Now that health-care reform is dead --- what next?

[bhndr]

It seems that the legilators have gone on another break without closing the deal on healthcare which ensures that the issue is dead for yet another 4-8 years. What now?

As premiums continue to rise and quality continues to go down, how do we the peopole, survive?
When the Government cannot protect its own people from enemies foreign or domestic, what next?

The insurance companies ARE an enemy of America. Their consistant use of predatory pricing and the stringent call from conservatives to de-regulate the system further, thus increasing the power and unilateral decisions on healthcare (rationing BTW) of insurance companies, How can we the people fight back?

Competition in the healthcare industry doesn't exist so that doesn't control costs.

Tax credits of $5300 don't work because that $5300 barely covers 2 ER visits, doesn't cover the cost of a base insurance policy, and waiting a whole year destroys the clint's credit (determining jobs, housing and a myriad of other life situations), thereby causing more problems than it fixes.

HSA's don't work for similar reasons as tax-credits

And the war against the American public by Health insurance and big Pharma is just getting started.
With the death of healthcare reform, conservatives have ensured only that Insurance companies govern the nation and that democracy is run by those who can buy the most votes.

How does the little guy get justice and fair treatment when those in power abdicate their responsibility?

[kylestockissues]

and the answer to our health care debacle is nationalize health care?

[bhndr]

Kyle-
the answer IS a national system of care. Just think for one second without all the fear bandied about. Lokk at the real picture rather than the lies trumped up by conservatives.
1) National health care will ensure that the balance sheets of hospitals and doctors will be healthier becase there will be no loss from unpaid bills. That extra revenue can be used to hire more people, provide better ands MORE services because they can afford to.
2) Choice is better under a national system. P{resently yoiu might have 2 or 3 doctors available under your insurance polan and you have to ask permission to see specialists. Under a national system, EVERY doctor and hospital becomes available and that include specialists. So your choices are expanded and not limited as the fearmongering conservatives falsly claim. This is pure common sense which is sorely lacking in the conservative models of healthcare.
3) Wait times actually fall. The conservatives are engaged in dupicitous behavior. They site cases from Canada and britain without giving the corresponding facts about America's system. Wait times for transplants in the US is measured in years, wait times for a regular doctor appointment measures in months. What is different from the factual state of things now against the supposed long waits of "years for transplants, months for doctor's appointments"? There is no difference between that and what we have now. The only real difference between the two is that in one system, (Canada, GB), you don't have to mortage the farm to afford it, and the other system, (US), where prices go higher and lives are liquidated to feed the ravenous greed of corporate insurance.
4) The elderly fare no better under our system than they do in Canada or GB. Mush has been made of the fact that the elderly would suffer but think realistically and you will quickly realize that the elderly are already denied transplants under our system, Our elderly already have trouble getting their medications due to cost and the Pharma companies sit back and do nothing but demand timly payment of premiums for little to no return, looking for a chance to wiggle out of their obligations. NOTHING changes in treatment except for the cost and the financial collapse due to illness. Under a national system cost is no longer an issue, quality does not suffer, and people can actually manage to get a nest egg going rather than having to fritter it away on getting sick.
5) Rationing.... a very scary concept but again nothing that isn't already present within our own system now and a fact intentionally ommitted by conservatives. Insurance agencies ration care constantly. They decide and dictate what services, tests, and medicines you recieve. True you can always pay out of pocket for things you need but are denied by your insurance, but again that leads directly to financial difficulty for the patient. That won't be the case in a national system where every provider, all tests, and medications are covered. Rationing will probably get less under a national system rather than more. In fact common sense tells you that.

Yes National care is the best way to go. ESPECIALLY scince you will not be forced to give up your private insurance if you don't want to, unlike insurance where its one way or no way. The only ones needing to be afraid of national healthcare is the insurance agencies which willo for the first time in history be FORCED to compete in an open market. They will be forced to abandon their exxagerated prices, and they will be forced to deal with the public in a more co-operative manner,(they will no longer have unilateral power over people health anfd financial health. Insurance will no longer be priced out of reach for many people and insurance private and public will become affordable. That is what WILL happen and that is what Insurance and Pharma are paying bug bucks to fight against.

YES< YES< YES.... Give us the healthcare we deserve and not the healthcare that some pencil-pusher decide we can recieve.

[jkdnn0]

Kyle-
the answer IS a national system of care. Just think for one second without all the fear bandied about. Lokk at the real picture rather than the lies trumped up by conservatives.
1) National health care will ensure that the balance sheets of hospitals and doctors will be healthier becase there will be no loss from unpaid bills. That extra revenue can be used to hire more people, provide better ands MORE services because they can afford to.
2) Choice is better under a national system. P{resently yoiu might have 2 or 3 doctors available under your insurance polan and you have to ask permission to see specialists. Under a national system, EVERY doctor and hospital becomes available and that include specialists. So your choices are expanded and not limited as the fearmongering conservatives falsly claim. This is pure common sense which is sorely lacking in the conservative models of healthcare.
3) Wait times actually fall. The conservatives are engaged in dupicitous behavior. They site cases from Canada and britain without giving the corresponding facts about America's system. Wait times for transplants in the US is measured in years, wait times for a regular doctor appointment measures in months. What is different from the factual state of things now against the supposed long waits of "years for transplants, months for doctor's appointments"? There is no difference between that and what we have now. The only real difference between the two is that in one system, (Canada, GB), you don't have to mortage the farm to afford it, and the other system, (US), where prices go higher and lives are liquidated to feed the ravenous greed of corporate insurance.
4) The elderly fare no better under our system than they do in Canada or GB. Mush has been made of the fact that the elderly would suffer but think realistically and you will quickly realize that the elderly are already denied transplants under our system, Our elderly already have trouble getting their medications due to cost and the Pharma companies sit back and do nothing but demand timly payment of premiums for little to no return, looking for a chance to wiggle out of their obligations. NOTHING changes in treatment except for the cost and the financial collapse due to illness. Under a national system cost is no longer an issue, quality does not suffer, and people can actually manage to get a nest egg going rather than having to fritter it away on getting sick.
5) Rationing.... a very scary concept but again nothing that isn't already present within our own system now and a fact intentionally ommitted by conservatives. Insurance agencies ration care constantly. They decide and dictate what services, tests, and medicines you recieve. True you can always pay out of pocket for things you need but are denied by your insurance, but again that leads directly to financial difficulty for the patient. That won't be the case in a national system where every provider, all tests, and medications are covered. Rationing will probably get less under a national system rather than more. In fact common sense tells you that.

Yes National care is the best way to go. ESPECIALLY scince you will not be forced to give up your private insurance if you don't want to, unlike insurance where its one way or no way. The only ones needing to be afraid of national healthcare is the insurance agencies which willo for the first time in history be FORCED to compete in an open market. They will be forced to abandon their exxagerated prices, and they will be forced to deal with the public in a more co-operative manner,(they will no longer have unilateral power over people health anfd financial health. Insurance will no longer be priced out of reach for many people and insurance private and public will become affordable. That is what WILL happen and that is what Insurance and Pharma are paying bug bucks to fight against.

YES< YES< YES.... Give us the healthcare we deserve and not the healthcare that some pencil-pusher decide we can recieve.

You sir are forgetting the giant negative file we could bring against you.

[kylestockissues]

haha

[kylestockissues]

well i dont feel the federal government has constitutional bounds, and wound like to find a way via states for reform, like Massachusetts which has great coverage, states are the true laboratories for innovation, not some bureaucratic mess of a federal government, at the states we can work with infrastructure problems, and problems with human capital etc.

[kylestockissues]

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

- Ron Paul

[bhndr]

Kyle-
I would agree with HR3075 only as long as the tax credits cover penny for penny although the numbers and math in the stated bill are a joke. The amount spent monhthly for a single person is already close to twice that amount.

I am skeptical over HR3076. Not because I don't think malpractise isn't a problem but because of its wording-- buying another policy, paying out more money to an insurance group who's interest is not the consumer or the doctor/hospital but the almighty dollar. There is plenty of room for abuse here and the bill is insufficient to the task.

HR3077 is nice in its intent but is again based on false numbers. $500 a year for uncovered expense? the would be met and surpassed in one months time and does NOTHING to control cost. $3000 a year for catastorphic or terminal illness? That is an insult to the intelligence of Americans. That doesn't begin to address nor relieve the overpricing of healthcare nor does it assist the patient (or victim as I like to say), in coping with hundreds of thousands of dollars in required care per year!

HR3078 I can accept and applaud as a right step. However I would also stipulate that for those who are diagnosed terminal not have to go through the social security review and be given their benefits directly and immediatly. My sister-in-law passed from cancer about 3 years ago and on her death-bed she recieved notice that she was able to work and so could not draw social security. Nor after her death, did her survivors recieve survivor benefits as is the law.

[kylestockissues]

read the rest of the arctice stating the reasons why our health care system is bad government intervention

[bhndr]

What???? Negative file? you lost me.

If what you mean is the exxagerrated and inflated terror over rationing, long lines and people dying cause they can't get treatment, then forget it. It is a proven falicy design to scare and terrorize people. It isn't true, never was true, and never will be true.

Conservative groups invents and portrays lies as truth. All anyone has to do is talk to someone who lives in Canada or GB to set the record straight. I myself have been to canada and was treated there after only 30 minute wait time. For the same issue I have to wait for upwards of 15-18 hrs for treatment here in the US.

Transplants? It is claimed, falsely, that people can't get transplants but the truth is that
The incidence is again exxagerated and beside people here have to wait years for a transplant and that is if they are even allowed to get a transplant.

Conservatives are engaged in a war on its own citizens. They support the present system and the pain and suffering it causes both medically and financially. They are working hard to maintian and broaden the scope of that pain and suffering to more and more of the population. If they do not reform the system then the rolls of the un-insured will continue to grow,l the quality will conitue to decrease, and prices will get higher and higher. That is what you support by fighting against reform.

[kylestockissues]

no i mean this part

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

[kylestockissues]

this is a debate website thats what the neg file has to do with it, this predominantly is a site for cross0x debate, and its also for ld and just debates like we are having, oh and ok so u are our of High School, how old are u?

[bhndr]

Kyle-

I am 43 soon to be 44 this year. I did debate in high school and college and I remember hearing that the best way to prepare for a debate was to argue against your own position.

These days I don't have much except for watching the news channels and reading the newspaper. I follow my reps in Government through congress.org, read sites like this conservative site and also vistit other forums where thoughts and ideas, and yes debates, happen. My teacher is life and the lessons it teaches. I have been homeless, worked myself up to where I am today. Its not much but it is mine and I earned it. I live on the very edge of poverty with no assistance of any sort. Primarily because of my gender, males are excluded more frequently from assistance, but also because I happen to be HIV+ and have been for over 22 years. I have had to live with the disater called healthcare. I have seen good people die for lack of care, I have seen lives destroyed, including my own, through crippling and in-escapable debt. I have never in my life owned a credit card and yet for the 300,000 + debt that I hold through medical bills, even though I am a sdervice connected veteran, my credit rating is in the tank and there is NO possibility of ever getting on top of it. I get no tax returns because of these bills and that's really okay because I owe that money but tax credit won't help me, and guess what I am a typical case. The ruination of financial life through ONE illness is par for the course. I cannot get insurance due to my HIV, I cannot get life insurance due to the HIV, I live penny to penny and there have been many times I have gone without food for days at a time in order to afford medication. I have stopped taking my medication because I can no longer swing the 25000 price tag for medication alone and funding for HIV social programs have been cut every single year of Bush/Cheney.
Tennessee eliminated millions from its healthcare system. Terminal cancer, HIV, Diabetes, Liver failuer, Kidney failure..... all were cut off and given one month to find insurance. Not that insurance is available for the terminal ly ill or even the critically ill, but that doesn't matter because it all about personal responsibility right???. People think that because the government mandated that comapnies accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions that everything is fixed but they do not realize that that only means that the companies can charge you triple or quadruple premiums for a full year without a single penny in coverage, and if you are late by one day you are dropped and the year count starts from zero all over again.' Such a fair and equitable and LEGAL system we have designed specifically to abuse the weakest in the nation. So yes I want healthcare because I know first hand that healthcare, or lack therof, determinres not just your medical health but determines your job, your house, bank accounts, and buying power, it affects you acceptance for utilities such as electric and water. The present system doen not only damage healthcare but it liquidates lives in every aspect of that life. And the system does NOT reward growth or wealth-development. If you earn $50 dollars in a month your benefits are cut or eliminated. All for $50 bucks that hardly covers the cost of a restuarant for one night. Is it worth losing your housing vouchers, your healthcare,(through state or federal), and a tiny (under 200 dollars) stipend a month.

[kylestockissues]

Oh i see well im 16 but i dont think to red the post explaining that there was government intervention form the start, how the present system came from federal law and government intervention

[kylestockissues]

in addition to the previous post from ron paul which u should read

With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare. As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient's confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party. I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.