Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well at what point does the goverment provide their coverage for Americans. When they have two new cars and no health coverage? When 19 years old and decide its not important? When? When do we screw up our current system to fix a small % who do not have coverage. Remember those two questions are people in % of the uninsured.

What are you talking about? There are over 40 million Americans without health insurance. What kind of small percentage is that? Let me repeat that. 40 million people. It's pathetic.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

What are you talking about? There are over 40 million Americans without health insurance. What kind of small percentage is that? Let me repeat that. 40 million people. It's pathetic.

If you look at the real numbers of people without health coverage it is much smaller than 40 million. 40 million is just a good number for politicians to use to cause a crises in this country. I'm not going to search the numbers tonight but I will to give you some real facts. A % of those in that 40 million will go a small % of time between jobs and they do not elect to pay their coverage. Then you have kids that just don't buy health insurance because they are young and feel its not needed (I did this right out of school). Then you have people and famlies that just don't buy health ins. and spend their money on things like new cars etc... Do we have Americans who cannot afford coverage in the US, Yes, but its not time to tear apart whats not broken.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you have health insurance? Oh wait. I'll answer for you. Of course you do. That's the problem. Obviously not a problem when you have access to the health care system. It's a great system with lots of great doctors. This country needs to protect absolutely everyone with regards to something as basic as healthcare IMO.

Ask yourself. What if you weren't covered? What kind of country would do that to someone?

In my condition the doctor would have done pro-bono work with people that had life-threatening conditions like the one I had. I'll concede though that there is a problem and it's a shame that so many people are without health insurance. However spending billions upon billions of dollars for an inefficent system that we will never be able to get rid of all while eliminating the private sector in favor of inefficent government programs is not the answer. It's got to be somewhere inbetween.

It takes 19.5 weeks to see a specialist in England and thats after waiting weeks to see a practicioner who in most cases will refer you to a specialist. In fact England has gotten so bad that people take vacations to India and Africa to get medical treatment. Canadians from Toronto are flocking in drones to Buffalo, and it's not to see the Bills. Theres also people in England who are not being approved for possible life saving treatments because theres a chance they're going to die anyway, so the government doesn't want to pay for surgery that might want to help him. Not saying that it doesn't happen in the private sector but this has been a hot topic across the pond.

I had a seizure back in June (I know I'm a mess) and due to the current health system I was able to see a Neurologist the next day. I have also had other problems with my head as of late and thanks to the current system I can arrange an appointment within a week.

National Health Care has not proven itself and once we commit to it it will be virtually impossible to go back. On top of all this one area that will suffer is the quality of doctors. Part of the reason people become doctors in this country is the profit potential, when the government runs things the thought of spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to medical school for a job that won't pay nearly as well as it did before will be a lot less attractive to young people who usually choose a career in main part because of the profit potential.

One of my best friends parents left Russia to start a practice here because the quality of the Socialized Health Care in Russia was abysmal among other things.

Then what happens when you get shitty doctors? You get not only shitty inefficent treatment that the doctors won't be able to keep up with due to the number of patients they'll have to see but the research for diseases like AID's and Cancer will experience a drop in quality.

Now to close I'm not saying fuck the people without health insurance. However at the same time asking the government to run health care is like asking Paris Hilton to marry you. Sure she looks good (to a good amount of people) but does she have any personallity? In the end theres got to be a fair balance between quality and quanity, but in a weird way Wilson I agree with you. Anyway lets shoot for a health care system that looks like Tina Fey. Sexy and smart (No Sarah Palin pun intended). Not Paris Hilton who is best described as pretty and dumb. At the very least we should shoot for an Alizee health care system.

Health Care for All. Love, Alizee

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

In my condition the doctor would have done pro-bono work with people that had life-threatening conditions like the one I had. I'll concede though that there is a problem and it's a shame that so many people are without health insurance. However spending billions upon billions of dollars for an inefficent system that we will never be able to get rid of all while eliminating the private sector in favor of inefficent government programs is not the answer. It's got to be somewhere inbetween.

It takes 19.5 weeks to see a specialist in England and thats after waiting weeks to see a practicioner who in most cases will refer you to a specialist. In fact England has gotten so bad that people take vacations to India and Africa to get medical treatment. Canadians from Toronto are flocking in drones to Buffalo, and it's not to see the Bills. Theres also people in England who are not being approved for possible life saving treatments because theres a chance they're going to die anyway, so the government doesn't want to pay for surgery that might want to help him. Not saying that it doesn't happen in the private sector but this has been a hot topic across the pond.

I had a seizure back in June (I know I'm a mess) and due to the current health system I was able to see a Neurologist the next day. I have also had other problems with my head as of late and thanks to the current system I can arrange an appointment within a week.

National Health Care has not proven itself and once we commit to it it will be virtually impossible to go back. On top of all this one area that will suffer is the quality of doctors. Part of the reason people become doctors in this country is the profit potential, when the government runs things the thought of spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to medical school for a job that won't pay nearly as well as it did before will be a lot less attractive to young people who usually choose a career in main part because of the profit potential.

One of my best friends parents left Russia to start a practice here because the quality of the Socialized Health Care in Russia was abysmal among other things.

Then what happens when you get shitty doctors? You get not only shitty inefficent treatment that the doctors won't be able to keep up with due to the number of patients they'll have to see but the research for diseases like AID's and Cancer will experience a drop in quality.

Now to close I'm not saying fuck the people without health insurance. However at the same time asking the government to run health care is like asking Paris Hilton to marry you. Sure she looks good (to a good amount of people) but does she have any personallity? In the end theres got to be a fair balance between quality and quanity, but in a weird way Wilson I agree with you. Anyway lets shoot for a health care system that looks like Tina Fey. Sexy and smart (No Sarah Palin pun intended). Not Paris Hilton who is best described as pretty and dumb. At the very least we should shoot for an Alizee health care system.

Hey I agree with most of this. It just seems like there are many Americans who are forgotten and that is straight up un American. IMO. The people making the most money in our health care system are HMO's and Big Pharmacy. Why would we accept a system that allows the very rich to get richer when it doesn't even work?

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Hey I agree with most of this. It just seems like there are many Americans who are forgotten and that is straight up un American. IMO.

Agreed, though I hate having all these critism's for the current proposal and not having my own solution. In fact the best I can come up with is an abstract hollywood/France reference involving Tina Fey, Paris Hilton, and Alizee. Of course given my previous post it's obvious that people now know where I stand on the current national health care proposal, but hopefully it gets to the point where the only people that don't have quality health care are true felons (not our friends that got busted for a bag of Pot) and drunk angry Eagle fans.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I have never been so captivated by a speach since Al Pacino's inches speech in Any Given Sunday. It really was well done. Also does anyone know the chances of implementing National Health Care if Obama gets elected. I know that politicians promise a lot of things that go untouched when they get in office but this one scares the shit out of me.

In my personal experience I had a condition two years ago called Alergic Fungal Sinusitis. Its a condition where the body overreacts to fungus within the naval cavity and causes the nose to swell. My condition had gotten so bad that the fungal debris stuck in my nose was eroding my skull. Today theres a small hole in my head.

Thanks to the current health care system I was able to get surgery from the top doctor for AFS in the country within a month. In fact the actual surgery was booked a week in advance on a whim. Of course there was a lot of crap in my nose and 6 hours on the operating table was only enough to clear out one side, so they had to wait five weeks for my blood count to go back up so I could have another operation. The second operation took 5 hours.

Even though the worse was over my body still continued to have flare ups, though the danger to my eroding skull had been taken care of. For the next year and a half I worked with my doctors and had it not been for the frequent access I had to these physicians I would not have been able to get 100% cured from AFS (which in some cases is a lifelong condition and I had the most violent case among all my doctors patients save a close tie with a 14 year old girl).

If national health care was implemented then in theory it woruld have taken approximately 19.5 weeks to get an appointment with any specialist not to mention the top doctor in his field (who worked with my insurance to get covered by the way). I'll admit there seems to be a need for change so more people can get covered but to put the same orginazation that runs the DMV with something as complex as medical care is simply unexceptible. Especially with the problems for quality of treatment, research, effectiveness, and incentives to become doctors that are lacking in nationalized health care systems like the UK and Canada.

Anyway thats my rant for today

*Steps down from soapbox

I like to pretend I'm an expert in a lot of things, like the salary cap, beer, fantasy football, how to please a woman, etcetera. But the one thing I truly am expert on is the healthcare system - it's my job, I'm the manager of financial planning for a major health system in Philadelphia. We treat more Medicaid patients than anybody else in Pennsylvania, so I'm exposed first hand to all of these issues.

Obama will NEVER, not in a million trillion years, be able to implement national healthcare. Dare I even say million trillion billion?

First, the logistics are a nightmare to overcome. Changing to a national health care system would require a complete overhaul to the manner in which Medicare (the federal government) reimburses hospitals and physicians. There is an intricate system currently in place to help ensure that hospitals and physicians get fairly reimbursed for each patient, based on that patient's "acuity" level, which is another way of saying how expensive it is to treat that patient's illness. Switching to national healthcare would require a complete tear-down of this intricate system, and a complete rebuild. Further, state Medicaid programs, and many other commercial insurance carriers, step off of the current Medicare system when reimbursing healthcare providers. If Medicare modifies their system, states and insurance companies would need to follow suit.

These obstacles could be overcome for sure, but Obama drastically underestimates the time and money this will take. Taxpayers, especially at the state level where Medicaid systems will be overhauled, would pay dearly, and as a result Obama will face much more political resistance than he thinks.

Second, insurance carriers and most healthcare providers (doctors and hospitals) will oppose this vehemently. Some would essentially stand to go out of business. The current reimbursement system is such that doctors and hospitals in areas with many well-insured patients get reimbursed better, because insured patients (and their insurance carriers) actually pay the hospitals. The hospitals and doctors located in poor areas with high Medicaid populations get reimbursed very poorly as they're forced to write off a lot of accounts to charity care (because many simply can't pay for emergency services). 80% of doctors and hospitals are currently doing well enough under the current system, because most of their patients are insured. Under a national healthcare system, those 80% would see a significant decline in revenues, while the other 20% would see a boost (my health system would see a boost). But the voice of the 80% is louder than the voice of the 20%, so the providers and carriers would vehemently oppose such a plan.

Third, any decline in revenues to those 80% of hospitals would result in a direct negative impact to the quality of care they provide. Investment in the latest clinical equipment would slow, hospitals would scale back on services, there will be fewer places to go have a baby as nearby hospitals would consolidate and create Women's Centers. Most hospitals will be forced to specialize in only certain services; meaning you'll have to drive 5 miles east if you have a Cardiac problem, or 4 miles west if you have a neurological problem, or 6 miles south for a gastrointestinal problem. Hospitals will no longer be able to afford treating any ailment.

Fourth, Obama would need to solve the malpractice problem that would be exacerbated by national healthcare. Malpractice insurance is the fastest growing expense of all healthcare-related expenses. North Philadelphia now only has two hospitals which deliver babies, Temple University Hospital and Northeastern Hospital. Five years ago, North Philly had 11 hospitals delivering babies. Hospitals have closed OB/GYN programs because they face the highest malpractice rates of all physician specialties. But under the current system, commercial insurance carriers help foot the bill for those high malpractice rates. The high insurance premiums doctors pay get passed along to the commercial insurance carriers. If Obama can't successfully curtail the growth in malpractice settlements, the GOVERNMENT will be the ones footing this bill. With no end in sight to the growth, malpractice is the number one reason our healthcare expenses won't stop growing any time soon. Taxpayers will be on the hook under a national healthcare plan.

Access to care will indeed become a major problem.

Obama has not put in anywhere near the thought required for such a change to take place. But I guess that's how he plans to get elected. CHANGE! Of course, he never says how, so nobody can ever tell him it's not possible.

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

McCain's plan is way more realistic and actually has a fighting chance of making an impact. Everyone in the healthcare industry knows it.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

McCain's plan is way more realistic and actually has a fighting chance of making an impact. Everyone in the healthcare industry knows it.

Great post Schneed.

I really wish folks who advocate National Health Care would read your post in detail and get off the "we owe it to the American people to give everyone health coverage", "what kind of country are we when 40M don't have health coverage".

What about the 260M American's who have made sacrifices in one way or another to obtain health coverage? Why should their level of coverage decline and their tax burden increase because 10-13% of the population of our country has made a decision not to get coverage?

Dirtbag's posts make a great deal of sense as well. I have firsthand experience going from private insurance to government healthcare. Without a great deal of detail, my dad had a brain tumor and my mom was working in her 60s for the sole reason of providing health coverage for my dad (unfortunately at the time I wasn't making enough to pay for private coverage for them). The coverage was pretty good and provided things my dad needed. When my dad was forced over to Medicaid the benefits declined greatly.

There are areas of our healthcare system that need improvement, but a healthcare system run by the government would be ridiculously more expensive with much worse service.

[hooskins]

It's less than 10 percent.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by hooskins

It's less than 10 percent.

Wow the last time I checked the US population was just over 300 million but if that makes people somehow sleep better at night. What kind of country are we? 40 million people don't count all that much?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Wow the last time I checked the US population was just over 300 million but if that makes people somehow sleep better at night. What kind of country are we? 40 million people don't count all that much?

I never said that. Just said it was less than 10 percent. I am pretty liberal, if most of my previous posts don't indicate, but just wanted to point the percentage out.

I feel it is valid argument that it is a small percentage of people, but as you say 40 mil is a lot.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Wow the last time I checked the US population was just over 300 million but if that makes people somehow sleep better at night. What kind of country are we? 40 million people don't count all that much?

when 10 million are illegal immigrants and another 17 million have the resources to insure themselves yet choose not to the number really starts dropping. also consider that accoridng to the CBO 45% of the uninsured will be insured within the next 4 months then the hyperbolic 40-50 million everyone states starts looking a little less dramatic.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

when 10 million are illegal immigrants and another 17 million have the resources to insure themselves yet choose not to the number really starts dropping. also consider that accoridng to the CBO 45% of the uninsured will be insured within the next 4 months then the hyperbolic 40-50 million everyone states starts looking a little less dramatic.

How? Do you have a link?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

How? Do you have a link?

Lots of turnover accoridng to the CBO.


How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long?

[wilsowilso]

I think I'm done arguing with Redskin fans for tonight. It's always good to fight for what you believe in and as we all know the US is so unique in history because we all have this right. In fact it is encouraged.

[JWsleep]

Palin spoke well, and I think her style will appeal to many in small town America. She went up on the big stage and and hit it right.

But what did she say about what the Republicans are going to do? Yeah, we know, they can attack the other side's character and yell about the media. And scare people with talk of terrorists and higher taxes. But what is their alternative? Maybe McCain will get to some of that--it would be helpful. Maybe we could actually have a policy debate in this country! (Dream on, I know...)

The other thing that was interesting to me was the idea that McCain/Palin is the ticket of change. Wait, didn't this party hold the White House for the last eight years and the Congress for 6? And what, exactly, are they going to do to make this change happen? Promote some new legislation about how the government works? Restrict lobbyists?

We've had 8 years of republican rule--they've cut the taxes and gutted the regulations and gone to war to make us safer and so on. Is McCain proposing more of the same? If not, he needs to make that clear. if yes, then he needs to stop trumpeting the idea of change.

As for Palin, here's one thing she did do: she made Senator McCain look OLD. And he is not going to give a better speech than she did. He's going to fall flat, I'm afraid.