Lakeland Times:
| Quote: |
The senator, [U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold] a declared proponent of health care reform in principle, nonetheless did not seem too concerned about a potential failure of the Obama administration's effort. He said there was merit to the idea of trying a variety of proposals in various states first.
"Lindsay Graham and I sponsored legislation to have pilot programs in five states," Feingold told the audience. "Maybe we should try some different things. There might be a single-payer state. There might be a co-op state. Let's get some evidence on the ground. This thing right now is not going in the right direction. We might be in a situation where there won't be a bill worth passing."
In 2007, Feingold and Graham, a South Carolina Republican, introduced the State-Based Health Care Reform Act, which would have allowed states to decide how to achieve insurance coverage.
The legislation would have established five-year pilot programs that would have mandated only minimum baseline requirements. States could have used health savings accounts, single payer systems, expansion of current programs, or could have adopted new ideas in their efforts to cover the uninsured.
The senator said again last week he did not think a "one-size-fits-all" approach would work as well as giving states program flexibility. |
Yes, deanhills, it looks like your plan for health care is finally getting officially noticed.
Even better, it's starting look like the Obamacare plan will be defeated, making room for more reasonable solutions to the problem. This is one such reasonable solution... another (my favorite) is a nation-wide Massachusetts style plan, which I estimate would cost only $17 billion annually. (Rather than the $1 trillion+ annual cost of Obamacare.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Yes, deanhills, it looks like your plan for health care is finally getting officially noticed. |
Think what matters more is that you noticed it! I don't think anyone commented so I had thought nobody had really taken notice. 
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Even better, it's starting look like the Obamacare plan will be defeated, making room for more reasonable solutions to the problem. This is one such reasonable solution... another (my favorite) is a nation-wide Massachusetts style plan, which I estimate would cost only $17 billion annually. (Rather than the $1 trillion+ annual cost of Obamacare.) |
Awesome news!
I thought this was a really good article by Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?scp=20&sq=new%20york%20times%20columns&st=cse
| Quote: |
This Is Reform?
Published: August 17, 2009
It’s never a contest when the interests of big business are pitted against the public interest. So if we manage to get health care “reform” this time around it will be the kind of reform that benefits the very people who have given us a failed system, and thus made reform so necessary.
Forget about a crackdown on price-gouging drug companies and predatory insurance firms. That’s not happening. With the public pretty well confused about what is going on, we’re headed — at best — toward changes that will result in a lot more people getting covered, but that will not control exploding health care costs and will leave industry leaders feeling like they’ve hit the jackpot.
......
Insurance companies are delighted with the way “reform” is unfolding. Think of it: The government is planning to require most uninsured Americans to buy health coverage. Millions of young and healthy individuals will be herded into the industry’s welcoming arms. This is the population the insurers drool over.
This additional business — a gold mine — will more than offset the cost of important new regulations that, among other things, will prevent insurers from denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions or imposing lifetime limits on benefits. Poor people will either be funneled into Medicaid, which will have its eligibility ceiling raised, or will receive a government subsidy to help with the purchase of private insurance.
If the oldest and sickest are on Medicare, and the poorest are on Medicaid, and the young and the healthy are required to purchase private insurance without the option of a competing government-run plan — well, that’s reform the insurance companies can believe in.
And then there are the drug companies.
...
|
Ya, that article hits the nail on the head. Not sure why more people don't realize this.....
Boy, a pilot program in five states for five years. Wondoer how man people will die in other states in this time because they will not be able to buy the expensive health care neither pay the expenisve medical insurance.
| harismushtaq wrote: |
| Boy, a pilot program in five states for five years. Wondoer how man people will die in other states in this time because they will not be able to buy the expensive health care neither pay the expenisve medical insurance. |
Fewer than would be harmed by a poorly thought out and rushed through national program with no prior testing.
This reform is a BIG deal, and will be nearly unchangeable once written into law. We have to get it right the first time, or we'll have to deal with a lousy system for decades.
Ideally, all 50 states would be directed to 'fix' health care in their own way. After a set time, the different methods would be compared. Then, the best aspects of each could be incorporated into an innovative and effective national plan.
It's worth the trouble. Yes, some states might do badly, and some people might suffer. But once that national plan was developed and put into action, the USA's health care would be the envy of the world.I think the basic problem is cost of health care. Why is it so expensive compared to the neighbouring countries. US is the leader in medical research and I don't think producing chemicals and other medical products is that expensive. I think the high costs is the monopoly of insurance companies. They want to project the cost of health so high that every one is willing to pay a fixed amount to them on monthly basis so they can do thier business. As a consequence, poor people cannot pay for either of them.
I am not sure if obamas health care formula does target this but whatever is the reform, there should be a proper check and balance on the cost of health care and then if we can fix it we may never need a health care plan or medical insurance at all.
| harismushtaq wrote: |
| I think the basic problem is cost of health care. |
Absolutely. Also, people are getting sicker and sicker at younger ages as well. There seems to be so much focus on treatment of people who are sick, and less focus on ensuring that people do not get sick. This puts an enormous burden on society from a cost of health care point of view. Numerous studies have shown that children are developing diabetes in much greater numbers due to lack of proper diet and poor quality of food. Our food comes in plastic containers, or wrapped in plastic, and quite a large number of people live on fast food that is also addictive, creating obesity. It would appear that obesity may become even a greater threat as a cause of chronic diseases than smoking currently is.
So possibly there should be an increased investment to ensure that people look after themselves better. Also to make the food industry more responsible for the ingredients in their food that are harmful to human health.I am a software developer. Recently, a hospital hired me for some work in thier billing application. During the work, I was exposed to confidential data which I cannot of course share here. But one astonishing thing that I can share is that the cost of investigation (lab tests etc) was 1/10th of what they actually charge the patient.
I beleive, if we can address the greedy business oriented thinking towards health care, there is plenty of room to reduce the cost.
| harismushtaq wrote: |
| I beleive, if we can address the greedy business oriented thinking towards health care, there is plenty of room to reduce the cost. |
Right, including the fact that when there is health care insurance, it is easier for this to happen as if the hospital know they are billing an insurance company, rather than the patient, they would feel less guilty to charge more. If the patient has to fund the bill, maybe they would look at it differently.
On the reverse side, if the patient has health care insurance, it would be easier to ask for more tests than less tests. The health care insurance company will take care of it.
