Healthcare Thread

[LegalSmash]

Has anyone been following the new healthcare contraption bill they are passing into congress? What does everyone think? Do you believe the United States should do more to provide healthcare, given the failings of the current system of private providers and insurance companies that serve no other purpose than standing in as a middleman between provider and recipient?

Or do you believe the system is not flawed, and no problem exists?

Say somethin' fools.

[PotshotPolka]

I actually think it won't pass. I understand current deficits with medicare/medicaid and SS are unsustainable, but passing this dumbfuckery will only accelerate the process. I've yet to hear how this bill would help close the deficit, and I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all 1,200 pages of this proposal.

[andre1028]

I believe your Healthcare system is not as flawed as ours. Our 'Free' healthcare comes at the price of high exploitation, generally long waits, and usually lower quality of help than those South of the border (United States). Though getting in a car crash in the States, being rushed to a low ended hospital, and waking up to a ten thousand dollar bill may be bad... it's not as bad as waiting hours in the emergency room and having your syptoms get worse North of the border in Canada.

To be honest the only thing the that needs improving is speed, quality, and price.

[PotshotPolka]

To be honest the only thing the that needs improving is speed, quality, and price.

And an order by the President will not make all three of those things happen.

[2 Dwarves, 1 Coat]

I can say I support this, although as previously stated, it probably won't pass. My simple reason for support:

I prefer this: Healthcare > Bureaucrat > Citizen,

To this: Healthcare > Insurance Company > Citizen.

It seems very flawed either way, so I'm leaning towards support.

[PotshotPolka]

I can say I support this, although as previously stated, it probably won't pass. My simple reason for support:

I prefer this: Healthcare > Bureaucrat > Citizen,

To this: Healthcare > Insurance Company > Citizen.

It seems very flawed either way, so I'm leaning towards support.

You think Bureaucrats are more efficient?

[Red Tampon]

They really need to get rid of the current health insurance system where the end user (us) don't have as much choice as we do for say, car insurance.

Even at work we basically have 2 choices, the uber duper one, or the less uber one, and since it's bought in a group I'm lumped in with the fat ass nut munching manatees around here who drive up the rates for the rest of us.

We should be allowed to shop around like we do for car insurance and our prices should reflect our lifestlyes/health. Why should I be paying the same for my insurance as the 40 year old lady across from my who constantly sounds like she has pneumonia and complains about her weight while at the same time eating almonds thinking they're "healthy" not realizing how much fat or calories they have.

I'm tired of this half-assed insurance/health system we have now.

[2 Dwarves, 1 Coat]

You think Bureaucrats are more efficient?

Well, I'd prefer an employee of the US government handling claims over the company hired one who is

looking out for the company's best interests, and not mine. They probably aren't very much more efficient,

but it's a change.

[LegalSmash]

I disagree with both options in part, I'll be brief:

2d1c: Bureaucrats are not capable of doing their job in a manner benefiting the public, because they have far too much job security. If bureaucrat jobs were LESS secure, and their performance, treatment of claimants, and morale/attitude at work were relevant to their ability to maintain their job, perhaps the idea of a government run program would be more feasible.

Red: private companies running healthcare management is NOT a bad idea, however, healthcare COMPANIES and insurance interests putting themselves between the patient and the doctor is/has/will be/been problematic, and seriously needs to cease. Allow me to explain:

Each insurance company seeks to maintain ITS interests SOLELY, not that of the healthcare profession, nor that of the doctors, and definitely not that of the client. Insurance companies (hereinafter 'Insco' for the sake of simplicity) refuse to pay doctors fair value for their services on their contract, switch rates at will, and largely ignore the realities of the medical profession. In addition to this, they expect the doctors to charge a different rate to non-insurance holders, one that deters people from NOT having insurance, despite a lack of necessity for the "product". This results in the less honest doctors bilking medicair/medicaid, costing us MORE money, and indigent people showing up to the ER with a cold because its the only place that they'll be treated and released without incurring catastrophic medical bills, costing US MORE money.

Basically, the insurance companies are the equivalent to OPEC for healthcare. The people in this country were bilked adn douped into believing that they needed insurance, rather than following the old medical treatment model, one of prevention, rather than secondary and tertiary treatment (ill explain below):

Preventative healthcare implied that the average consumer of medical services only went when he needed it, broken bones, too sick to work, birth, catastrophic injury and chronic condition. Generally, the average american PRIOR to 1950 would do this thing called SAVE MONEY. People kept 10-15% of their income for eventualities. Insurance companies tricked America into believing that for a small monthly/yearly payment they could have necessary treatment. This, in and of itself was NOT a bad concept, however, once the people are IN the system, they are at the whim of that system, and the companies know this. Each person paying into the system is at the mercy of said system when it raises premium prices, cuts services, defines elective/nonelective treatment, or determine point of service distribution (end use doctors). Add to this the lovely concept of CO-PAY, even AFTER I gave the company a grand for "comprehensive medical care" I still have to pay the doctor on site, and then get medicine, which for 6 years after release of medication MUST be name brand, costing me 5-10x more than the generic. ON TOP of this the insurance adjuster, NOT the doctor, gets to make the ultimate decision of whether or not a procedure that is medically necessary can be covered.

If a doctor decides to give equal payment options to a noninsured patron, the ins co put them "out of network" which pretty much blackballs the doctor.

If you don't see a problem here, you are not looking hard enough...

This 'smorgasboard' style medical care results in people coming to the doctor for stupid shit... in conjunction with readily available **Affordable** healthcare, people are willing to use newly developed, but less than necessary medicines (think Viagra and restless leg syndrome). Further, people, when they DO go to check ups, are given tests by the medical professional they don't need, while avoiding tests that are necessary, or useful in preventing disease on the basis of HIPAA protections and privacy issues. How exactly does it make sense to check a child/young adult for varicella, and vaccinate against it, but NOT check for STDs, Genetic diseases, easily transferred, dangerious bacterial infections? It doesn't.

I think these services CAN be provided AND the healthcare of this nation remain in the hands (largely) of the private sector, but several things must occur:
1. Ins Co cannot be allowed to donate to politicans.
2. Doctors and clients must be able to operate without interference from a company/industry where the sole purpose of the industry is to artificially inflate the price of , control the results of, and create scarcity in the supply of available healthcare.
3. Insurance companies, as a whole, need to be either more closely monitored, or run out of the business of medicine and practicing medicine. There is a fundamental difference between the work of the doctor, and the work of the insurance adjuster, there is a fundamental difference in desired end result: One is "supposed to" treat the patient, regardless, whereas the other is naturally more concerned with a bottom line.

I REALLY don't like federal insurance, but truth be told, the current system is broken, seriously problematic, and needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later.

[LegalSmash]

Can't sleep