Really, Massachusetts?

[Tom Banjo]

The problem is much deeper than government or government reform. We need doctors that care about helping and healing people. What happen to the hippocratic oath? Unfortunately, at this is not meant as a complete blanket statement, being a doctor and getting a medical degree is something people that care about status and money pursue and not those that generally care about people. I go to a upper echelon university and I get to witness this first hand. If doctors and those making and discovering new medicine truly cared about people, health care and health care reform would be null point because everyone would get the treatment they need.

[Taper Ron]

Right now my insurance is through my last employer (Cobra) so only costs $365.00 a month but I can only get it for eight more months. Then I'm pretty much SOL. I have Hepatitis C, Cirrhosis of the Liver and a few other things. Recently I tried to get quotes but with "preexisting conditions" No one would even talk to me. The medication I am supposed to take costs over $3000.00 a month. I have been trying to get my insurance to authorize it for a month now but no answer yet.

I need health care reform!

[Herdygerdy]

I hate politics almost as much as religion!

What he said!

[acududeman]

The idea that the republican party can and would promote fair trade and competition in the insrance industry and thus insurance rates would go down is a fantasy. I have not used my insurance yet every year it goes up and up and up. The only way to get a handle on it for me is to raise the deductible higher each year and get less and less coverage. The establishment is all about profits even at the expense of the population. I would say that health care is one of the places that government should take charge on like most of europe has already. The health and well being of this country is well beyond the standards of most industrial western country's. I would say that one election in Mass does not a mandate make on our current president. What he is trying to do is fix something that's been broke for generations! My two cents.... and my last post on the subject... I hate politics almost as much as religion!

I'm with you on pretty much everything you say here, Rob. A little socialism could go a long way to helping out with health care in this country.

I find it ironic that Congress, Medicare and Vets enjoy "socialized medicine" already, and yet the Righties make Obama out to be the next coming of Hitler.

[Guest jazz-man]

That's just Glenn Beck calling Obama the next Hitler. Or a commie.

I will tell you that in Canada and Europe we/they laugh at the healthcare situation in the US and wonder why US politicians say it's the best place in the world but they can't figure out how to give healthcare to all. I don't mean it's a laughing matter but it's a real tragedy that insurance companies and those they buy off derail what is clearly the right thing to do from a humanitarian point of view and levels the playing field from a business point of view. The whole ideaof "we the people" has sadly been replaced by "we the corporations (and those who serve us)". Politics doesn't help anyone but politicians, we the people suffer.

[bs69]

Campaign finance reform sounds like a great idea, but to be a significant change, the limits would have to be pretty low to level the playing field so that all people from all walks of life would have a chance to run for elected office and the reform would certainly be unconstitutional. To be honest, we should probably stop paying into a system we don't support and work to take care of one another. Its a real shame that people are not satisfied with the simple life that would entail and have been convinced that they want/need blackberries, gps, and ipods. I own two of the three so no I do not pretend to live or practice the life of which I speak. Just a shame that there isn't a more large scale movement of that kind taking place in the U.S. I've spoken with a lot of people and for the most part, we all agree that we want food, shelter, and security. We could take care of providing this for ourselves without any government involvement if the people of this country chose to do so.

Maybe the Amish are on to something

[anddave]

This world is not our home

We are only passing through

[BigDad]

Well lets just say we now have gridlock again. With the cards lined up before this "special election" we at least had a chance to "TRY" to help some of population. Being one of those that has to purchase his own insurance I can tell you I GET SCREWED. My monthly premium went up to $720 per month from $575 for no reason except they CAN and for that I have a $10,000 deductible with NO prescription benefit. I am on Lipitor and that is another $125 dollars a month. Needless to say I'm disappointed there is no relief for folks like me. So I'm out of pocket $950 a month regardless if I'm sick or not. Now remember I can only deduct a small percentage against my income so I in essence pay for it again! I vote Democratic and am proud of it. I don't judge folks for their religion or their politics as long as they don't judge me for mine! Oh by the way I don't believe in organized religion........

Rob:

If you'd like to get the costs of healthcare down, consider the following constraints that are currently on the medical community:

• Doctor's cost of malpractice insurance - Due to the size of the awards being given out by juries in malpractice cases, doctors pay over $100,000/year in medical malpractice insurance premiums. States that have instituted tort reform around medical malpractice have experienced significant drops in the cost of health care insurance because doctors have been able to lower their fees.
  
• Costs to bring a drug to the public - Current FDA regulations call for significant testing around a new drug before it can be made available to the public, whether prescription or not. The costs associated with the certification process are quite high - double-blind tests for many months, etc. I'm all for ensuring new drugs are properly tested, however the way the laws are written, they also cover existing medications. Here's an example: suppose a scientist discovered tomorrow that aspirin is the miracle cure for cancer. It does not matter that aspirin is currently available over-the-counter just about anywhere. The FDA says that if you find a new use for an existing drug, it has to go through the same lengthy (costly) certification process as a brand-new compound would. Combine this with the fact that aspirin can no longer be patented as a medication and what happens is we have a cure for cancer that nobody is willing to pay the $ to certify as there's no potential return.
  

What I am saying is that there are many ways we can fix the system without having to build a charity and furthur de-motivate people from getting off their asses and working.

[anddave]

|

|

V

[Guest jazz-man]

"de-motivate people from getting off their asses and working"???? Are working people lazy in Japan, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Canada, England, etc? Their national healthcare, or "charity" as you called it, allows them to compete with the world and removes the burden of the threat of bankrupcy due to medical bills. Remember Roger (Everybody's Favorite Santa)? He had significant heart disease and ultimately that's what killed him. I asked him why he wouldn't go on the heart transplant list and he told me he didn't want to burden his family financially for the rest of their lives. I'm not saying he would have received a heart transplant (they don't just give hearts away) or that it would have saved him but the option to lifesaving treatment was not allowed to him because of financial burden. I can tell you that when I lived in Canada the lack of concern about helath bills was wonderful. There was no lack of motivation to "get off our assess and work".

Speaking of campaign finance...today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can give as much as they want to political campaigns. Literally opening up the bank coffers to get their agenda moved forward.

[chuckvegas]

Speaking of campaign finance...today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can give as much as they want to political campaigns. Literally opening up the bank coffers to get their agenda moved forward.

I will be interested to at least read the head notes for that decision...I presume it was based on 1st Amendment rights.

[blythalala]

Speaking of campaign finance...today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can give as much as they want to political campaigns. Literally opening up the bank coffers to get their agenda moved forward.

yeah. no bueno.

ugh.

[bs69]

I think there are two issues here; Health care reform and insurance reform. I think that most of the nation is in agreement that there is a lot of cost that can be eliminated, with Tort reform being near the top of the list. Most people are in favor of Health care reform and making it more affordable. I think what alot of people are uncomfortable with is making the government our health care insurance provider. The government has proven over and over that it does not efficiently spend our money.

[bs69]

I will be interested to at least read the head notes for that decision...I presume it was based on 1st Amendment rights.

I would assume so. Lobbyists are feeling more secure in their jobs. I assume there will be a lot of partying in D.C. tonight.

[arm]

This world is not our home

We are only passing through

Perfect! I love that song.

[70s Hound]

I think that most of the nation is in agreement that there is a lot of cost that can be eliminated, with Tort reform being near the top of the list.

Tort refrom is a red herring. It can help slightly at the margin but it's far from a panacea and really won't come close to putting a dent in bigger health care issues we face.

According to a Congressional Budget Office Report: "Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending."

And while caps on damages do reduce med mal awards and thus premiums -- one study suggested a cap on non-econ damages and a ban on punitives would reduce premiums by more than one third -- "Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

Bottom line: tort reform is a distraction from meaningful change,

[BigDad]

Tort refrom is a red herring. It can help slightly at the margin but it's far from a panacea and really won't come close to putting a dent in bigger health care issues we face.

According to a Congressional Budget Office Report: "Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending."

And while caps on damages do reduce med mal awards and thus premiums -- one study suggested a cap on non-econ damages and a ban on punitives would reduce premiums by more than one third -- "Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

Bottom line: tort reform is a distraction from meaningful change,

I respectfully disagree. You/they are not accounting for the long-term compounding effect of higher insurance premiums. They affect hospitals, doctors, other providers as well as equipment manufacturers (all hospital-grade equipment must be certified and when it fails, the mfr gets sued too). When an item or service changes hands a number of times - manufacturer to distributor to supplier, doctor to hospital to patient, etc.) everybody's slice of the pie is a little bigger due to the higher initial cost. Even at face value, a 2% savings is huge. No solution will provide 100% savings.

Secondly, I was not presenting tort reform as the only solution - just an example of many things that could be done without nationalizing the plan and de-motivating doctors. As an example of my last remark, my wife and daughter's physician and his physician-wife have decided to leave the medical practice this month (they're both under 50). The stated reason: they do not want the government telling them how to run their business. The long lines and waits to get specialist attention in other countries also attest to this fact - there won't be enough doctors and there won't be any motivation for new ones to come on board just to have their hands tied as to what they can or cannot charge or do by a bunch of bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine.

[70s Hound]

I respectfully disagree. You/they are not accounting for the long-term compounding effect of higher insurance premiums. They affect hospitals, doctors, other providers as well as equipment manufacturers (all hospital-grade equipment must be certified and when it fails, the mfr gets sued too). When an item or service changes hands a number of times - manufacturer to distributor to supplier, doctor to hospital to patient, etc.) everybody's slice of the pie is a little bigger due to the higher initial cost. Even at face value, a 2% savings is huge. No solution will provide 100% savings.

Secondly, I was not presenting tort reform as the only solution - just an example of many things that could be done without nationalizing the plan and de-motivating doctors. As an example of my last remark, my wife and daughter's physician and his physician-wife have decided to leave the medical practice this month (they're both under 50). The stated reason: they do not want the government telling them how to run their business. The long lines and waits to get specialist attention in other countries also attest to this fact - there won't be enough doctors and there won't be any motivation for new ones to come on board just to have their hands tied as to what they can or cannot charge or do by a bunch of bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine.

You raise two separate issues.

On the first point, fine, we can agree that even 2% is a savings. But the studies I have seen - CBO and others - all say that the savings are still a drop in the bucket. That's what irks me about those politicians who push tort reform as a panacea. It's not even close. If there are studies out there which suggest otherwise, I would be happy to read them. But the conclusion to the CBO study really made the point best: "In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. Thus, choices about specific proposals may hinge more on their implications for equity--in particular, on their effects on health care providers, patients injured through malpractice, and users of the health care system in general." I think there's no question the current liability system needs to be reformed (the economic inefficiency argument alone is enough reason for me to feel this way). I'd support any reform that improved care and reduced costs. Alternatively, if we're going to make reforms to address inequities, that's fine with me too. I don't think the "jackpot justice" system is fair (although in reality, it really only exists in a few places so that, too, is a red herring). But we need to be intellectually honest enough to also acknowledge that fixing these inequities may have no meaningful impact on the cost and quality of care issues.

On your second point, we don't need any new health care plans to demotivate doctors. I personally know 3 primary care physicians who have left that practice in the last 7 years because they got tired of dealing with the administrative burden. Based on that, one could argue anecdotally that we need reform to address that issue.

[Tom Banjo]

This board is showing the primary reasons no significant reform can get done. None of us agree upon what reform would best address and solve the problem. We all seem to agree that health care and health insurance needs to be less expensive and more inclusive. We argue the merits and the outcome of nationalizing health care and people have expressed concern about the motivations of doctors. Unfortunately, this expresses a true flaw in the system; a flaw much larger than Tort reform or campaign finance. Money and to some degree, power have become the motivating factors for many people in America. Most med students I meet are primarily concerned with making money and the status assumed by doctors then helping people. If helping people was the primary motivation for being a physician, all people would receive treatment and treatment would be denied to no one. Unfortunately, we still want to talk about the cost of health care and the cost of providing it for all people; instead of a responsibility to provide it to all people and provide relief for all whenever possible. I know I sound very idealistic and these views most likely will never come to fruition, but if doctor's and makers of medicine were concerned with helping people we would be a lot better off. Things like health insurance only exist because medicine manufactures and doctor's have insisted that they deserved to be paid for their services even by those that cannot afford those services. Instead of providing the treatment and taking from the patient compensation in accordance with his means, the doctors and pharm companies extract major money from insurance companies. Someday I think everyone will realize that cost shouldn't be a subject when it comes to peoples lives.

[Mango]

I didn't read a single post on this thread because I don't really care for politics, but let me just say that DEMOCRATS ARE STUPID TOO!!! lets get over this whole thing and stop acting like it really means that much for anything....my two cents.

[Rusty the Scoob]

I didn't read a single post on this thread because I don't really care for politics, but let me just say that DEMOCRATS ARE STUPID TOO!!! lets get over this whole thing and stop acting like it really means that much for anything....my two cents.

I don't agree one bit that politics means nothing.

Rob pays $950 a month for health care, while I pay 25.50 a month for far better care. Both of us are gainfully employed. Politics matters to him exactly $925 each month, just as one example.

I'll agree that the political process can be abstract, painfully slow, and unpleasant, but if you think that it doesn't matter you are missing the a huge part of the big picture.

[Teacher Matt]

What is your yearly salary and do you also have dependents on your coverage... If I guessed I would say that Rob makes more money than you do a year and has more dependents ...

I am a teacher that makes $42,243 a year.. I have a 2nd job at a grocery store working 20 hours a week to give me "fun" money.... I would say Rob makes more than me as well... I pay $46 dollars a month for health insurance with no dependents...

the system works for me... it is impossible to find a system that works for everyone in terms of income levels, dependents, etc..

"We the People" sometimes does not equal everybody equally...

I don't agree one bit that politics means nothing.

Rob pays $950 a month for health care, while I pay 25.50 a month for far better care. Both of us are gainfully employed. Politics matters to him exactly $925 each month, just as one example.

I'll agree that the political process can be abstract, painfully slow, and unpleasant, but if you think that it doesn't matter you are missing the a huge part of the big picture.

[Rusty the Scoob]

I have no dependents, my GF has her own health care, and at age 34 I believe I'm 5-10 years younger than Rob. Regardless, I only meant to use him as a generic example. Without getting into specifics it's hard to imagine a scenario where it's fair that he pays 38 times for his health care what I pay for mine.

Back on my original point, fair or not, this is just one example where politics has a real and tangible impact on someone's daily life.

[Mango]

Back on my original point, fair or not, this is just one example where politics has a real and tangible impact on someone's daily life.

I look at it like a balancing act, there is no way to make it right for everyone. Just because you want something one way doesn't mean that it is right or that other people should have to live by that standard. I understand how politics can effect different people's lives. The 'big picture' I would think is bigger than politics, and i'm pretty sure that politics aren't going to solve the world's 'big problems'. Maybe I should have read the thread before contributing my opinion, so I'm sorry for that. Democrats and Republicans are the same thing to me! Go ahead and point out the dividing lines it doesn't really make any difference to me. That's my opinion

[jfolks]

i had a couple points which have already been aluded to, but i wanted to echo eaton's and rick's statements..

arm's assertion that removal of govt health care regulations will promote competition which will result in lower prices is a fucking joke!! corporations, when left unchecked by the government, will do whatever it takes to maximize profits.. there is no way in hell that if they had no govt regulations to follow or no govt accountability that health care prices would go down.. that's not how capitalism works (which, by the way, is the ultimate root of this and virtually every other social problem in america..)

speaking of capitalism.. i also agree with rick.. i had to drop a catering delivery off at this lawyers home the other day.. he lived in the biggest mansion you could imagine. like 6 luxury cars parked outside.. as i was driving off, i thought "its fucked up that lawyers and doctors, the people who's job is to supposedly help people in extreme need, are some of the wealthiest in our society." now i understand they worked very hard to get there, and they currently work very hard in their jobs, but it is FUCKED UP that their extreme wealth is derived from helping others through the worst and most painful parts of their lives. its fucked up that US legal and medical systems require absorbent amounts of money to receive their services, especially since they are fucking required to live (or in the legal sense, required to live in society)!! in a capitalist society, i have no qualms with a business person making as much money as possible (even though i really do, because the uber-rich are rarely ethical in their dealings..), but i dont think lawyers, doctors, or other professionals that provide necessary-to-survive services should be entitled to immense wealth via their profession. it is a blatant and inherent conflict of interests!

and to all my dr and attorney friends, i still love you (even though your evil)