Fighting For Health Care Coverage
by Big Dog on Jul 18, 2009 at 11:12 Political
Obama and many of his left wing followers are looking to salvage their health care plan and ram it through before the Summer recess. They need to pass it now or people will have a lot of time to dig in and see how truly flawed it is. The more people know, the more they oppose and Obama cannot have this.
The bill they are working on does allow you to keep the coverage you have (assuming that employers who provide will not cancel) but you cannot change. There is a provision that specifically forbids people from purchasing insurance on their own. The fewer choices people see the more they will oppose.
Obama and the Dems are meeting resistance from so called moderate or “Blue Dog” Democrats. These are the ones who pretend to be moderate because they come from moderate or conservative regions of the country and they do not want to be voted out of office. What they normally do is oppose something and then get a concession (some small bone) and then they claim to have fought and won so they can rally folks at home to vote for them. They want the same things other Democrats want but they have to pretend more than usual to be moderate. Remember, if Democrats actually campaigned on their true beliefs they would not win office. No one would have voted for Obama if he had lain out all these plans on the trail. He lied to get elected.
We are now bombarded with lies. Pelosi says that they have the backing of the American People. That is untrue. Most people agree we need reform but that government is not the answer, despite the few flawed polls that came out before this monstrosity was unveiled. There are tax increases, there is a denial of freedom of choice, and there is the government telling people how they will conduct the business of their OWN health care.
Only lemmings like to be led around but then again there are many lemmings on the left who need government to tell them when to go to the bathroom. They need to be provided for because they are not man or woman enough to provide for themselves. Any person who thinks it is government’s job to provide for people or who live off the government (which is really living off other taxpayers) is not a total person. They are the three fifths person that the Constitution discussed. They are NOT whole people. THis means people who have the means to work and to take care of themselves. Of course there are small minority populations in any society that need special care (though families should provide it). We already have programs to assist these kinds of people.
Yes, health care coverage needs to be looked at because over regulation and state mandates have allowed monopolies. We need an OPEN market where people can shop around. More companies providing more choices leads to lower prices and better competition. Government involvement leads to rules forcing compliance on your personal choices, rules forbidding you to choose, and eventual destruction of private insurance companies.
The eventual outcome is that states lose their control (which is monopolistic anyway and should include competition) and the feds take over. What happens when states start telling the feds that the government plan must meet state standards and that state taxes and fees need to be paid? What happens when state insurance commissioners claim they are in charge and order the feds around?
We are certain to see a violation of the Tenth Amendment (more so than we see everyday).
Government does not belong in private business and it does not belong providing health care insurance to people. Our Constitution does not provide for this so called “right” and we cannot allow the feds to take over more control of our lives.
People must fight now to stop this. Let your members of Congress know you will vote for their opponent in the next election if they vote yes on this (or cap and trade) and refuse to donate to anyone.
We need to be tough because Chicago thug Obama and hiz posse is working hard to screw you before you know it. They are sending out the thugs to break legs and hide bodies. Do not let them roll over you. They work for us, not the other way around.
Fire them!
Sources:
Breitbart
CNS News
Yahoo
CQ Politics
Google News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: blue dogs, Democrats, health care, Obama, sham
Bigd: “Most people agree we need reform but that government is not the answer, despite the few flawed polls that came out before this monstrosity was unveiled.”>>
DAR
I have given you eight scientific polls showing strong majorities supporting a public option. You have not provided a single one, asking this question, which shows otherwise.
D.
—————–
“Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what,” Obama said. “We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs.”
Whoo wee- I guess I am one of them thar special interests that gut’s talkin’ about, ’cause I sure am opposed.
How’s Canada, D?
Blk: “How’s Canada, D?”>>
DAR
Superb. Rented scooters yesterday and scooted to Cordova Bay” and had blueberries for lunch. Scooted to Sooke today.
Headlines in the paper the other day were about the government giving out free crack pipes.
I’ll see if I can get you one. Couldn’t hurt.
D.
No No No No- I don’t do that no more, Im tired of waking up on the floor.
Darrell, I would like to bet that you will be the first one to squawk when the government tells you that you cannot have a necessary test or that your elderly mother or father are denied the right to care, but left to die. If you think this won’t happen, then you really are stupid.
Barbara, I would like to bet that you will be the first one to squawk when a private insurance company tells you that you cannot have a necessary test or that your elderly mother or father are denied the right to care, but left to die. If you think this won’t happen (or hasn’t happened), then you really are stupid.
The reason this is more likely to happen with the private insurance company system (or to a person with no insurance), is because the purpose of a non-profit single payer system is to provide coverage to everyone. The purpose of the US system, is to maximize profits which it does most effectively by completely denying coverage to those who need it the most and by denying care to those who do have it. Different purpose, different outcome.
D.
The government denies coverage also, D- both the Canadian and British do this all the time, so what’s the difference?
Do we settle for really bad coverage for “all” (when in reality, there will always be some no covered), or do we hold out for the best coverage possible?
Oh yea, the system needs to be tweaked, but government needs to have a very limited regulatory role, and nothing more.
I do not want a government pinhead telling ME how severe MY affliction is. I think I know more about that then he would.
BLK: “I do not want a government pinhead telling ME how severe MY affliction is.>>
DAR
What you would have now, IF you could get insurance, is an insurance pinhead arguing with your doctor about “how severe” your affliction is. Canada doesn’t have that. You figure out with your doctor what you need/want, and it’s covered. Don’t like you doctor, go to another, they are all “in network.” If you doctor says you need it, you get it. And he sends the bill to the insurance company (there is only one) and they pay it.
Duke University, in the US, has a world class medical hospital with 900 beds. They also have 900 billing clerks. One per bed. And the insurance companies have 900 people (pin-heads) on the their end to negotiate with those billing clerks about how “severe” your affliction is. And the goal of those pin-heads is to maximize profits which they do by limiting coverage (just like they limit your by not even insuring you). It’s their job, it’s what they do.
Canada doesn’t have that.
D.
————-
“Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for CIGNA who finally listened to his conscience, left behind the blood money, and started talking about the evil he was doing as a shill for the health care denial industry.
…Potter was the point man for CIGNA during various high-profile denials over the past few years, like the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died because CIGNA refused to give her a liver transplant. Potter talks about what it was like helping cover for CIGNA as it killed this poor girl…”
the rest…
Why is it you give examples like this CIGNA and expect it represents the entire industry but when there are examples of the problems with Canadian health care you dismiss them as NOT representative of the entire industry?
Does Duke have one billing clerk per bed or doe they have 900 billing clerks because of the volume of business they do? Anyone could assume that it is one clerk for each bed but the beds are used thousands of times per year so the billing clerks are actually responsible for a huge number of patients per year and not a particular bed. And Duke is a training hospital. Are any of the clerks responsible for tuition billing?
Here is another stat for you:
As the Southeast’s preeminent health care provider and one of the nation’s best, Duke attracts a total of more than 60,000 inpatient stays and 1.4 million outpatient visits annually. Source
So, that makes 1,460,000 patients seen per year. Divide that by 900 billing clerks and you get 1,622 patients per clerk. Since billing is not a one time shot and involves a lot of follow up per patient, it seems this is reasonable.
You equate to the number of beds, you should look at the number of people. 1.4 million don’t even get admitted so do not use in patient beds.
Dog, Darrel cherry picks with the best of them- we KNOW that- that’s why we have such a hard time. He refuses to accept our data, and we can tell that he cuts and pastes like a third grader on ritalin.
Unfortunately, there may never be a meeting of the minds until Obamacare implodes- and it will.
Bigd: “Why is it you give examples like this CIGNA>>
DAR
Barbara referred to government denying care and causing a death, but she forgot to give an example. I thought I would gave her one from private insurance. There are lots more.
Bigd: “Does Duke have one billing clerk per bed>>
DAR
Yes. Unless this doctor from that hospital was lying to the senate. Note:
“The Senate Finance Committee has heard about the problem of overhead. On Nov. 19, Professor Uwe Reinhardt, who is also on the board of trustees of the 900-bed Duke University Hospital, used Duke to illustrate the problem: “We have 900 billing clerks at Duke. I’m not sure we have a nurse per (each) bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed…”
Link.
Bigd: “…or doe they have 900 billing clerks because of the volume of business they do?”
DAR
The number of beds a hospital has is a normative measurement of the size of a hospital.
Bigd: “Anyone could assume that it is one clerk for each bed…”
DAR
900 beds, 900 billing clerks, equals approximately one clerk per bed.
Bigd: “…but the beds are used thousands of times per year…”
DAR
No, each bed is not used “thousands of times per year.”
Bigd: “Duke attracts a total of more than 60,000 inpatient stays and 1.4 million outpatient visits annually.”>>
DAR
You are mistaken. My stat refers to one hospital. If you read your stat more carefully you would have noticed that it refers to three hospitals and the entire medical university system which includes a multitude of out patient clinics, etc.,.
Bigd: “Divide that by 900 billing clerks and you get 1,622 patients per clerk.>>
DAR
And 1,622 patients per bed per year which is 4.4 per bed, per day. Please.
D.
D- The facts seem to suggest that “medical” bankruptcies would not be occouring without a massive credit card debt already accrued. Here, read this:
http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/medical-bankruptcy-myths/
BLK: “The facts seem to suggest that “medical” bankruptcies would not be occouring without a massive credit card debt already accrued.”>>
DAR
What a load. As if people getting hit with a surprise $100k medical bill would suddenly stop going bankrupt if they could have just kept those credit card bills down.
Read the study, learn:
Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; Department of Sociology, Ohio University, Athens; and Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. –The American Journal of Medicine (2009).
I’ll respond to your other points about bankruptcy above.
D.
Don’t bother- I know that I am right, no matter how you wish to cherry- pick the facts.
I also find it telling that so many Doctors have resigned from the AMA because of that organization’s endorsement (with coercion, I am sure) of Hussein’s death plan.
No, Canada has a Looooong waiting list, and the government decides if you are worth it. Where’s the benefit for this, D?
BLK: “Canada has a Looooong waiting list,”>>
DAR
Canada has some waits, for some elective procedures, in some areas. This is a funding issue that differs by province and area. If we have backlogs in the courts do we say, “well, this legal system doesn’t work, it needs to go.” Or do we say, “we need to hire more judges and build more court houses?” If we have more convicts than prisons do we say “this whole idea of jails needs to scrapped, it’s just unworkable.” Or do we say, “we need to spend more on prisons?”
BLK: “…and the government decides if you are worth it.”>>
DAR
Actually, that’s not true. But even if it were true (and it’s not, your doctor decides what you need and he doesn’t care because he doesn’t pay for it), it would still be preferable to having a private, for profit corporation decide if you “are worth it.” This is because they make more money if your “aren’t worth it.”
BLK: “Where’s the benefit for this, D?”>>
DAR
There are several benefits. Nearly everyone’s covered, lower cost, better outcomes, a more satisfied populace, near zero medical bankruptcies, nearly everyone’s covered.
Why don’t you list the benefits of the US system which doesn’t cover or under covers tens of millions, costs more, has worse outcomes, has a more dissatisfied populace, causes about 5,700 medical bankruptcies a day and leaves tens of millions without coverage?
D.
Canada can’t hire more Doctors, because who wants the hassle of a broken system? This is why most good Canadian Docs come here.
I do not call a heart by- pass an elective procedure, nor a brain tumor, but you go ahead and play with words.
The US has better outcomes, better machines, and better Doctors than Canada- therefore, better outcomes, no matter how you wish to twist the data, D.
BLK: “Canada can’t hire more Doctors,>>
DAR
Canada is hiring more doctors. The ratio has been going up.
BLK: because who wants the hassle of a broken system?>>
DAR
You have it upside down again. You want me to find a poll of what doctors think of the different systems? You will get smoked again, as usual. Support for single payer has been steadily rising among US doctors. Observe:
***
“…a poll published recently [2008] in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a “single payer” plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies — including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada — have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals…
The new poll, conducted by Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, shows a sharp 10 percent spike in the number of doctors supporting national insurance: 59 percent in 2007 compared to 49 percent five years earlier. This indicates that more physicians are eager for systematic changes…”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt
I am sure Canadian doctors would like some tweaks. I bet the percentage that want to switch to a US style system is tiny.
Regarding the above, it seems they are really tired of haggling with 1,300 insurance companies and being denied the ability to treat patients as they think they need just so a corporation can give a billion dollar golden parachute to a CEO (but I know that sort of thing is really important to you guys).
BLK: This is why most good Canadian Docs come here.>>
DAR
Some Canadian doctors do go to the US (but this trend has been declining), because they can make about twice as much money… as they feed off the bloated US system. The same system that won’t give you health insurance so it can maximize profits and pay it’s doctors about twice as much.
I suppose this irony escapes you.
BLK: “The US has better outcomes”>>
DAR
Well of course, if you compare two similar countries, each country is going to do slightly better than the other country in various categories. That is to be expected and the US has deeper pockets with nearly 10x the population. But it wouldn’t be honest to cherry a couple categories as you do here. Best to have a serious study of the issue. I have already provided this. In the largest systematic study of this, Canada actually came out ahead. Again:
“The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems.” [was done] “jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada.”
Link
Try again.
D.
“Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what,”
Straw man argument. Obama is good at this.
Has anyone else seen Crowder’s video of trying to get in to see a doctor in Canada?
For a broken clavicle, the wait was 9 hours, then come back tomorrow in the ER.
In some towns there is a lottery to see who will actually get a doctor that year.
Oh, just love them good ol’ subsidized healthcare.
Steven Crowder’s vid is called.
Obamacare- Yea or Nay.
Watch- its telling about the state of Canadian Healthcare- a picture is worth a thousand words.
[…] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Fighting For Health Care Coverage [Translate] English العربية български català česky dansk Deutsch ελληνική español eesti فارسی suomi français galego עברית […]
Dog said “…the beds are used thousands of times a year…”
You changed it to say, “each bed is not used …” Did you miss the meaning, or deliberately twist the meaning?
The 5700 bankruptcies a day is an inflated number used when ANY medical bill is part of a bankruptcy. The survey also asked people if a medical bill was part of the reason. The average amount of the bill for those with insurance was $18,000 and without was $27,000. These are hardly numbers that bankrupt people unless they have all kinds of other out of control spending. If they looked at credit card debt i am willing to bet it is higher than medical bills. No one asked if high credit card debt was part of the reason for the bankruptcy.
This is a misleading campaign. Any person who claims that a medical bill is PART of the reason has the bankruptcy attributed to medical bills regardless of the other financial problems. Wanna bet that home mortgages that people got and could not afford are more of a problem than bankruptcy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/07/obamateurism-of-the-day-15/
The much touted Harvard study claims that more than half of bankruptcies were ATTRIBUTABLE to medical bills. This is not a cause effect relationship and I bet there are many other reasons for the filings which include credit debt, home mortgages and divorce, none of which were followed. They asked people and the people said, yeah, medical bills WERE A PART of my problem so Harvard attributed the bankruptcy to medical.
It is an erroneous argument.
BLK: “They asked people and the people said, yeah, medical bills WERE A PART of my problem so Harvard attributed the bankruptcy to medical.”>>
DAR
Your comments are a bogus caricature of the study. A complete strawman unworthy of consideration.
It is true that there is some subjectivity when considering this issue. Was the bankruptcy caused by the medical bills or other income problems? Also, deciding to file is sometimes a choice to make, or not.
But this extensive study DID take these things into consideration, as best as possible. You OBVIOUSLY haven’t read it and instead, as usual, lean on your usual rightwing nattering nabobs for your misinformation. 6,000 a day is a conservative estimate. It could be more, it might be less. Regardless, it IS an *extraordinary* number that represents a tremendous amount of suffering and it is something that other peer countries do not, comparatively, experience at all.
D.
“Nattering Nabobs”- is this your Spiro Agnew moment, D?
Awwwww- its just so cute when you try to talk Republican.
[…] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Fighting For Health Care Coverage […]
Most doctors I know don’t care for the reimbursement system that is run by government. More and more are deciding against taking Medicare/Medicaid so they won’t be bound by the rules that pay them 0.67 on the dollar.
The AMA opposes it.
Bigd: “The AMA opposes it.”
DAR
The AMA is a right leaning organization that represents a minority of American doctors.
But you’re wrong anyway:
AMA Endorses House Bill.
D.
I will bet they did not voluntarily endorse this bill.
The definition of a medical bankruptcy is if you have more than 1000 dollars of medical debt regardless of other debt.
You could have 50,000 in credit card bills and 1005 in medical and they would call it a medical bankruptcy. The Harvard study is bogus.
The second section of Table 2 reports the number of
respondents who had a variety of medical-related problems
such as illness causing a loss of at least 2 weeks of
income, and medical bills in excess of $1000 in the
previous two years. HWTW count these problems as medical related
reasons for bankruptcy even if the respondents did
not state that illness or injury was a reason for
bankruptcy. As a result, HWTW conclude that 54.5 percent
of respondents had medical bankruptcies.
~snip~
Second, Himmelstein agrees that some respondents may have
paid off their medical debts, but he argues that without
medical debts, they would have had more money available to
pay other expenses. He also argues that the level of
medical debt may be understated, as some medical expenses
may have been paid by credit card. The first argument
could be made for all expenditures prior to bankruptcy,
leading to the meaningless conclusion that all expenditures
are responsible for all bankruptcies. The second argument
merely reinforces the fact that since all debts are
fungible, it is inappropriate to single out any one form of
debt as the proximate cause of bankruptcy.
~snip~
This past year, the U.S. Department of Justice responded to
a request by Republican senator Charles Grassley by
examining 5,203 bankruptcy cases from the files of the U.S.
Trustee Program. The DoJ filings occurred between 2000 and
2002, the same time frame as the HWTW filings. The DoJ
reported 90 percent of filers had medical debt of less than
$5,000. Of those reporting medical debts, those debts
accounted for only 13 percent of total unsecured debt.
The DOJ summarizes the evidence against the thesis of the
HWTW article as follows: “The conclusion that almost (cq)
50 percent of consumer bankruptcies are ‘medical related’
requires a broad definition and generally is not
substantiated by the official documents filed by debtors.”
Taking all four surveys under consideration, we observe
that while medical costs have risen sharply over four
decades, medical debt remains a small part of the overall
burden of those filing for bankruptcy.
From here:
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/chime/papers/myth_vs_fact.pdf