You keep repeating this BS like it was true. Look, I've made numerous posts in this thread and commented on anything I felt was relevant. I've responded to your posts specifically. You just don't like my responses or can't understand them. In Russia they call that toughi chitski. But you seem determined to call me out, so stop being a goddamn crybaby and ask whatever your friggin question is once again . . . simply and straightforwardly. Now, this is what is going to happen. Just as before. 1. I may agree with you. 2. I may disagree with you, if so I'll tell you why. 3. I may not care. Live with it.
1. The poor marks for our system on infant mortality and life expectancy can have several major causes, and I'm sure they are good for those who are COVERED by good insurance. The system gets poor marks because it leaves out so many people that all the other major industrialized countries DO COVER and they don't leave anyone out. 2. Controlling cost is the challenge of reforming the system, it is breaking the nation. But we spend 17% of GDP while covering 82% of the people, while the other industrialized nations spend 10% of GDP and cover EVERYONE. There is a lot of FAT in our system, and it should be possible to cover everyone and reduce costs by cutting the fat out. Where to cut the fat: A. Start with the prescription drug coverage in Medicare that did not allow the govt. to negotiate for lower drug costs from the drug companies. Here is how David Walker describes that bill, passed in 2003 by the republican House of Rep., republican Senate, and signed by GWB: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble? - 60 Minutes - CBS News This one bill by the republicans adds 40% to the deficit over the next 75 years! It was passed and did NOT ALLOW THE GOVT. TO NEGOTIATE FOR LOWER DRUG COSTS, and it was PASSED WITHOUT A TAX TO SUPPORT THE EXPENSES! Nothing could be more fiscally irresponsible. Now everyone wants to jump on the dems for suggesting additional taxes, to pay for the program the repubs passes without one. The five year projected cost was 650 billion, no tax passed to pay for it. THIS IS PRIORITY ONE, AND IT MUST BE ADDRESSED. We have to negotiate for lower costs from the drug companies and we need to pass the tax increase that should have been passed when the bill was passed, to do the fiscally responsible thing a pay for it. B. Cut cost on end of life care that is futile for terminally ill patients. Most experts feel this is abused to run bills up and does not add materially to quality extension of life. Medicare spends a quarter of its 350 billion annual budget on the last year of life for our seniors. C. Attack Medicare fraud, estimated at 60 billion a year. Blatant Medicare fraud costs taxpayers billions - Nightly News with Brian Williams- msnbc.com Standardized IT systems for managing patient records would be great, but it won't be easy. We'd be lucky to get a regional model online in 3 years. Make the drug companies stop charging the US double what they charge for the same drug in Canada or Mexico. I heard one of the drug CEOs on a news forum and when asked why this occurred, he just said, "Canada has price controls, as do all the other nations". Only us fools in the US let the drug companies charge what they want and pay it. There is a LOT of fat in our system, both in Medicare and the private system, that can be wrung out.
typical ignore and attack. respond when you can and accuse others of being stupid and uninformed when you can't. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That's only a vague theory, but I appreciate you at least acknowledging there are many factors involved in this. Cutting the fat and being more efficient. Obama? Is that you? okay, so now you quote an article that says the government took on more of the healthcare pie and now prices are really out of control. So the plan now is to take on even more and this should control costs. If prescription meds can be negotiated at better prices (not sure if they can as I believe gov't pays less than private insurance already) then let's do that. Let's actually make these improvements that are so easy to make and then decide from there what to do. My guess is, as usual, the gov't can't save the money it says it can. Okay fine, I'm not familiar with this bill but it sounds pretty stupid to me. This is exactly why I don't like the new plan. More costs on the gov't with only a promise to do it on the cheap. Sounds good, let's do it. Sounds good, let's do it. Won't be on line in three years. Closer to 7 in my opinion. That's fine, let's cut the fat. The problem is, Obama is trying to push this through as cutting the fat but adds all sorts of other crap. At the end of the day, he won't be able to cut the fat just as no one else has for the last 20 years. These have been ongoing problems that governemnt cannot solve. Let's solve our problems first and then we can talk. Right now, all we're going to do is add more cost and be no more efficient.
"Standardized IT systems for health care" Don't even get me started on this. As a healthcare IT employee, the government's standards for IT systems are ridiculous and contribute to even less efficiency. They exist to line the pockets of big business and the Chicago political machine.
We have to get the expenses down or the nation goes totally bankrupt in 40 years, will only be able to pay the interest on the debt. We also need a system that meets the needs of the people. We need to insure most of the people. We need to fix it so if you get laid off and you have a heart condition, you can get reasonable private health insurance or govt. health insurance. We have to fix it so if you have a private health plan and you get cancer they cannot throw you out of the plan and leave you uninsured (the other private ins. companies will not touch you with cancer). There are a lot of big problems to solve, private industry has had the last 60 years and they have not solved them. They cherry pick their clients and say the heck with the rest. That's not right.
Agreed Well which is it, do we need to cut costs or do we need to take care of people who are terminally ill and can't pay for their own treatment. You can't have it both ways no matter what Obama tells you.
You can have it both ways. All the other industrialized nations have figured out how to do it, cover everyone at about 10% of GDP. We spend 17% of GDP and leave out 18% of the people. There are too many hogs in the trough enriching themselves on the system. I don't think we can continue to have an extravagant system for the wealthy and well insured, and cover most of the people. Somebody will have to take less if we cut cost and cover the bulk of the currently uninsured. I think we can have a basic govt. sponsored health system that covers everyone but it is basic. If you go in and need a drug, you get a generic. Maybe the rich and well insured buy a supplement policy and get a better level of care. But the problem with healthcare currently is not just that its too expensive, it also fails to meet even basic needs of too large a portion of the population. That problem has been solved by many nations.
Show me the model we can afford and I will support it. The President has simply failed to deliver any details, and the CBO projections are dismal. What we can afford is to increase the scrutiny shown to Medicare claims. There is no doubt in my mind that a substantial portion of Medicare is for fraud and waste and another sizable portion is for procedures that were not medically necessary. There is a program being rolled out called RACs (Recovery Audit Contractor). It has more than paid for itself everywhere it has been piloted. I think the full implementation will have awesome effects on the entire healthcare industry. It is just one common sense solution to remove cost from the equation. I think that is the rout we should be taking before we re-invent the wheel. Which nations have solved the problem? Just because many industrialized countries pay less of their GDP for care does not indicate that their model is sustainable.
