Obama may drop Govt. Health Care

[WACF]

Big Train.

I live in Saskatoon so this was big on the local news.

The news coverage showed more of both sides of the debate.

I would not claim our system is the best...but it better than none.

The biggest thing to look at with Oulette's thoughts are this...

Melding private business to provide service's that would be payed by the government.

There is nothing wrong with that at all...in fact we need more of it.

For example...if you need bloodwork or in some cases X-rays...you can go to a private clinic...show your health card...and you pay nothing.

The results go to your doctor and you discuss whatever the findings are.

In Alberta a few years back...they had a backlog of knee surgeries or something...so...they hired a few private doctors and got caught up...all payed by the government once again...no insurance company...no bill.

The government regualtes the fees charged per procedure and pays the bill.

I read something in the paper today...if I find it online I'll post it.

[WACF]

Here we go...today's story on the conference.

These kinds of things are important to discuss...especially for the U.S.

I do think...with the right amount of debate...you can come up with a superior system.


Doctor delegates debate merits of European-style health care

Doctor delegates debate merits of European-style health care
By Jeanette Stewart, The StarPhoenixAugust 17, 2009

A group of Canadian doctors is calling for homegrown solutions in the face of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) president's continued advocacy for a European-style, public-private health-care system.

Outgoing CMA president Dr. Robert Ouellet hosted an information session on his five-country study of European health care Sunday afternoon as part of the association's annual convention being held in Saskatoon.

The CMA will work toward creating a "blueprint for transformation" at the conference in order to determine its direction for the next year.

Ouellet wants to see "competition and contracting of services," with services delivered by the private sector and paid for by the state on a payment per patient served basis. His conclusions are based on the findings of a three-week research trip to the U.K., Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

Though Ouellet's presentation was closed to the media, an outline of his main presentation points was provided to The StarPhoenix.

He states all of the countries he visited use "incentives and competition" to increase their productivity and feature a public-private mix of care.

Ouellet said aside from a group of doctors who want to keep the "status quo," CMA members support the new ideas.

"We have done polls with our members. It's widely supported," Ouellet said in an interview following the presentation.

But doctors who oppose a greater private role in health care say that overall there is a need for more information. The debate is being clouded by "code words" instead of practical discussion, say advocates for the current system.

"There's a vagueness to what's being proposed that's particularly worrisome," said Dr. Robert Wollard, vice-chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare (CDM). Approximately 2,000 doctors belong to the organization, which was formed in 2006 to advocate for public health care. The group is actively working to advocate for medicare throughout the four-day conference.

"What they're talking about is having health-care institutions competing with hospitals competing with private clinics and private hospitals for money and patients," said Dr. Danielle Martin, chair of CDM.

According to the CDM, the British Medical Association has found huge problems with competition in its health-care system. "We need to learn from that experience," Martin said.

"What the doctors of the U.K. have been saying is that introducing competition has in fact been bad for patients because it's undermined the public system and it's undermined collaboration," she said.

Ouellet states the U.K. is successful in addressing wait times, correlating their success with "activity-based" funding. Based on his findings, this funding method would see hospitals and clinics paid per patient treated.

"The patient, instead of being an expense, becomes a revenue. There is an incentive to be more efficient," Ouellet said.

Martin calls this conclusion "a bit of a stretch," and attributes the success in wait-time reduction in the U.K. to a huge injection of money made recently by the government.

The group also charges that Ouellet's conclusions won't work in the Canadian context. Canada has 50 per cent fewer doctors and a more widely distributed population than European countries. In Canada, allowing doctors to move out of the public stream to work in the private system would only worsen wait times, Martin said.

Ouellet acknowledged the challenge the shortage of physicians creates in his presentation.

The CMA has 70,000 members. Members of the organization will continue to debate Ouellet's proposals for change during the course of its meeting in Saskatoon.

jstewart@sp.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

[sadaist]

Remember, they're also in office to do what's BEST for the country. And with as much information as is out there, do you really think the vast majority knows what they want??

Mmmm, I don't see it that way. The way I view the Constitution and America is the people get to decide what they feel is best for themselves...with little government interference. We basically hire representatives to make good on our wishes for the direction of the country. The government is not in place to see to all the needs of all people. Or to limit those who may end up having too much in their view.

At the core, I do believe that the vast majority knows what they want. But once politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, and the media get their hands on a subject it can become quite hard for the typical person to understand. Heck, even our congressmen can't understand a bill they write without a team of lawyers and assistants translating it.

Misunderstanding/misinformation causes fear. Sure some may be unfounded, but that's what happens when you have a 1,000+ page bill filled with legal speak and try to slam it through. People don't truly understand what it is about and what they will either be gaining or losing. The real problem is sometimes our law makers do this purposely to get things passed that otherwise wouldn't stand a chance.

[Nitro Express]

Since they can't pin it on George Bush this time, I'm sure they'll go to their standby...racist, redneck, teabagging, birther Republicans.

Why are they quitting so soon? If they can't shove it up our ass hard, they don't do it at all. Do they even know the details? How about doing it in a trial area like Washington DC to see if it works. No. They just want to be granted the power and then worry about details later. When anyone is trying to get you to hurry up and sign the dotted line, it's time to go, SCAM!

[Big Train]

Big Train.

I live in Saskatoon so this was big on the local news.

The news coverage showed more of both sides of the debate.

I would not claim our system is the best...but it better than none.

The biggest thing to look at with Oulette's thoughts are this...

Melding private business to provide service's that would be payed by the government.

There is nothing wrong with that at all...in fact we need more of it.

For example...if you need bloodwork or in some cases X-rays...you can go to a private clinic...show your health card...and you pay nothing.

The results go to your doctor and you discuss whatever the findings are.

In Alberta a few years back...they had a backlog of knee surgeries or something...so...they hired a few private doctors and got caught up...all payed by the government once again...no insurance company...no bill.

The government regualtes the fees charged per procedure and pays the bill.

I read something in the paper today...if I find it online I'll post it.

So in essence, what we have (a blend of public/private) isn't so far off the mark as is. Single payer, what a lot of people here are railing about, would lead to the kind of issues Canada is currently experiencing if not worse (if I can speak poorly about our ability to run things at times).

[Terry]

One way or another, people are going to pay for their health care.

My own limited observations of services rendered for dollars spent, even restricted to my own plans over the years, are such that every year my premiums go up and in exchange my healthcare provider offers less in the way of services. AND I take no medication and haven't used ANY hospital services for over a decade. All I've used is the dental part of my health care package.

So why should I pay more money every year for less in the way of services? THIS is the status quo.

You want to talk about a scam, let's talk about how the insurance companies used their lobby over the last two decades to ensure passage of legislation that makes it virtually impossible to either drive a car or get treated without insurance.

[WACF]

So in essence, what we have (a blend of public/private) isn't so far off the mark as is. Single payer, what a lot of people here are railing about, would lead to the kind of issues Canada is currently experiencing if not worse (if I can speak poorly about our ability to run things at times).

I think it is a matter of finding balance.

What we do with the private Blood work clinics and X-Ray clinics is working very well.

The thing is the fees need to be regulated federally.

I do not think for profit hospitals are the answer.

I also think insurance companies should not have the power to raise rates or cut what is covered in the name of profits.

[Seshmeister]

Ouellet states the U.K. is successful in addressing wait times, correlating their success with "activity-based" funding. Based on his findings, this funding method would see hospitals and clinics paid per patient treated.

"The patient, instead of being an expense, becomes a revenue. There is an incentive to be more efficient," Ouellet said.

Whoever this guy is I don't think 3 weeks is enough time to really get to grips with something like that. It's really difficult and complex.

You can end up with unforeseen results.

For example in simple terms say you want to get reduce waiting times for patients getting a heart bypass operation. You might think it would be easy to just say to hospitals "Noone is to wait more than 3 months, if they do then we only pay you half for the op."

What if the patient gets the flu during that 3 months? What if they go on vacation for a month? How much notice should the patient get of their op day to arrange leave from work? What if you get an infection in your ICU, should clinicians be pushed to keep doing operations? What if you have one person who is routine but has been waiting for 10 weeks and you have another who is more urgent but has only been waiting for a week. Who do you do first?

Suddenly you end up with a bunch of administrators to work out the answers to all of the above and managers pressuring clinical decisions when all you wanted to do was get people treated quicker.

[Nickdfresh]

If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

Who would you blame for it?

I blame things like the idiotic title of this thread that completely mischaracterize things (deliberately) while showing a profound complete misunderstanding of what the issue was really about...

The "Gov't Health Care" was a very limited option to be available only to people who met certain criteria and who could genuinely not afford health insurance. It would have forced competition and lowered the rates of insurance, but thanks to the lobbyists in the insurance companies, and their legions of tea-baggers largely protesting against their own interests, it looks like its over - at least for now...

[FORD]

Dear President Obama: A Modest Medicare Proposal
By Thom Hartmann
Created Aug 17 2009 - 9: 03am

Dear President Obama,

I understand you're thinking of dumping your "public option" because of all the demagoguery by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and their crowd on right-wing radio and Fox. Fine. Good idea, in fact.

Instead, let's make it simple. Please let us buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with this so-called "public option" that's a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy you're so comfortable with.

Just pass a simple bill - it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people - that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

So it's revenue neutral!

To make it available to people of low income, raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me - under 65) to cover the cost of below-200%-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.

Most of us will do damn near anything to get out from under the thumbs of the multi-millionaire CEOs who are running our current insurance programs. Sign me up!

This lets you blow up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with Blue Cross. Those who like it can buy into it. Simplicity itself.

Of course, we'd like a few fixes, like letting Medicare negotiate drug prices and filling some of the holes Republicans and AARP and the big insurance lobbyists have drilled into Medicare so people have to buy "supplemental" insurance, but that can wait for the second round. Let's get this done first.

Simple stuff. Medicare for anybody who wants it. Private health insurance for those who don't. Easy message. Even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can understand it. Sarah Palin can buy into it, or ignore it. No death panels, no granny plugs, nothing. Just a few sentences.

Replace the "you must be disabled or 65" with "here's what it'll cost if you want to buy in, and here's the sliding scale of subsidies we'll give you if you're poor, paid for by everybody else who's buying in." (You could roll back the Reagan tax cuts and make it all free, but that's another rant.)

We elected you because we expected you to have the courage of your convictions. Here's how. Not the "single payer Medicare for all" that many of us would prefer, but a simple, "Medicare for anybody who wants to buy in."

Respectfully,
Thom Hartmann

Dear President Obama: A Modest Medicare Proposal | The Smirking Chimp

[sadaist]

Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy you're so comfortable with.

How warm & fuzzy. Too bad the post office is on the verge of bankruptcy, closing offices, laying off workers, continually rising the price of postage, and seriously considering lessening delivery days.

[sadaist]

I blame things like the idiotic title of this thread that completely mischaracterize things (deliberately) while showing a profound complete misunderstanding of what the issue was really about...

"Obama" = the guy in charge

"may" = isn't decided one way or the other, but is now a viable option on the table

"drop" = remove the provision from the bill

"Govt. health care" = the govt. run health care public option.

How exactly is the title of the thread mischaracterizing things? Seems like a solid grasp of the subject with only a few choice words.

[bueno bob]

"May" is "may". Doesn't mean "will". I will say that Obama's wording on this doesn't sound pleasant, but I'm hopeful that it was simply a placation speech.

Personally, I hold insurance companies who don't want the competition (and can't deal with the ensuing loss of profits it would undoubtedly create them) and major media pushes of misinformation from Fox News pundits to blame for him taking that position in the first place.

It could actually prove beneficial though - if people calm down enough, hopefully a public option can get passed through without a lot of less than bright people screaming and hollering about what Glenn Beck says inside their city halls.

Time will tell. Hopefully Obama takes the right stance on this and sticks to his guns.

[FORD]

How warm & fuzzy. Too bad the post office is on the verge of bankruptcy, closing offices, laying off workers, continually rising the price of postage, and seriously considering lessening delivery days.

The post office analogy really doesn't hold up. Here's why.......

Nobody writes letters anymore. They send e mail.

Many people pay their bills online, either with a credit card or through their bank, rather than mailing checks. And more recently, those bills are delivered electronically as well. Hell, some people automate the whole process so their bills are automatically paid every month.

All of that is great from a green perspective (less trees killed to make paper) and it saves time and money all around from the creditors to the consumer. Unfortunately, the post office takes the hit from losing all that paper that used to go through their system, and selling the stamps that were glued on to it. Even now they probably sell more stamps to collectors than to people who actually use them to mail shit.

That sort of obsolescence isn't going to happen to a public option health care system. Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird isn't going to do shit for you when you're sick or injured.

[sadaist]

The post office analogy really doesn't hold up. Here's why.......

I agree. But Obama picking that as his analogy was a bad choice. That's what happens when he doesn't have a teleprompter with someone elses words for him.