In this thread, I hope to get some debate out of some of you. I want to know what you think of the whole ordeal.

Serious debate, please.

My take:

There should be a public option run by the government to compete with private insurance companies. People should pay taxes for them.

Agree!

Didn't we already have this thread a few weeks ago?

My opinion... I live in a country with a national healthcare system, and I work for te NHS also. I think EVERYONE should have access to healthcare. I do not believe the poor should be declined health care because they cannot afford it. I do not believe people should have to pay insurance companies huge amounts of money, and still live in fear of getting sick because of the HUGE deductibles they will have to pay if they do need medical attention. I do not believe children should be going without essential medical care. I do not believe women should have to PAY for their labour and delivery of their child.

In the UK we have a national health service, and it's not perfect, but I think the vast majority of Brits would say it's MUCH better than what America has. If we get sick, we get treated. As simple as that. We pay for it with taxes, yet still our taxes are lower than Americans taxes. Doctors choose treatments for patients based on the patient's need for treatment. The government does not pick and choose who gets treated. If your doctor feels you will benefit from a treatment, you get it, no matter what it costs. You are treated based on need, and regardless of income, race, age etc. The elderly are NEVER declined a treatment because of their age. And the poor are never declined a treatment because they can't pay.

In America patients are declined treatments because their insurance company finds an excuse why they don't deem it necessary (or drags up some irrelevant condition the person forgot to put on their insurance application, hence now making their insurance invalid). Doesn't happen in the UK... you need it, you get it.

In America doctors are driven by the money, the drug companies etc. This results in innappropriate tests (why do the Americans do CT scans for things which can be diagnosed on ordinary x-ray? Not only is this expensive, it's also dangerous, as it is an unneccessary exposure to a high dose of radiation!), and innappropriate treatments.

I really hope Obama gets this bill through, because he will be helping millions of people to have access to proper healthcare, without being at the mercy of insurance companies.

I do however believe there should be a private option (as included in Obama's proposal), as we have in the UK. Here, if a person does wish to recieve treatment sooner for example, they can choose to pay and go private. And i believe people should have that choice.

"In America doctors are driven by the money, the drug companies etc. This results in innappropriate tests (why do the Americans do CT scans for things which can be diagnosed on ordinary x-ray? Not only is this expensive, it's also dangerous, as it is an unneccessary exposure to a high dose of radiation!), and innappropriate treatments."

Actually, no. They're worried about being sued by patients, so they run all sorts of unnecessary tests and labs to cover their ass.

Fair point. I'm sure that has something to do with it too.

You do realise, no-one's going to come here and debate this with you? That was the case with the previous thread too. The people who are against Obama's proposal know that they have no actual evidence to back up their claims (because the proposal simply does not say what they claim it says!), so most of them aren't stupid enough to come here and attempt to debate it.

I honestly didn't even know there was another thread!

does anybody know where i can find the actual health care bill? i want to read it myself

http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/233

fabulous.. thanks! i'd really like to read where people are getting their wild ideas from about this thing

That's quite an assumption -- you neglect the possibility that people oppose the Obama plan based on factual and ideological reasons, and not just what is contained within the plan. For instance, some of his outright fudging of truth (or "Washington truth") as its called. His statement that the program "will not contribute one cent to the deficit. Period." is an outright lie. They (Obama & Dems in the House) merely think that if part of their plan is already embedded in other legislation, despite it costing hundreds of billions of dollars, it just doesn't count.

I oppose the bill on the basis that ~more~ government have never solved any problem. Ever.

He said that he would not SIGN any bill that added one cent to the deficit.

He actually said, "Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize."

click link to see a transcript::

Dang... It wouldn't link...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/obama.health.care.transcript/index.html?section=cnn_latest

I just realized that there are 2 bills that people are talking about and I am going to take some time to fully read both of them and see what's true and what's not true. As of right now I have not done that. I wanted to know why people are talking about a 1000 page bill and a 167 page bill. But people should remember that nothing has been enacted and put into law as of yet. Obama has signed nothing. Congress has not passed anything.

There are 2 bills that people are talking about:
(1) The PDF version of HR 3200 Health Care is 1017 pages
(2) The PDF version of Obama's Health Care Proposal is 167 pages

Even though I have always believed in capitalism, when it comes to health care I think that it should be similar to the educational system in that there are "public" schools that people can attend for free but there are also private schools that people pay extra to attend. The private schools don't receive federal education money though, etc. When it comes to health care I'd rather see something like that - that most health care is public and free, treatment and medications would be free. And if people wanted to get their own insurance on top of that, then they could.

I say this as someone who has a "pre-existing condition"... I have a myriad of health problems. I spend approximately 45% of my take home pay on my health care and on my medication each month, with BCBS insurance. Literally, I cannot find a new job because I have to have a job that provides insurance and which would be flexible with me as far as my health problems go (needing to go to the doctor, having to miss work because of the issues, etc). Because of our insurance practices now, IF I was to change insurance providers, I would not be covered for a full YEAR because what is wrong with me would be considered by them "pre-existing". ALSO - if I was to change jobs and I had the SAME insurance carrier, because I changed jobs - that insurance company would STILL consider what's wrong with me to be "pre-existing" and they would not cover me for a year - even though it's the SAME company! That's ridiculous and very unfair in my opinion. I would still be paying premiums to the same company, and insurance companies want you to pay your premiums for an entire year before they'll even cover your medical treatment?? How "right" is that?? So because of these pre-existing conditions, I literally am "stuck" in a low-paying job that I do not like because I can't afford to be uncovered for a year. (Yet because I have a job right now, I can't even file the paperwork for disability either, b/c our government believes no matter how bad your health is, if you're working then you're not disabled, and that's not actually true.)

I have heard people talk about how people with pre-existing conditions SHOULD NOT be even allowed to get coverage because "regular healthy people" will have to pay for their usage of the insurance. I am extremely mad about that - because those people have no idea what it's like to walk in my shoes. And I don't see anyone lined up outside my door wanting to switch places with me and take on my problems. If they had health problems, their opinions would not be what they are now and they would not be saying people with health problems shouldn't be able to get insurance.

Our health care system of hospitals and doctors completely overcharges people, Medicaid, and insurance companies. The problem began there. Hospitals wanted to make more money, so they overcharged because they knew that the government and insurance companies would pay. It's gotten to the point where now it's common practice to overcharge... For things as simple as tylenol in a hospital. I have paid $18.00 per pill of tylenol in a hospital before and that's outrageous. And even though I think that doctors and nurses are important to us, SHOULD a doctor actually make $50,000,000 a year? Nurses are overpaid as well. What makes a doctor or nurse more important than a nuclear scientist? Or a teacher? They're overpaid and they overcharge for that reason.

People say that the prices are so high because of malpractice suits, etc, but that's not actually true. Most malpractice suits only get upheld in court if they show gross negligence by the doctor. There is always a risk when you have an operation - but normal "risks" do not include leaving surgical equipment inside a patient or being on cocaine when you operate on someone's heart. Normal risks do not include negligence and/or incompetence. In those cases, people should be able to file suit. So I must ask of those who believe that lawsuits are to blame: If your daughter, mother, or spouse was to have an operation and it was found that the doctor was (let's say) under the influence of alcohol when he operated on the person and as a result simple mistakes were made and your loved one died - would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, no big deal"?? Or would you feel that your loved one's life was worth something and retribution is necessary?

I could go on about this forever because I feel strongly about it, but I'll stop here. I hope others will give their opinions as well.

Yeah, I've heard about insurance companies rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. WTF?! Yes, because I caused my problems myself. Jesus Christ.

Jodi, it's not necessarily the malpractice suits which drive up prices, but malpractice insurance. As for the suits being upheld, this still requires legal counsel, etc., and even a lawsuit that is won by the doctor is still costly and generally results in an increase in malpractice insurance premiums. The idea that doctors have to practice medicine in a way to cover their ass is what drives up the cost of everything in medicine, and nobody is stating that malpractice suits need be abolished -- however, there is need for reform.

Then all problems originate with insurance companies, not just malpractice insurance but health insurance also.

I was going to say the same thing. It's not the suits - it's the insurance!

"Hospitals wanted to make more money, so they overcharged because they knew that the government and insurance companies would pay."
While I do agree that hospitals overcharge (the hospital I work for charges up to $44 for one pain pill, and I've seen Levaquin (strong antibiotic) pills for up to $250 per pill), the government/insurance companies really don't "pay" all that much. BCBS is one of the LOWEST paying insurances I've seen! Whenever you get an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) from your insurance, you should compare what they pay versus their contractual (a.k.a. hospital write off) amount. Today I was working a BCBS claim - the total bill was $29,000 (for an inpatient stay), BCBS paid just over $3,000, the hospital wrote off $24,500 and the rest was patient responsibility. So while hospitals ARE overpriced and DO overcharge, MANY insurances get off with HIGH contractual rates and end up paying next to nothing in comparison to the original bill.

I would also like to say that I am in the same boat as you are with a strong list of "pre-existing" conditions and health issues, and have stayed at a job I loathe and get paid basically nothing at for over a year because I just cannot afford to lose my current health coverage. I agree with you very much, especially with what you've said in your third paragraph.

Doctors in the UK aren't paid anywhere near that much (and British nurses are definitely not overerpaid. I can't comment on American ones). But to respond to one point... doctors are paid well because of the responsibilty which they hold. Because if a teacher makes a mistake, probably no-one will die. But if a doctor makes a mistake, someone could die.

And from a purely personal point of view... I've been working for 4 years and I'm still in debt and living in my overdraft. Because although my pay is pretty good for my age, I have huge loans from med school (and my loans will be MUCH MUCH smaller than American doctors, because we pay far less on higher education), and I spend thousands of pounds a year on specialist exams, speciality membership fees, licence fees and indemnity insurance (I expect American doctors also spend more on this, as there's more litigation over there). I certainly don't think American doctors should be being paid as much as they are, but being paid well doesn't necessarily correspond to having a large disposable income, and there are reasons why doctors are paid what they're paid.

I guess for northerners, it might be hard, but for us Mexico border states, we have it easy! Go down to Mexico, get your teeth cleaned and see a general doctor, buy your prescription pills and head back home. Hell, most small hispanic grocery stores have back rooms filled with prescription meds bought down in Mexico and brought here for those without insurance. My aunt had her lapband done down in Mexico. My grandparents got their dentures down there and my uncle got his bridge there. Most are american trained doctors who make more money getting cash than dealing with insurance companies. Seeing how that isn't an option for everyone, I do agree with Lady AnonymousSource. I know people who would definitely pay for insurance if it was cost effective. Granted, there's more to it, but I have a feeling that if we switch to national healthcare, a lot of doctors and nurses would quit.

I hate to say it, but...let those who are only in it for the money quit... Red Fraggle is a doctor in the U.K where they have nationalized health care, and she is a doctor to HELP people - not to get rich. Those are the kinds of doctors and nurses that we need in the USA. Doctors who are in it only for the money, such as the doctor who gave Michael Jackson his propofol, are not the best doctors. Doctors who CARE are the best doctors.

I work for a college that graduates 200 nurses per semester, and most of them are BAD nurses who do not care about the patients AT ALL. They are simply in it for the MONEY. They are not in it because they are passionate about health care. We need people who actually want to be doctors and nurses to help people. I've been in the hospital many times, and only 1 in 10 nurses actually cared about the patients. When they don't care and are only in it for the money, they tend not to do as good of jobs. They are lax in their care and they make simple mistakes - and then they don't care that they make the simple mistakes. They just shrug it off, as if reading the wrong CT scan and diagnosing someone with an illness they don't have is "normal" and "Okay". It is not uncommon for those things to happen. People who genuinely care about their job or profession tend to do the job much better than those who don't care. That goes for any profession, not just the medical profession.

Hang on, major problem there, is this nurses diagnosing illness or did you switch to doctors without saying so?

If that was the case, then there wouldn't be enough doctors and nurses to run our national health service in the UK. And that's not the case.

Believe it or not, a great number of doctors do the job because they actually care about people and enjoy it, not just for the money. And I can't see it would make a huge difference to nurses, because presumably they're already salaried.

I'm sure there will be some American doctors who will be pissed off at losing their current high income... but since there will still be a private option, they may well have the option of supplementing their income with private work (as some British doctors too)... and I doubt very many will actually quit and sacrifice the many many years they've dedicated to getting to where they are.

Nurses in Australia regularly go on strike because they're not being paid enough... They have it shit.