Nope, Healthcare doesn't need to be reformed. Not at all.

[Sheilbh]

I agree, but I don't know for sure government can do it any better.  It seems like it can in some cases (I am under the impression alot of the board Euros like their national systems).  I am skeptical that our government is competent and efficient enough to actually pull it off, though.

In this country 70% of people think our healthcare system is broke or needs reform.  80% of people who've used it in the last 6 months are satisfied or highly satisfied.  I think there's a base level of dissatisfaction with stories like this and other stuff about a dirty ward in a dirty hospital in a dirty city (Southampton), but when you actually need something it's pretty good.

I've never had a bad experience with the NHS, to be honest.  Though I've not used A&E much, I have to see my GP relatively regularly and occassionally have to get checked up by a nurse.

[Fate]

Seems to me like the impetus for healthcare reform is just a way to get the governments hands on the gigantic and growing out of control healthcare trough, so that various politicians can direct that money where they like, rather than any real idea that by controlling the system the costs can be controlled as well. And it is the costs of the system (or rather the ridiculously high growth rate of those costs) that are the true problem - not that some doctors somewhere are committing fraud.

It always surprises me when I see another example of someone who has drunk the kool-aid and yet thinks him/herself objective on the topic.

Nice opening.

Don't feed the grumtroll!

[KRonn]

And this latest attempt at a health scare bill did nothing to allay my fears.

That's a point I have made way too many times; the choice isn't between the current FAILoriffic democratic plan and the EPIC FAIL of no reform, it is between the EPIC FAIL of no reform, the current FAILoriffic democratic plan, and a reasonable plan that uses the experience of other countries to inform the choices made in this country.

No one is interested in the third choice, seemingly.

On this I agree very much. And I think most people do want fixes, reform and change, as polls seem to show that.

[Sheilbh]

On this I agree very much. And I think most people do want fixes, reform and change, as polls seem to show that.

If you think the current Senate plan is a 'government takeover' you'd be manning the bloody barricades if the Democrats tried anything that looked like any healthcare system in the rest of the developed world.

[Eddie Teach]

grumtroll!

[Valmy]

Sometimes I think the best way to go is just socialize the whole thing. 

Then I see how military health care is, and how other government ideas like the TSA are run, and think "fuck that". 

Things were a whole lot simpler when most people simply died by the age of 40.

There is one good way to get top health care: have lots and lots of money.

[Valmy]

This thread is a great example of why I am so skeptical of the idea that the "solution" is to put the government in charge.

The government already controls health care.  I thought we were talking about solutions to change how that control works to try to make that control better.

If you are laboring under some sort of delusion that we have a functional free market that produces excellent services at low costs affordable to the market that demands those services...then I am curious what country you live in.  The whole thing is propped up by government money and controlled publicly...though often for the interests of businesses who have moved in to take advantage of the gravy train.

[Berkut]

This thread is a great example of why I am so skeptical of the idea that the "solution" is to put the government in charge.

The government already controls health care.

O RLY?

  I thought we were talking about solutions to change how that control works to try to make that control better.

Is that what we are talking about? I thought we were talking about the government taking more control of health care, but since apaprently "control" is binary, and it has already been established, then any further changes are merely window dressing.

If you are laboring under some sort of delusion that we have a functional free market that produces excellent services at low costs affordable to the market that demands those services...then I am curious what country you live in.

Christ on a popsicle stick, how in the world did you get THAT idea?

  The whole thing is propped up by government money and controlled publicly...though often for the interests of businesses who have moved in to take advantage of the gravy train.

Controlled publicly? What the hell does that mean?

[Iormlund]

What the Spaniard said.  Socialized heathcare is great for major, non-elective procedures which would otherwise bankrupt any ordinary citizen, and possibly their whole family as well. I'm all for a "two tier" system on more elective matters.

But that's how the system works in countries with socialized healthcare (unless you are in a country like Cuba, I guess), so the alternative is really false. For example, I pretty much get all my medical care from private providers (e.g. when it comes to dentistry, minor illnesses etc.) but I'm safe knowing that even if I fall on harder times and get seriously ill there will be good specialists offering the service for free.

I'm talking about the Canadian system, where "two-tier" is a major political battle. It exists to an extent - dentistry for example - but extending it into other areas of healthcare is a big fight.

See for example:  http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2003/11/27/c7199.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

While on ethical terms I don't like the existence of two tiers, in practice it has its advantages. For example, I could have used my employer's coverage to avoid a two-month waiting list for an OR. That would have been better for my employer (a speedier return to work), me (early return to work and thus full salary, less time suffering, single room etc) and the state (one less patient in need of an OR). Pretty much everyone but the insurance company would win.
At least in theory. In practice I chose the longer route, since in Spain public hospitals (and mine in particular) have better resources and staff - though there are obvious exceptions, this insurer in particular has a very good reputation in burns or microsurgery (reimplantations and the like) due to its focus on workplace accidents. I doubt they do that many Crohn's, on the other hand.

[MadImmortalMan]

Controlled publicly? What the hell does that mean?

Uber-regulated to the point that there can be almost no difference between providers of care or insurance and little leeway in the types of coverage you can get. That'd be my guess, and it's a valid point.

[Berkut]

Controlled publicly? What the hell does that mean?

Uber-regulated to the point that there can be almost no difference between providers of care or insurance and little leeway in the types of coverage you can get. That'd be my guess, and it's a valid point.

That certainly is not the case though - I have all kinds of options about the care I receive, and there certainly is  rather large difference between my doctor and my HMO.

It is very regulated, to be sure, but I don't think it is anywhere near to being publicly controlled. Rather we have regulated it enough to destroy any chance at free market price controls, while we have not actually taken control of it to at least try to impose non-free market price controls, whatever those might be.

[grumbler]

Seems to me like the impetus for healthcare reform is just a way to get the governments hands on the gigantic and growing out of control healthcare trough, so that various politicians can direct that money where they like, rather than any real idea that by controlling the system the costs can be controlled as well. And it is the costs of the system (or rather the ridiculously high growth rate of those costs) that are the true problem - not that some doctors somewhere are committing fraud.

It always surprises me when I see another example of someone who has drunk the kool-aid and yet thinks him/herself objective on the topic.

Nice opening.

Sound familiar?  That's exactly the way I read your opening, so I opened like that to open your eyes.  I really don't think you are like that, but you might want to look at the tone of your own posts.

I withdraw the statement completely, now that it has served its purpose.

[Sheilbh]

Seems to me like the impetus for healthcare reform is just a way to get the governments hands on the gigantic and growing out of control healthcare trough, so that various politicians can direct that money where they like, rather than any real idea that by controlling the system the costs can be controlled as well.

I think the impetus was to decrease the number of people who were uninsured.

And it is the costs of the system (or rather the ridiculously high growth rate of those costs) that are the true problem - not that some doctors somewhere are committing fraud.

They had some pretty interesting ideas in the Senate Bill.  For example an independent medicare advisory board that would make recommendations on where it was possible to cut costs in medicare - unless Congress explicitly opposed their recommendations (by a vote) those recommendations would be followed, I think shifting the political work from cutting something like Medicare to preserving it would have a big effect over the years.  I think the board - which was something Obama worked hard to get into the Senate bill and was annoyed wasn't in the House bill - obviously wouldn't be allowed to raise taxes and was also banned from 'rationing' care so much of its reforms would be to do with the administrative system; the way things are paid for.  If Congress wanted to reject something then they would, under the bill, be required to find an equal cut in Medicare that they'd in that part of the budget.

The tax on very expensive healthcare plans was again a good idea - opposed most strongly by the unions whose members do well out of that.

There was a reform that would link Medicare payments from the government to healthcare providers, like hospitals, to their performance.  So they'd get more money if they were able to successfully treat relatively common but dangerous complaints like heart issues and they'd lose money if they had to readmit lots of people after surgery, or if infections were common.  I believe this exists in some areas of the country, such as Minnesota while in others (I believe Texas) the hospital and doctor gets money per test, per procedure - which is inevitably going to be expensive.

There were also provisions to basically bundle Medicare payments and treatments together - to try and get a normal GP and the hospital to work together and then also involve out-patient care and home care after an operation so that whole process receives money which is then split between the recipients rather than a number of individual payments based on how many treatments and procedures you have.

I think in terms of cost the Senate Bill, at least, did rather well.

[The Brain]

We should parking lot America.

[MadImmortalMan]

Newfie Premier coming to the US for heart surgery. Probably so he could be treated by a Canadian doctor. 

Danny Williams going to U.S. for heart surgery
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 | 7:21 AM NT Comments606Recommend233
CBC News

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html#ixzz0ePIZ36B1


Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.

CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 60, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.

The premier's office provided few details, beyond confirming that he would have heart surgery and saying that it was not necessarily a routine procedure.

Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale is scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday morning.

She's expected to provide more details about Williams's condition, as well as how the provincial government will function during his absence.

CBC reporter David Cochrane said Williams appeared to be in good health recently. He described the premier as "fairly active," playing pick-up hockey at least once a week when work permits.