National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

[GaryC 7]

BTW Gary - how does your "on the record" support of The Patriot Act tie into:

More government = bad. Less government = good

?

Our protection IS one of the things a government should be doing. The bigger the better IMO. I have no fear of the Patriot Act. It's in our best interests. It protects us. I do not think any of my freedoms have been compromised by it. I feel safer knowing that it's there.

Medical care on the other hand is not a responsibility of the government. I don't recall the amendment to the constitution that says we have a right to medical care nor a mandate for the government to provide it.

[GaryC 7]

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

I'm not Gary, but I have to respond to this...

No, I don't think non-medically trained personnel should be able to overrule a doctor's diagonsis or prescription; however, if the government were in-charge of healthcare, how would it be any different? Those in government calling the shots certainly wouldn't be physicians. They'd be politicians or other types of bureaucrats, all of whom wouldn't be any more qualified to question or overrule a doctor's diagnosis than a private insurance company.

I still find it ALMOST amusing how everyone completely ignored my alternative healthcare plan earlier, and continued arguing with each other. I don't think any one here (or in the U.S.) actually wants a solution. It seems everyone just wants to bicker about it and use the topic as fuel for argumentative fire.

Thank you. That is how I would have responded.

I saw your idea. Sounds possible. However I think those on the left side of the isle would appose it just as they do for vouchers for education. For the ones in government its less about making sure everyone sees a doctor and more about power and control over our lives. A voucher is a "get out from under your thumb" card and they wouldn't want that.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Alex+R 0]

I'm not going to go back and read this, but who thinks insurance companies make decisions w/o doctors? Who do you think reviews each individual claim and testifies in court? Accountants?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For some reason I'm reminded of the unemotional Vulcans in Star Trek - who were always portrayed as being the good guys. Yet a people who only deal in logic, it seems to me, would be the worst kind of totalitarian society...

Gary - let me ask you this. Two scenarios from my own life - both totally 100% true:

1) My father in law almost had a heart attack because his insurance provider decided that because he hadn't had an angina attack in a while that he didn't need to have a cardiologist. We found out some months after the wedding that he had collapsed in the hotel room on the same day but kept it quiet because he didn't want his problem to affect our day.

You oppose regulation - do you think non-medically trained personnel can overrule a doctor's diagnosis as a means to providing inferior (cheaper) treatment?

BTW if this is legal, as it seems to be, then it is rampant. There was a woman on here a few months back who works as a nurse in a hospital who said that she gets calls from insurance companies all day, questioning the prescriptions and treatment giving to particular patients and asking her if they have tried particular (in other words, cheaper) drugs.

Do you think that this should be legal?

2) A friend of mine in his middle 50's, who is caring for his (Alzheimers afflicted) father whilst at the same time running a busy surveying business with my mother in law had a mild stroke just before xmas. He has insurance - but the cost of a hospital stay could well jeopardise his business. As a result he makes the somewhat risky choice of doing all the tests via outpatient services rather than have it taken care of then and there in the hospital.

Question: What is he supposed to do?

I can't and will not try to answer what is a personal decision that you and your family did. You can parade an endless procession of hard luck stories but it will not change my stance. I have personal stories that are just as tragic or more so than yours but I will not trot them out as a way to show I do understand what you and others are going through. I am not heartless. I just think this is a better way than the government doing it. I will repeat it again. The free market will find a way to make it a better system. Doing it by decree via the government will not work. I will not submit to it.

My point here isn't specifically about public healthcare or having the government "do it", I'm illustrating (with specific examples) that there are real problems with the current private system and that leaving it to the "free market" amounts to doing less than nothing.

There's no justifiable reason why unqualified insurance workers and medical billers be able to override the advice and diagnosis of doctors. But its not illegal, and it happens every day.

Nothing short of a scandal - like the one that shoved a well-deserved ####### up the ####### of the cigarrette companies is going to encourage any sort of significant change by itself ;-)

Edited February 10, 2007 by erekose

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm not going to go back and read this, but who thinks insurance companies make decisions w/o doctors? Who do you think reviews each individual claim and testifies in court? Accountants?

My father is a physician and I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of doctors have absolutely no say whatsoever about the decisions private insurance companies make. Most doctors hate HMOs and PPOs just as much (or even more) than patients. HMOs/PPOs keep a physician's patients from proper treatment and often refuse to either fully pay the doctor or pay the doctor at all for his services. How would you like to do your job (my father generally works 12 hours a day, minimum) for free or make 50% to 25% of what you should make? I doubt you would appreciate that very much -- I know I certainly wouldn't.

[Alex+R 0]

I'm not going to go back and read this, but who thinks insurance companies make decisions w/o doctors? Who do you think reviews each individual claim and testifies in court? Accountants?

My father is a physician and I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of doctors have absolutely no say whatsoever about the decisions private insurance companies make. Most doctors hate HMOs and PPOs just as much (or even more) than patients. HMOs/PPOs keep a physician's patients from proper treatment and often refuse to either fully pay the doctor or pay the doctor at all for his services. How would you like to do your job (my father generally works 12 hours a day, minimum) for free or make 50% to 25% of what you should make? I doubt you would appreciate that very much -- I know I certainly wouldn't.

What I'm saying is the people who make those decisions for insurance companies ARE doctors. My dad is also a doctor and he testifies in court for insurance companies all the time. When he tells the truth and supports a patient claim, they usually do not use him again. But most doctors are in the pockets of those insurance companies. A lot of doctors are greedy mofos. I'm sorry but it's true. Don't think for a second that the doctor lobby has nothing to do with the pressure to keep our current health care system in place. As to your last sentence, my dad is generally for some type of public health care because he knows that the world does not revolve around him and his desire to own ten horses. There are more important things.

PS my dad works that much too, had the same amount of education I'm sure, teaches at medical school on the side and also works for a rehab center. But he knows that how much he "should" make is still relative and he did not go into medicine to make a lot of money. He went into it to help people.

[Scott & Lai 12]

BTW Gary - how does your "on the record" support of The Patriot Act tie into:

More government = bad. Less government = good

?

Our protection IS one of the things a government should be doing. The bigger the better IMO. I have no fear of the Patriot Act. It's in our best interests. It protects us. I do not think any of my freedoms have been compromised by it. I feel safer knowing that it's there.

Medical care on the other hand is not a responsibility of the government. I don't recall the amendment to the constitution that says we have a right to medical care nor a mandate for the government to provide it.

To say that less government is good is not to say that there should be no government. The Constitution specifies a limited number of things which the Federal Government is permitted to do. One of the major ones is national defence; the Patriot Act falls under this. On the other hand, the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Government to run medical care, nor many other things in which it has become involved. The Constitution was written partly to limit the power of the Federal Government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An update about my friend who had the stroke. He didn't actually have health insurance. Also before this, he had a clean bill of health all his life (some 50 years) - never once spending a single night in hospital.

Now he's trying to get insured and finds that the drugs the doctor have put him on (cholesterol lowering Lipitor) is a huge red flag for the insurance companies who are now quoting him huge monthly premiums. It's hardly a humane system that screws you over the moment you really need it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To say that less government is good is not to say that there should be no government. The Constitution specifies a limited number of things which the Federal Government is permitted to do. One of the major ones is national defence; the Patriot Act falls under this. On the other hand, the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Government to run medical care, nor many other things in which it has become involved. The Constitution was written partly to limit the power of the Federal Government.

I think the Founding Fathers had other things on their mind than healthcare when they wrote the constitution In fact, does ANY national constitution stipulate anything about healthcare provision?

[Aymerlu 3]

Shesh....I just wish I could get health insurance!!! Sucks when I make decent money (insurance offered at my work is unaffordable) and I cannot get health insurance because I'm diabetic. Infact, I got a wild hair this week and applied for heath insurance again, but of course go denied. BUT....if I quit my job I would qualify for medicaid in 90 days. Something doesn't add up there.

I am one of the nurses that calls insurance companies and TRIES to get medications covered for patients. I hear "have they tried this med or this med yet?" Uh....NO, the doctor wants them on this med.

I want to add a tid bit about some of the doctors involved with these insurance companies I talk to. I'm just saying SOME OF THE DOCTORS, not ALL so don't throw things at me. I administer a medication call Xolair to many asthmatic patients and their clinical response to this is just amazing. I was trying to get this approved for a very bad asthmatic elderly woman and when calling this particular insurance company I was put on hold for the doctor because he had to review all the other therapies she had been on. Let me tell you, this lady had a bag of inhalers she had to carry with her along with a portable breathing machine. She was denied. Why? Because she had ONLY be hospitalized twice that year for her asthma! Insurance wanted her to have been admitted 3 times in a 12 month period before they would consider paying for that therapy. Guess they would rather pay huge hospital bills than a medication.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

She was denied. Why? Because she had ONLY be hospitalized twice that year for her asthma! Insurance wanted her to have been admitted 3 times in a 12 month period before they would consider paying for that therapy. Guess they would rather pay huge hospital bills than a medication.

I guess they figured that she hadn't suffered enough

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I received this from a friend today. Can anyone explain how this happnes?

I've come to the point where I have to go into the hospital as an outpatient and have a test that is very expensive... so I'm in the process of attempting to obtain health insurance... easier to pay for that way. So the Cardiologist that will perform the test is writing to the Neurologist and my regular Physician to update them on the current circumstances. Obviously, if they want the test, the sooner it is done, the better, but he does not seem overly concerned if I wait just a bit in order to procure the health insurance prior to having this test. I find it annoyingly interesting that, and this is what I was told when seeking the info on the cost, if I pay as a cash paying patient, the total cost should be around $7000, give or take $1000... but with the health insurance, this test will be about $18,000!!!! I must be stupid, or that stroke really hit me, because I just don't get it. Especially when the Cardiologist indicates that although the test must be performed in hospital, it only requires about 5 minutes to perform.

[Heracles 417]

My dad is also a doctor

You must have your mom's side of the family's genes..

[Heracles 417]

Now he's trying to get insured and finds that the drugs the doctor have put him on (cholesterol lowering Lipitor) is a huge red flag for the insurance companies who are now quoting him huge monthly premiums. It's hardly a humane system that screws you over the moment you really need it.

Now that is up to the government to regulate. Be it the responsibility of State or Federal government. In certain situations, such as this, the free market fails and needs government intervention to ensure fairness..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now he's trying to get insured and finds that the drugs the doctor have put him on (cholesterol lowering Lipitor) is a huge red flag for the insurance companies who are now quoting him huge monthly premiums. It's hardly a humane system that screws you over the moment you really need it.

Now that is up to the government to regulate. Be it the responsibility of State or Federal government. In certain situations, such as this, the free market fails and needs government intervention to ensure fairness..

Its the same thing with HIV tests - some insurance applications ask you to declare if you've ever had one (on the assumption that you live a risky life) and factor that into the cost of your premium.