like it doesn't go on elsewhere as well, anyway. Not saying it's good, just saying it's not extraordinary.

EDIT: Also, for that first link, not only does the poll appear reasonably flawed, but it's working under the assumption that because the White House calls something a myth, it must indeed be a myth. Not saying that's not so, just that it's a pretty subjective point to start from.

[prototoast]

I think people should study the topic more in depth before opening their mouth and screaming nonsense.
(Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths')

That article presupposes that the white house's claims are correct.

[lindajdunn]

That article presupposes that the white house's claims are correct.

Reading thorugh the list, I see a few that have been declared untrue by everyone associated with any of the proposals under consideration.

Taxpayers will not be required to pay for abortions. I note that abortions are explicitly excluded now from coverage for government employees (and that includes members of congress and their families) even though it resulted in no premium difference when Clinton signed the appeasement act. [cough] Yes, I'm annoyed he did that. No, I never voted for Clinton. I was a Republican during those years.

There will be no health care coverage for illegal immigrants. Although I note that at the moment, they're being covered through ER visits and 911 calls. [Did you know you can get free health care by calling 911 and then refusing transport?]

[I_luv_saber]

Most I have no problem with, but the two that caught my eye is that "health cost will not go up" and "there will be no longer wait times" with a government option. Now, obviously this would not be an intended effect... but to outright say it will not happen is a promise that cannot be kept, and far from the other side spreading "myths". They're legitmate concerns.

Regardless, I was simply noting that the article seems to be biased from the outset...

[lindajdunn]

Regardless, I was simply noting that the article seems to be biased from the outset...

I've read few articles that aren't biased. [Sigh! Whatever happened to REAL reporters? -- shaking cane at the sky -- when *I* took journalism courses, factual reporting of data was stressed and articles were not to be slanted one way or the other.]

Cue Statler Brothers tune, Whatever happened to Randolph Scott. Begin substituting lyrics about real journalisms and investigative reporting. Sigh!

I note that long wait times are common regardless of private or public and vary by locations and other factors. Much like the poor, they will always be with us.

Didn't someone die recent in the ER waiting room, waiting for assistance? And wasn't it on video? And didn't hours pass before someone noticed the person wasn't moving?

[Bayou Bum]

Crazy-religious people are killing this country with their ignorance, yet they are proud of it... Please Lord, help us.

I read all of the links posted and nowhere was there any mention of religion, so stop trying to blame religion for all the country's problems. What was blamed though is government schools. "You can't fix this problem without fixing public schools." So you are arguing for government health care by telling us how government education is destroying the country. Using your government education, please address each myth about Obama's healthcare plan and prove each one false.

Among the results on items the White House considers myths:

1. 67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase .
2. About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions.
3. Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions
4. 46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants .
5. 54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance.
6. Five out of 10 think cuts will be made to Medicare in order to cover more Americans.

[keith]

By a funny co-incidence 6 out of 10 Americans with health insurance already pay for abortions (give or take).

Not to mention the 10 out of 10 Americans with health insurance who help fund medical care for illegal immigrants.

Number 6 clearly explains why so many Americans seem to want government out of their medicare.

[Greybeard]

All I know is every Doctor I had during my recent stroke said I better have the surgery now.

[pigeonmeister]

Didn't want to start another thread- but thought this was the best place to pay my respects to Ted Kennedy.

[I_luv_saber]

I've read few articles that aren't biased. [Sigh! Whatever happened to REAL reporters? -- shaking cane at the sky -- when *I* took journalism courses, factual reporting of data was stressed and articles were not to be slanted one way or the other.]

Too true! It's, unfortunately, a rare trait now...

I note that long wait times are common regardless of private or public and vary by locations and other factors. Much like the poor, they will always be with us.

Didn't someone die recent in the ER waiting room, waiting for assistance? And wasn't it on video? And didn't hours pass before someone noticed the person wasn't moving?

Again, not necessarily saying I agree that those things will happen, just that they are legitimate concerns, and calling them "myths" I think is unduly dismissive.

[Inquartata]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of those quickly paid claims were for small amounts and how many of the denied claims were for much larger amounts.

Me, too. Even if the total number of claims denied is very low, if a high percentage of those few involve very large amounts or illnesses which promise to be very expensive, that'd be highly suspicious...

[Inquartata]

I'll just say this, if medical advances then, were what it is now, I highly doubt we'd be having this debate over reform.

Heh. Now you're really stretching. "If things were different then things would have been different"?! Well, yes, I'm sure...but that's sort of like saying that if medieval Irish monks had had computers and the internet they wouldn't have made the Book of Kells...

[Inquartata]

Reading thorugh the list, I see a few that have been declared untrue by everyone associated with any of the proposals under consideration.

WHAT a surprise!

Taxpayers will not be required to pay for abortions. I note that abortions are explicitly excluded now from coverage for government employees (and that includes members of congress and their families) even though it resulted in no premium difference when Clinton signed the appeasement act.

Ahem.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abo...s-fabricating/

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

There are several other things that "the White House considers myths" at which FactCheck.org has similarly waggled a finger.

So yes, the Obama Administration and its Congressional supporters do appear eager to label any and every objection to their scheme a "myth". This is politics...

Didn't want to start another thread- but thought this was the best place to pay my respects to Ted Kennedy.

I will reiterate my expectation that proponents of health care will soon begin attempts to draft public sympathy for "the lion of the Senate" to win support for their program. "Do it for Ted!" And I fully expect any successful reform bill to be named the Kennedy Healthy America Bill or something of the sort...

[Hauptman]

Me, too. Even if the total number of claims denied is very low, if a high percentage of those few involve very large amounts or illnesses which promise to be very expensive, that'd be highly suspicious...

I'm curious; how is a "denied claim" defined?

Is it strictly when a procedure is performed, and the claim is submitted and denied?

What about when an authorization for a procedure is requested and denied? Is that a "denied claim" since technically there was no claim involved?

[Hauptman]

Heh. Now you're really stretching. "If things were different then things would have been different"?! Well, yes, I'm sure...but that's sort of like saying that if medieval Irish monks had had computers and the internet they wouldn't have made the Book of Kells...

But along those lines how will changes in the future change the situation? Some changes are predictable.

For instance, as cures are found for diseases the cost of treatment will likely go down. As drugs lose their patent protection over time, the generic replacements will bring costs down.

The pharmaceutical companies fear this more than anyone; can they create new drugs and convince us of their usefulness faster than their existing patents expire?

[jeff]

Me, too. Even if the total number of claims denied is very low, if a high percentage of those few involve very large amounts or illnesses which promise to be very expensive, that'd be highly suspicious...

I really haven't been keeping up here - whether that's a cause for dismay or joy is in the eye of the beholder But to address this issue, see testimony from ex-insurance executive Wendell Potter at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/op...ml?ref=opinion

While I've heard him in interviews, I hadn't seen a linkable reference, so this is helpful. Insider description of the systematic methods in which policy holders are denied care and the financial incentives to the companies and managers involved.

I'll also note in passing that HMOs have an overhead of approx 18-20%, compared to Medicare at 3% and French and German systems at 4-5% (Source, book "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care" (T. Reid)

[Inquartata]

I'm curious; how is a "denied claim" defined?

Is it strictly when a procedure is performed, and the claim is submitted and denied?

What about when an authorization for a procedure is requested and denied? Is that a "denied claim" since technically there was no claim involved?

I don't know. The Devil's proverbially in the details, though.

But along those lines how will changes in the future change the situation? Some changes are predictable.

Yes, but their consequences are less so...

The pharmaceutical companies fear this more than anyone; can they create new drugs and convince us of their usefulness faster than their existing patents expire?

So long as there are men suffering from impotence or small penises, the drug companies will never lack for a market.

But seriously, it's a fair question ( "and one that in recent months has been much on my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nestin'." )

Aaanyway...yes. It's a concern. Some of the smaller companies with only a handful of drugs on the market have been seriously damaged when just one has turned out to be ineffectual or to have side-effects. It takes such a long time to develop, test and market a drug, and so much money...

I really haven't been keeping up here - whether that's a cause for dismay or joy is in the eye of the beholder

After due reflection I have settled on incredulity.

[jeff]

Well, that's fair...