spcrnr Open Thread for the Week of September 06 pdf
by matthew on Sun Sep 06 00:00:00 CDT 2009
Some of our most productive and interesting conversations have come from open threads where almost anything goes. Speaker's Corner is a topic that is dedicated to open-conversation about almost anything that's on your mind.
The real Speaker's Corner is located in the north-east corner of London's Hyde Park where public speaking is allowed. There is no immunity from the law at speaker's corner, and while the police tend to be tolerant, they do not allow profanity or unlawful behavior. You may be jeered, ridiculed, enthusiastically supported, or completely ignored. Now, what's on your mind?
by Sue on Tue Sep 08 06:40:30 CDT 2009
Many countries around the world provide universal coverage WITHOUT a public option.
 
Regarding the public option - I'm not against it -  it just doesn't strick me as something worth drawing the line the sand over. And I don’t understand what is driving the left demanding this anymore than I get what is driving the right??
 
I can't really see that it will lower costs that much unless it is allowed to set prices.  And when you do that look what happens with Medicaid - doctors just quit taking Medicaid patients You can’t blame them - they don't get paid for months.   We aren't doing a very good job with Medicaid. Someone I know got assigned by the state to a doctor in Taylorville!!  And this person doesn't even have a car!
 
I like the German and Swiss idea - you just regulate the hell out of the insurance companies.  They aren't even allowed to make a profit for basic policies.
 
I just can’t understand what is driving the left to draw this “public option” line in the sand?  
 
I almost wonder if the same money is driving both the far right and far left just to make anything fail.
 
 
 
5 Myths About Health Care Around the World
By T.R. Reid
Sunday, August 23, 2009
 
 
 
by matthew on Tue Sep 08 11:30:54 CDT 2009
Good article Sue. I think including a strong Public Option (HR676 is basically an expansion of the existing Medicare program) is the most effective way to rescue this failed healthcare system we find ourselves stuck with now.   Here’s why:
If we had a generation to fix the problems that are endemic in the system, then I’d be in agreement with you. The German and Swiss systems have merit. Requiring health insurance companies to be (honest-to-goodness) non-profits is a great idea, too. However “evolving” what we have now in to one of those models just won’t work. We’ve been waiting for 40 years; if not now, when? If not us, who?
Here’s a story for you – right from Decatur this past weekend. We went to Garver Feeds for cat treats on Saturday. We parked along the street a little east of the store. As I got out I noticed four or five sleeping bags stuffed under the Franklin Street Overpass. I asked the clerk if there were people living under the overpass, and she said yes, a few still do. She said there were fewer up there now since a gang came by and beat them up, but a few have come back. I asked if they stayed year around. Again – she said a few.   Isn’t it our responsibility, as a society, to do what we can to see these people – even if they live under a bridge – can get the medical attention they need?…Not only when they’re bloodied and bruised and hauled in to the emergency room by ambulance, but also when they’re in need of medicines to fight off infections or illness, or addiction counseling, or maintenance medication to manage chronic conditions?   Now not having met the under-bridge-dwellers in person, I may be going out on a limb, but I suspect there are mental and physical factors at work that have played a role in making them live as they do.
The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed quickly, efficiently, and in a manner that is fair to everyone.   You don’t drive a rail-road spike with a cobbler’s hammer, and we can’t fix healthcare by tweaking the for-profit health insurance companies.   They’ve had 40 years worth of chances to get it right – time for a change – a real public option…
by Sue on Tue Sep 08 13:04:20 CDT 2009

I totally agree with you that we need to do something ASAP.  And I totally agree on the "our responsiblity as a society" to provide medical care even to the "viaduct dwellers".  

I believe this and I take it literally:
      "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'  45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the  least of these, you did not do for me.'


So its your thought that the only simple way we cover them is with a public option? 

Because Germany and Switzerland must have their share of these too?  And my concern is that creating yet another system may not be the most efficient way to do it.  I'd rather add these to an existing system, public or private. 

Also  I kinda think the public support tables would turn pretty quickly when it because an issue of regulating the insurance cos... rather  than creating more goverment

Sue

by matthew on Tue Sep 08 14:38:06 CDT 2009
Sue - right!  That’s why I refer to HR676. It essentially extends the Medicare (not Medicaid!) system to include those who opt in to it. The framework is already in place and it’s already more efficient than the system us under 65 are participating in now – let’s put it to work for everyone and realize the savings!  
by Sue on Tue Sep 08 16:12:20 CDT 2009
Very interesting article.....  I dont' think we could have a 1 tier system here - as much as I would like it  -not polically possible as many things are not!

Here is another article I found -  What are your thoughts on it?  I really like this comment:

The central progressive breakthrough in any reform should be to make it possible for every American to access group health coverage outside the employment setting -- access that does not currently exist but which the proposed insurance exchanges would enable. What's critical, therefore, is the structure of these exchanges and the rules about who would be eligible to use them. Such questions have received disturbingly little attention but need to be front and center. For example, some legislation proposes barring people who enjoy employer-based coverage from seeking insurance from the new exchanges; this ban should be scrapped in favor of the proposal offered by Sen. Ron Wyden, under which employees could use the cash their companies spend on their benefits to buy coverage they prefer at the exchange.

Why Liberals should drop the public option
by Matt Miller 
9-9-2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702070.html
by Sue on Tue Sep 08 16:16:52 CDT 2009
Also, This guy says begin to think of the insurance industry as a  "jobs program" --  LOL   I thought that was too funny
by matthew on Wed Sep 09 15:09:21 CDT 2009
Sue, the Wyden plan is the state-based exchanges and voucher idea, and it’s a bad one.
by Sue on Wed Sep 09 15:43:11 CDT 2009
What appeals to me about it is moving away from insurance that is attached to your job.  I'd rather the insurance stay with the individual not with the company.  In todays job market jobs come and go too quickly and even if we have some type of universal coverage - having to change your plan everytime you lose a job is an additional hardship and hassle.  I also assume the additional paperwork of switching would entail more expense.

What don't you like about it?  Personally I'd rather have a national exchange than a state based exchange.  I think a bigger pool could offer a better deal to consumers you know spread the risk and expense farther.  Also what don't you like about the voucher idea?  It works pretty good with section 8 housing?

Sue
by Sue on Wed Sep 09 16:06:03 CDT 2009

Oh also, not to turn into too much of a Republican :-)  ---- just kidding - will never happen ----- but one point I keep hearing from the conservative point of view that I like -  setting some things up in ways that increases our personal responsibilty  because - it is human nature to be more careful with our money then with someone elses.  For example - the high deductable insurance options with health saving accounts - I like that idea in fact I have that now with a company match to what I put in my HSA before taxes. 

But it has to cover preventatiive covered because I think that will save money in the long run.   In the case that I pay for additional tests out of my own money I may be morely like to skip one that is not necessary.
Im not a believer that more is necessarily better.  I know a lady who insisted on a hip replacement even though her Dr did not recommend it....  Now if the Dr didn't even recommend it - should medicare have paid for it?

Another thing along this line is the lack of cost consciousness  - under my current plan I never really see the actual cost of the insurance because my company picks up a bunch of it.  I don't even know what it costs per pay check - I see my share - but that is all.  I think many of us are not very conscious of the actual costs.  Cause you know those cost actually come out of our salaries anyway in the form of lower raises...

Sue

by haydiz on Wed Sep 09 16:51:45 CDT 2009
I agree with Sue --- maybe because I'm a closet Republican too in some respects.  ;-)  Who would want THAT secret out in the open but... anyway. 

I think prevention is a big issue.  The private insurance I have now, through Cat, doesn't pay a dime on office visits.  I don't know why any doctor would want to accept patients who have Caterpillar insurance over Medicaid.  At least with Medicaid they'll eventually get paid.  With such crappy insurance I found myself not going to the doctor as often as I should.  I put it off until I was as sick as a dog - still do because I can't dish out $120 here and there.  I'll find a way to pay for the kids if they're sick but I put my own health on hold.  I'll be on government run insurance in November when Cat drops us.

I'd really like to be able to shop around for the best insurance I can buy and NOT be denied or charged ridiculous premiums for pre-existing conditions.  What is really ridiculous with Caterpillar:  they'd pay for emergency room visits but not for doctor visits.  If I catch a cold in the next month, I should go to the emergency room and run up a $5000 bill for Caterpillar to pay!  It wouldn't take much.  It would serve them right!  Of course, I'd probably just infect myself with swine flu if I hung around the ER too much...
by matthew on Wed Sep 09 20:55:30 CDT 2009
Just watched the President's speech.


 

I'm still skeptical on the exchanges, but including a not-for-profit option goes a long way towards balancing the playing field in my mind.


 

Great speech. He's an extremely smart guy, and he showed enough backbone to make me comfortable in saying: He's got my support. His position is not my optimal position, but he's in the middle of the fight, and I'm just an idealist in Decatur Illinois...I bet I know more about Decatur Police space needs than he does though!!! ;-)


 

With all respect Sue and Kris, I haven't digested either of your posts, so I'm really sorry if I'm stepping on you guys or killing the thread's flow – but after hearing the speech, I'll say this: I'll roll with the President's plan...Even though I'm not 100% comfortable with it.

 

by matthew on Wed Sep 09 21:08:23 CDT 2009
FWIW my wife (the brilliant Dr. Jackson, Family Practice MD – Accepting new patients!) clapped when the President talked about paying for preventative care and for malpractice reform. Preventative health care is a huge deal in reducing long term costs for everyone in the health care system.  Again, I'm not 100% happy with it, but there's quite a bit to like....
by Sue on Wed Sep 09 23:13:51 CDT 2009
 Wow - me too!!  Great speech!!

Sue
by Sue on Wed Sep 09 23:50:42 CDT 2009
Also, here is what I'd love to know - what did he say to Hillary right before the  speech that made them both smile?
by haydiz on Thu Sep 10 11:23:35 CDT 2009
Also, here is what I'd love to know - what did he say to Hillary right before the  speech that made them both smile?

"Hillary, Kris was right, YOU should have been president!"  ;-)
by Sue on Thu Sep 10 11:48:59 CDT 2009
LOL too funny!!!  He has got to be wondering just what in the heck he got himself into.  I bet Hillary's a  little grateful NOT to be in his shoes now... 
by haydiz on Fri Sep 11 07:50:31 CDT 2009
Yep.  But something tells me Hillary would love to switch roles.  When I saw Obama's first speech in Springfield announcing his run for  president I thought, "He'd make a great Secretary of State for Hillary Clinton."  I also thought, "I hope not too many people are watching this speech because some of them may prefer Obama over Clinton."  Too many people watched! 
Username
Password