I don't want hospitals to end up being run like the DMV. Then there is the whole increasing our national deficit. Gov't control = BAD. VERY BAD.

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
It is quite hard to find decent documentation on what the health care bill really is. I cannot believe that Americans do not have better access to the policy that will change the very fabric of our health care system.

Here is just one of the bill's many problems that I see:

"Mandatory end of life counseling" - If you are over the age of 60 you will be required to attend a counseling to determine whether or not prescriptions or procedures are worth the government's money.

Denying treatment based on age?
Do any of you really think that this bill can be paid for by "efficiencies"? And are these efficiencies really just cutting corners with the elderly?

">Can we even pay for it?

Is it really a smart move to let the government control health care? What other problems do you see with the health care reform?

I was able to find one version of the bill here(http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf. I certainly didn't read all 1018 pages, and the final result is likely to be different anyway, but I didn't find anything about mandatory end of life counseling.

But either way, even without government health care, it makes sense to consider the cost/benefit ratio of care, indeed its an issue you have to confront, if you want to have any sort of control over rising costs. Does it make sense to spend 100,000$ to provide an extra week of life? $1,000,000? 10,000,000,000? Is it reasonable to drive everyones insurance rates up X%/year so that some a few eighty year olds can have their life extended by a month? If so, how about two weeks? One week? A day? Its clear you have to draw the line somewhere, and its equally clear the current system is not doing a particularly good job at drawing this line, given the rapidly increasing amounts the US spends on care. Of course you can argue that the government is not the best situated to make the cost/benefit analysis.

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
The criteria used to rank America's system 37th was ridiculous. America has the best Dr.'s and the best medical equipment in the world. The problem is that it isn't as widely available as the healthcare in socialist countries, and for obvious reasons.

That still doesn't explain the massive per capita health care costs, about twice that of several countries with a higher rank.

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote:
I'm amazed that we're able to pay for the crappy health care we're getting right now. Somehow we've been suckered into paying twice as much as any other country but only getting the 37th place care. What's up with that? We rank with Slovenia and Cuba! And they cover all of their people and we fail to provide any coverage for 50 million people and we fail to provide complete coverage for another 50 million people on top of that. So forget asking if we can afford to pay for reform, the real question is how can we afford not to.

I don't think it's a smart move to leave private insurance in control of health care. Government at least has an obligation to citizens. Private insurance only has an obligation to stock holders. The problem I see with health care reform is that the politicians in Congress have been bought off by the insurance industry, so instead of taking the straightforward approach and extending Medicare to everyone, they're wasting time appeasing corporate greed.

The criteria used to rank America's system 37th was ridiculous. America has the best Dr.'s and the best medical equipment in the world. The problem is that it isn't as widely available as the healthcare in socialist countries, and for obvious reasons. Compare Slovenia and American health care on a practical level and the differences should be obvious.

And it's not that private insurance runs healthcare, they simply provide plans. It allows people to choose which plans they need and can afford.

The government pretty much screws up everything it's involved with anyway. Do you really think that we should send medical records to the same people that leaked the nuclear sites info?

I understand the need for healthcare reform. I just don't think that a single-payer health plan will work. Didn't hawaii try this already and revert within like 6 months?

And the "mandatory death counseling" is something that is purportedly in the house bill, mentioned by several different sources as a way to cut costs and "ration health care". This seems to be one of many corners cut to pay for the new bill

The US routinely comes out worse in many result statistics too though.. its probably the case that the US has some of the best doctors in the world if you can afford them...but this does not translate into better medical results for the entire nation, as the statistics show.

None of the plans being discussed in the house or senate are single payer systems. Also, rationing is an inevitable part of any system, as I mention above. At some point you have to draw a line past which it's no longer worth it to pay, at least if you are running some kind of insurance system, private or otherwise. Of course if you are a billionaire and want to plow millions of dollars into a few more weeks of life then that is another thing, but you will still be able to continue to do this under the suggested plan.

Keep in mind I hail from a different country that has it's own healthcare issues. So my comments aren't all that informed. More so just musings based of what I know so far.

Personally I would hope that as the leader of our western world the USA could come to find a benefit from using a hybrid healthcare system.

Private and Public can co-exsist, it does in our country. It's a system that allows for those who wish to pay for more health support or to lower what they pay in tax to go private while those who can't afford to be insured are still supported on a level that at the very least supports necessities.

Socialist hospitals are not hell-holes, they are by nature understaffed and low on resources in Australia. We have half a dozen private health insurers over here so private healthcare is not American exclusive

The bottom line is that if the USA wishes to convey the message that the country is as compassionate about it's citizens and visitors as it is about excelling in medical technology and pharmaceutical research. Then it needs to care for all Americans young and old.

Basically this means raising taxes to the same level as the rest of the western world to support such infrastructure and while letting corporations continue to operate, the government must define a set of guidelines that cover the poor and helpless, best example being not refusing entry to emergency rooms based on insurance cover.

This being said, then you'd need politicians that don't accept bribery from private companies to make such a thing happen.