ALS has been described as one of the most expensive illnesses because of how debilitating it is. In Eric's case, the cost of the caretakers is not covered by any insurance due to the specialized care required.
If the health care debate seems like a hopeless morass, it's largely because moneyed interests want it to look that way. Matt Taibbi reminds us that the most fundamental issue is simple: Who pays, and how?
There was much to like in President Obama's health care reform speech to a joint session of Congress. But we need to remember that medical insurance reform of any kind is doomed without medical content reform.
Whose plan gets my nod, for bipartisan reality and feasibility, to save and improve our unique, innovative American health care system and not saddle our country with unsustainable debt? I vote for Senator Max Baucus.
While there has been tremendous debate over access and payment, there has been less focus on the content of health care. Without a change in that content, we will never have a sustainable system.
There is a growing trend to promote diseases to fit existing drugs. As a culture, we should be suspicious whenever we hear of a new "disease," and ask whether it may just be a marketing ploy.
We are a fear-driven culture. There is a large segment of the population that, no matter how well you document it, will not let a good fact get in the way of their fears about health care reform.
Fear and greed are potent motivators. When both of these forces push in the same direction, virtually no human being can resist. And doctors are human beings.
Given that we all want health and spend trillions to "care" for it, it's sobering how little thought we give to the true meaning of the term.
I stood outside of a town hall meeting the other day to interview people who had participated and recorded this really amazing interview with one of the more influential speakers on health care reform.
Sally Field is a talented actor. But what qualifies her to promote Boniva, an osteoporosis drug that is of limited benefit, has worrisome side effects, and for which there are natural alternatives that merit careful consideration?
While they land on either side of the fence on the issue, these are some of the most interesting players in the unfolding health care reform drama.
Unlike those Congresspeople in Part IV, these Representatives take modest $10,000 to $25,000 from health-care-related special interests. This and the ...
In this chapter, we meet politicians who take is between $25,000 and $50,000 of special interest money per official from a source with a health care f...
Wrangling Cash Cows In the final days before a vote on health care reform it is important to know who all of the players are in the debate. As I po...
The majority of the United States Congress takes money from one or more special interests weighing in heavily on the health care reform bill. In Part ...
Mr. Buffett, you're not in the health insurance market, but this might be the opportunity to bring your successful Berkshire companies to the table, to help solve the major issue of our time.
My plan is to mandate that the 159 urban medical schools in the U.S. -- remembering that "school" is in their name -- be required to serve the population within their shadows.
Progressives have badly underestimated the strength and resilience of their opposition. Republicans and conservatives retain the ability to stop the drive forward -- like scabs on a union workplace strike.
The town halls make for good television, but they're a side-show to the main event. The real story should be about the back room deals reportedly being negotiated with the Obama administration.
The story that isn't being told in cable media's over-reaction to the GOP mobs is that of reasonable Americans coming out to understand more about health care reform and promote change
|
||
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Stephen Hawking is the smartest man alive; and alive largely due to Socialized medicine. How many theories have been developed and discoveries facilitated by this man's intelligence over the past twenty years when he should have been (would have been) a victim of the private health care system "death panels" had he not been a US resident rather than a UK resident?
ALS is not even researched much in the US due to its scarcity (thank goodness for its rarity); there isn't enough money in developing a cure, in other words; should profit be the sole motivation for health care and research? Of course not; but it is in the USA.
WHEN PEOPLE ARE ASKED IF THEY WANT THE "PUBLIC OPTION" 43% SAY YES
WHEN PEOPLE ARE ASKED IF THEY WANT THE "PUBLIC CHOICE" 77% SAY YES
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY WERE ASKED IF THEY WANT A "MEDICARE CHOICE?"
But when people are asked if they support "the Obama health care plan," a majority say no.
But in reality THERE IS NO OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN. There is a mish-mash of proposed plans drifting around in Congress.
If there is no "Obama health care plan," why are a majority against it? Because they against what the right-wing screamers have TOLD THEM is the "Obama health care plan," complete with "death panels" and other imaginary horrors.
Obama has made a serious, probably fatal, strategic mistake: Instead of putting together his own plan, explaining it clearly to the public and using his still-considerable personal popularity and prestige to rally support for it before taking it to Congress, he uttered vague platitudes about "reform" and left it to Congress to work out the details. This allowed the Republicans to define "the Obama plan" and put him on the defensive before the game even began.
37 Trillion Reasons 0BAMA/AXELROD /GIBBS/ EMANUEL ARE WRONG!
WE NEED STRONGEST PUBLIC OPTION = Medicare for ALL WHO want it and OPT OUT for those who DON’T!
HEALTH CARE COSTS = $37 TRILLION / 10 YEARS
Calculations (see table): ($5+$2.4)/2*10 = $37 Trillion
HEALTH CARE COSTS = THE #1 THREAT TO OUR FUTURE!
$2.4Trillion spent in 2008, 17% of OUR GDP
$3.1Trillion by 2012
$4.3Trillion by 2016
$5.0Trillion by 2018
And we are worried about $600 Billion, less than 2% or 1.6%! GIVE ME A BREAK!
The $1.3 Trillion in savings from non-emergency use of the ER will be saved by the States and Cities and therefore reduce funding from the Federal Government!
__________________
[CURRENT 2008 Costs for 47 million uninsured= $87Billion =10 yr cost $870 Billion
2007 Medical uninsured bad debt=$25.4Billion, increased 9.5%/yr=10yr cost $433Billn
Adding $870 Billion+$443 Billion=$1.3 Trillion]
__________________
100,000,000 people to ??? people in Medicare can negotiate "FAIR PRICING" for Health Care Services! Stops the FOR-PROFIT GOUGING!
Make #1 MAY0 C1inic the N0RM instead of the Exception! #37 USA Cuba Care!
Create Incentive for ER Doctors to convert to Family Practice Doctors!
Once again, the power of the "Liberal Media" is on full display! Try as I might, I can not find the suppressed footage of all the rioting in the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, etc. where the people are demanding the end of their particular health care systems and the immediate adoption of the American "private" system.
Who is silencing Beck and Hannity on this?
You've probably never been to Europe! The difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans usually get what they want from their governments. It's because they demand change, and once every 100 years, but everyday. Most Americans are too lazy to act on their convictions. I understand how those riots would impress you. But you have no knowledge of the European healthcare system.
I MEANT "NOT ONLY ONCE EVERY 100 YEARS"... SORRY
I believe moto was being sarcastic.
It's very telling, I think, that NOT ONE country that has adopted "socialized medicine" has decided to scrap it in favor of a system like ours. If their systems are as horrible as the right wing makes them out to be, how do you explain that?
I've asked this question a dozen times and have NEVER gotten a serious answer from a conservative.
As a US citizen who has lived in the UK for the last decade I can say that I have never seen, or heard of any type of rioting in the streets against healthcare. the British might complain about their NHS service and how it can be improved, but they also complain about the rain a lot. I have both private health insurance and NHS and I use NHS. I love the NHS. I've had two children under NHS, been to through the emergency system, made appointments on the day and got in to see my doctor a few hours later. NHS is fantastic. And the best thing is, the doctors are not arrogant. Or maybe the best thing is that I don't have to worry about my health. Or maybe the best thing is that my family's health is not dependent on a job. Or maybe its the lack of pre-existing conditions. Or maybe its the NHS direct phone service where if I am concerned about something such as a child's fever at 2AM, I can call this 24 hour line and speak to a nurse. That's pretty cool, too. Don''t believe the lies about the NHS. My personal experience with it has been nothing but postive.
I lived in Europe for three years. Most Europeans would love to have the quality of health care we get in America. Rationing, long delays for even basic tests and treatments and very low quality are the rule in Europe. President's Obama's fondest wishes for better care for all at lower cost will not make it so. Unicorns, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all sound good, but are also just dreams.
Where in Europe?
*Giggling* You forgot Canada. As usual, darn it.
I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis THIS YEAR. My injections cost over $2000 MONTHLY. Now that I have a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, - will you, the PROTESTERS, PAY for the medicine I will NEED for the REST OF MY LIFE if I want to further my career at a different company?!!
Private insurance penalizes those with chronic health conditions!!! I pay taxes. Why should I not be able to get health insurance?!? If YOU will not help me pay for my lifelong medical condition, then you should keep your insurance as Obama has said SEVERAL TIMES, and I should be able to get help through the reform Obama is pushing.
YOU PROTESTERS are basically saying that anyone with a chronic condition has to stay at the job they currently are with. I shouldn't be punished into staying at my current job just because IF I LEAVE IT I WONT BE ABLE TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE NOW I HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDTION.
YOU PROTESTERS ARE SELFISH!!!
I am a US citizen and have lived in a European country with nationalized health care for the past two decades. I have been grateful every day for this and, of late, even more so given the precarious situation that so many Americans are living right now.
Call me silly, but I actually love the fact that my payments into the system help people conditions similar to yours. It makes me feel like I´m doing something productive for others -- something that we don´t often get to do in the hectic day-to-day.
"Selfish" is too lenient an adjective for those who turn their backs on their fellow citizens. But, then again, "disgusting" and "inhumane" are as well.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for you. Good luck.
I'm also a US citizen and have lived in the UK for the last 10 years. I completely agree with you! Not having a national health system is barbaric. Nothing less.
I am just infuriated by the goddamn senior citizens (columnist Fruma Harrop called them "greedy geezers") who denounce "socialized medicine" for anybody else but wouldn't give up one dime's worth of their own socialized medicine, aka Medicare.
BTW I'm only two years away from collecting Medicare myself, so not all us geezers are greedy.
"Call me silly, but I actually love the fact that my payments into the system help people conditions similar to yours."
Not silly at all. I'm a long way from the highest tax level here in Canada, so I go in every couple of months to donate blood, and top up my contribution to the system, as it were. All blood used for transfusions here is donated, by the way.
I will confess that I have not been to a doctor in years. However, I do understand the position you have been put in (along with the rest of us).
It seems to me that the regulation of the insurance industry in the mid to late 40s or early 50s (my research can not provide a precise date) has led all of us into our current dilemma. Restricting coverage to a persons work (can't take it with you) and limiting it to an individual state has severely limited the commercial market. The solution seems to be to get the current regulation out of the way and allow insurance companies to provide plans nation wide that are "transportable". This may allow large groups in which to spread the costs of individuals like you and me.
The thought of government sponsored anything scares me. I would like to give one example of the results of a somewhat recent government department to support my view, and that is the Department of Energy. Brought to life in the energy crises of the 1970s, its mission "was" to free the united states from the dependency of foreign oil and other foreign resources. However, with a budget of $24B (my unverified estimate) it has totally failed in this mission.
Please, let us reform health care in our great country, but let us not go head long in lock step with the one story from the government, without consideration of other (and potentially better) options.
Thanks,
kev
How old are you?
I suppose you will not need medicare when you are older either.
Name one proposal from the right that will work. And don't bother with the talking points about getting insurance from other states. That will not make any difference and will just open up the possibilities of more scams.
You can get a credit card issued by a bank in any state. Has this lowered interest rates on credit cards? Not that I've noticed.
Insurance companies, like all companies, are not philanthropic organizations. They are interested in maximizing their profits ... period. (Indeed, if they are publicly held corporations they are legally obligated to do this.) Maximizing profits means charging their customers as much as they can get and paying out as little as possible in return. Your supposed "reform" would not change that behavior.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
