You are hereForums / Issues / Healthcare / Is This True About Health Care Bill?
Is This True About Health Care Bill?
As I have stated before, I don't know enough about the health care issue to have a valid opinion.
Unfortunately, the threads at RFO on the subject are confusing to read and recently have turned into name calling and accusations.
The following is an op ed piece in the New York Post. Could someone please tell me if the points in the article are accurate because if so this is a very scary piece of legislation:
The Post is a sleazy right wing tabloid owned by the same company that owns Fox News so there is no need to criticize the source. The writer of this piece is not a Post reporter but the former lieutenant governor of New York and a constitutional scholar among other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_McCaughey
Please someone educate me on the validity of her points.
The full text version of the House bill (HR 3200) can be found here..
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/textCould someone please tell me if the points in the article are accurate because if so this is a very scary piece of legislation: - Brandon
NYPost: And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. True or False
False
RANKING: (Source)
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Sorry Misty that's incorrect. It's TRUE.
The WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality.
P.184 of the WHO report
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
It is ranked 37th overall in terms of health care systems - getting dinged for things like HSAs and not a progressive enough tax system. The ranking of 54th of fairness is driving the overall number. Not necessarily quality of care.
Getting dinged for things like HSAs and not a progressive enough tax system. The ranking of 54th of fairness is driving the overall number. Not necessarily quality of care.
If those factors are included in "overall performance" wouldn't they be excluded from "performance on health level"?
Just wondering, because in that one they rank the US at #72. (See pg 201 Statistical Annex in your report)
Or am I missing something?
In any case you're right about the responsiveness statistic. The wording is a tad confusing though. From what I was able to find it has to do with factors like community health education (which is definitely better in the US than here), and issues like confidentiality (better in the US too - but here it's a general mentality issue totally unrelated to the health system - nothing is confidential, ever) and the quality of non-medical health setting amenities (furniture, food quality, cleanliness - all better in private US settings, but only compared to public settings here, which there are more of).
From the WHO glossary:
- responsiveness One of the three goals of the health system to meet people's legitimate non-health expectations about how the system treats
them.
(non-health is key here, I think).Goes along with life expectancy and infant mortality - crime, poverty, obesity, accidents - other exogenous factors can lower life expectancy. And infant mortality the US has higher than most but we also are able to bring more risk pregnancies to full term even if the infant later dies than other countries as well as that many countries use abortion more readily to avoid unhealthy babies.
I just don't put much stock in this survey.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
This is true, magus. WHO no longer produces such rankings, because of the complexities in doing so, with too many variables from country to country.
I wonder if there is an accurate source of such information?
Very true but it is a 'talking point' of many to state that we are 37th without acknowledging the age of the report or even what these rankings were based on.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
Sanjay Gupta said that the US is a good place to be if you have a heart attack, but France is a good place to be if you don't want to have one....;-)
That says a lot about prevention in healthcare, and early treatment, doesn't it?
I still can't believe that the opponents of health care reform are still trying to spread the OUTRIGHT LIE that a public option would destroy private insurance plans. We have all the evidence we need that that is NOT the case, and they still want to keep singing the same song.
Mary Landrieu has said that she will not support a bill with a public option. She is that dead set against it. Of course, if you look at the amount of $ her campaign took in from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, you might get the sense that the opposition is based on her political hide vs. the public good. I am truly disappointed in Landrieu. I am sure her father, Maurice "Moon" Landrieu, former two-term mayor of New Orleans, would be disappointed also.
I've already emailed Senator Landrieu, and let her know that her political hide for me (my vote) depends on her voting for it. Like that will do any good.....*sigh*
OT...was it you that told me Mitch is considering running against Vitter?
Yes. That is still in the rumor stage, however.
http://dfa2.convio.net/site/R?i=fgGdXjhfJH5qfd2MeZ2upA..
I got this the other day if anyone is interested in seeing the $$ recieved by congress from the Insurance Industry.
Sen. Landrieu is on the list
Weekly Address: Health Care Reform Cannot Wait
Since no one has answered my question, I will ask a simpler one.
So can anyone assure me that this statement from the article is 100% false?:
Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans."
Brandon, you have to bear with us...it takes time to dig through a thousand page bill, and try to find reliable sources that explain it all. We can't just jump in and say yes, this is or isn't true, if we haven't sorted it all out yet. To do so would be dishonest.
But from what I understand so far, all health insurance companies will eventually have to follow federal guidelines, but I don't think those guidelines dictate specific plans. The guidelines are more a matter of regulations for the industry, not selecting plans for people. The choice of plans will still be quite varied, as to cost and content, and you will be able to choose. The public option, on the other hand, will be set by government, I would assume.
Remember too, that we don't have the Senate bill, nor has the bill made it to committee for reconciliation. So there is no way anyone, not even President Obama at this point, can tell you anything with 100% certainty.
I will certainly be patient Suzi and look forward to any responses.
I guess I thought more people here were already well versed on this particular bill.
From what I understand, it is meaning that this plan will set the minimums for what plans can be sold to citizens. It is not that you have to be in the exact type of plan, but the plans that are sold will have to meet the minimum standards. In other words, plans sold privately will have to have to meet or exceed what the "qualified plans" have.
But, I could be wrong.
"How well versed are you about it?"
I have to plead complete ignorance.
I read in the conservative media, like the column that I linked, that it is a horror and it will mean extreme rationing of health care and tax raises. President Obama said last Wednesday that if you have insurance (like me) nothing will change except you will save money.
What is the truth?
From what I read so far, the truth is that nothing will change for those who have coverage and want to keep it. The goal is to obtain coverage for the uninsured and to take the waste and fraud out of the industry.
Brandon, if you've never believed anything I've said before, please believe this. It's not a takeover of health care that will mean rationing etc. That is a scare tactic being used whip up a frenzy of opposition. Do you remember how the Brady bill was opposed, and the extreme scenarios that were presented as to what would result? According to the opponents, it would mean the end of all of our second amendment rights, and everyone would lose their right to own a gun. It didn't happen...not even close. The conservative media/politicians are presenting this in much the same way....taking what is factual, and building a worst case scenario that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the original intent. It's bizarre, but effective. To hear them tell it, what is being proposed is a universal, single payer system, that will leave Americans no choice at all.
I would suggest to you that you do some reading about it from more unbiased sources, even from some leftist sources, in order to gain a more balanced perspective. I'm not saying you have to believe them, it just gives perspective.
"Do you remember how the Brady bill was opposed, and the extreme scenarios that were presented as to what would result? According to the opponents, it would mean the end of all of our second amendment rights, and everyone would lose their right to own a gun. It didn't happen...not even close."
And does anyone remember how the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) during the Clinton Administration was supposedly going to kill ALL small business (even though they wouldn't be subject to it)? Oh, the drama.
So, affecting only 1% of the people makes it okay, right? I mean, pure majority rule with no minority rights?
Heh. I was in a big discussion about the inheritance tax earlier this year, on another forum. I was actually in the position of defending the tax even though I basically disagree with it, against a couple of more liberal folks who were opposed to the tax.
On the one hand, I don't believe that we should punish people for saving and for passing on their accumulated wealth to their heirs. Wealth which when it was income had generally been subject to both income and capital gains taxes.
On the other hand I think that our country is in bad enough shape economically and fiscally that I would support such a measure for a limited period of time while we hopefully get our financial house in order.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
Hehe! Well, I would prefer the very rich remain lazy and lose their wealth and leave the rest of us the heck alone!
But that's just me.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
Hope: What is the title of the book?
I'd like to read it if I haven't already. Sounds like some of the George Lakoff works.
Kim- here's a link to the book
http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248109911&sr=1-3
Thanks, Hope. I'm headed to Barnes & Noble this afternoon anyway, so I'll give it a try!
I don't claim to be an expert, or know all the ins and outs.
I do think that since the "public option" is the main source of opposition to the bill (along with possible underfunded costs)... that public option applies mainly to those who are currently uninsured. To the remainder of the population who already have health care coverage, they will be able to either keep what coverage they have, or switch to the public option. In almost all cases, the public option will be less costly, but also offer far less in the way of benefit. To the opponents of the public option, the fact that it will be less costly means that the majority of subscribers to private plans will rush to join the public one. But this is nonsense, since that HAS NOT HAPPENED in other countries where this has been done (France and Italy are particular examples). Both these countries (and others) have both viable private plans alongside a public one.
As far as saving money (for those already insured), there are at least a few reasons why this should be true.
1. The lower cost of the public plan, and the fact that some subscribers will switch to it, will almost certainly force the existing private plans to compete cost-wise.
2. The savings from Medicare/Medicaid will mean premium savings for those insured under private plans.
3. The savings from having fewer emergency room visits (most people now insured, so far fewer of them using ERs as their family doctor, since they will now actually have a family physician).
I was watching washington Journal on cspan yestereday and they were discussing the public option. One woman called in support of the PO and stated something I didn't know. She said, one of the reasons that we need it is that all federal employees who have their ins coverage through the fed gov. have secured plans ( I believe that was the term she used). Meaning, if they get sick there coverage does not deny treatment, testing and they are not subject to increases in premiums or possible termination of policies as does public sector insurance. She said, this was the reason we had to have that option.
So, doesn't a public option just basically mean they would be opening up that ins. to all americans?
"just basically mean they would be opening up that ins. to all americans?"
That sounds great, so then my question becomes how would we pay for it?
Well there are seveal ways to pay for it, we have all been weighing in on our ideas on the question thread. I think some of it gets payed for by us; I pay 200 a month for my portion of my healthcare benefit from my company.
My point was more, if that is all a public option is, how does that become "socialized medicine" where is the reality in that? It's the same ins. we all have it's just the gov. offering it, not private companies. I've never heard of any federal employee medical ins horror stories of rationed care? All the horror stories I've heard have come from those who have or "had" before thier policies were terminated; private ins.
The horror stories come from, almost exclusively, Great Britain or Canada. What these two countries have in common (aside from Canada being a Commonwealth member) is that they both have an almost exclusive public option (their private insurance is severly limited).
Admittedly, there can be long waiting lines for things like elective surgeries and non-emergency procedures in these countries. Opponents have made a lot of hay out of these scenes, when they know that what they are saying is a red herring. The long lines are because there is no viable private insurance option available in these countries, and the public system gets severly overloaded.
Better examples would be France and Italy, where private insurers are available alongside the public option; where both exist simultaneously; and where it is overwhelmingly the poor and/or indigent who are insured under the public option (those who would otherwise have no insurance). Their systems seem to work very well.
Lets think about which one of these systems are being proposed for the U.S.? Is it the UK/Canada style, where a private option is almost non-existent? Or is it a system like Italy or France, where private insurers and a public option co-exist? And it works.
These fools pulling this socialized medicine crap are pulling it right out of their a**es.