Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Healthcare In The USA
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 72 (519584)
08-15-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
08-14-2009 7:40 PM


Media Issue
quote:
If the corporate mainstream media is responsible for the disinformation, then I think the big question is why? Why are they leading the campaign of misinforming the public?
That's what I've been wondering. I've read the H.R. 3200 that's online and I don't understand why the media is bringing to light stuff that has nothing to do with the bill or at least show the evidence from the bill that the statement is false.
When they show town halls, they show the ruckus, but they don't always show the answers to even legitimate questions. I want to hear the questions and the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 7:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 08-15-2009 1:55 PM purpledawn has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 32 of 72 (519629)
08-15-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
08-15-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Media Issue
That's what I've been wondering. I've read the H.R. 3200 that's online and I don't understand why the media is bringing to light stuff that has nothing to do with the bill or at least show the evidence from the bill that the statement is false.
Here's an article on the drug company deals.
Source
quote:
Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?
August 14, 2009 By Greg Palast
Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?
I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?
On June 22, President Obama said he'd reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, "reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs."
Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?
I checked out the government's health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and toted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.
In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.
Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!
For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there's a sign over a flat screen TV, "BIG SAVINGS!" So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box - and snatch up the $500 television. And when you're caught by your spouse, you say, "But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!"
But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?
The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of "savings" from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.
We'll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.
And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama's promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!
What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.
The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he'd overturn. But, once within Tauzin's hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush's crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.
What else went down in Obama's drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn't have such a tape despite the President's campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, "These negotiations will be on C-SPAN."
This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush's Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.
Cheney's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.
But the Obama crew's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.
We know Cheney's secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.
Obama grins in your face.
See the difference?
The difference is 2%.


- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 08-15-2009 7:53 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2009 12:42 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 54 by dronestar, posted 08-19-2009 4:01 PM onifre has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 33 of 72 (519675)
08-16-2009 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-13-2009 4:28 PM


Here is a short video from the BBC which makes some comparisons between the British and US healthcare systems:
BBC NEWS | UK | US and UK health systems compared
It's quite strange to listen to some of the misguided notions about the "dire" conditions here.
I've lived in the UK all my adult life (I grew up in the USA). I can make an appointment to see my doctor for any reason, and not have to pay. I pay a small flat-rate prescription charge for any medications I may need (senior citizens and those on benefits get theirs free). I've been in the hospital with birth complications; my husband and I have been to A&E for various reasons. Never have there been any worries about insurance and payments to add to the stress.
It's true that some people take advantage of the system by seeing their doctors when they don't really need to, or they miss appointments. It's true that there can be waiting lists and sometimes people will pay privately to avoid them. Also, I consider my hospital experience for the birth of my daughter to have been mediocre. I was in a public ward with several other new mothers, all of whom had babies waking at all hours of the night; the floor was so filthy that my feet turned black; the heating was cranked up so high that I could not sleep; the food was so awful that many of us ordered take-away. I could have had much better in the USA if I'd had the insurance of my parents, who are upper middle class. But I'm thankful that this all came out of my taxes instead of me being saddled with thousands of pounds in bills to pay off at a time when I wasn't working.
What's more, the USA needs to look at ways of lowering the cost of healthcare, regardless of who provides it. The pharmaceutical lobby needs to be effectively dealt with as the prices of many of their drugs are highly inflated, and they will advertise new "me too" drugs at higher prices than older drugs whose patents have expired, without there being any evidence that the new drugs are actually better. They will also convince doctors to needlessly prescribe certain medications, such as statins for cholesterol or antidepressants for people going through a bad patch.
The other thing that needs to happen is that there needs to be a shift of emphasis to prevention, rather than masking symptoms when they occur. The average American's lifestyle is unhealthy in many respects and this leads to health care costs down the road. The UK isn't far behind in this regard, which is one reason why the cost of the NHS is rising too. (Another reason is the aging population.) Some ideas would be for the government to subsidise accessible exercise programs (some doctors can, I believe, prescribe going to a gym and get people a discounted membership for health reasons), and fruit and veg also need to be subsidised while junk food can be taxed to high heaven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-13-2009 4:28 PM Straggler has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 34 of 72 (519684)
08-16-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by onifre
08-14-2009 10:20 PM


Why the MSM Supports Big Pharma
onifre writes:
IMO, the source of the disinformation is the mainstream media and the reason...well, that I just don't know. It could be ratings and advertisement, but since Glenn Beck's moronic "Obama is a racist" comment, I believe about 6 companies pulled their advertisement from his show. So I don't think that's the reason. This only leaves some bigger agenda as the reason, which we can then speculate on it being the Pharm Industry or someone like that.
It should be noted that pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising than research, the purported reason for high drug prices in the US. Remember back when such advertising was illegal prior to the Reagan Administration? Did the world end or did we have cheaper drugs?
Mainstream media disinformation exists because they owe a substantial amount of their revenue to those drug commercials. If such advertising was once again banned, and if such companies purportedly spend 15% of their revenue on research and spend more than that figure on advertising, then a ban on such advertising would save the consumer at least 15% overall.
But that would hurt the bottom line for the mainstream media.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
- Sun Tzu
Big Media is as much our enemy in this debate as Big Pharma or Big Insurance. They will say anything in their propaganda to preserve their bottom line.
Edited by anglagard, : Add last paragraph for the particularly oblivious.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 10:20 PM onifre has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 35 of 72 (519701)
08-16-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by onifre
08-15-2009 1:55 PM


Big Pharma
On June 22, President Obama said he'd reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, "reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs."
Makes one wonder how binding those "agreements" are. If they don't follow though, what can the government do?
Last night the President spoke in CO and said the Public Plan was a not-for-profit insurance and would not be subsidized by taxpayers. Since there are not-for-profit insurance plans available, I'm not sure how the government without subsidizing could get a better price. He did say that the Public Plan was not free.
Even our representatives in Washington pay about $260 a month for health care and that's with their employer (taxpayers) covering 75% of the cost. H.R. 3200 doesn't make it clear what monthly payments would be for the individual.
I'm curious if they will force doctors to accept all insurances. Right now some doctors won't take Medicare or Medicaid. They may be part of one of the incentive packages. Hard to tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 08-15-2009 1:55 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 08-16-2009 6:07 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 72 (519737)
08-16-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by purpledawn
08-16-2009 12:42 PM


Re: Big Pharma
purpledawn writes:
Right now some doctors won't take Medicare or Medicaid.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this very general statement. Some doctors don't accept some insurance, period. I remember having to look for a doctor that would accept my private insurance a while back. Why make a statement that is true all the time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2009 12:42 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2009 9:08 PM Taz has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 37 of 72 (519751)
08-16-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
08-16-2009 6:07 PM


Re: Big Pharma
quote:
Why make a statement that is true all the time?
I guess we're even, I don't understand your issue with the statement given that I was curious if they will force doctors to accept all insurances. If it is true all the time, what is the problem and why is it worth mentioning? Is it wrong to not assume I know everything about insurance past and present and only speak of what I do know in the moment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 08-16-2009 6:07 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 12:18 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 72 (519756)
08-17-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by purpledawn
08-16-2009 9:08 PM


Re: Big Pharma
purpledawn writes:
I don't understand your issue with the statement given that I was curious if they will force doctors to accept all insurances.
I didn't have a problem with the forcing doctors to accept all insurances thing. I had a problem with you specifically saying some doctors don't accept medicare and medicaid. It's like dropping Obama's middle name right in the middle of a conversation.
There's been a lot of disinformation flying around, especially from your side of the fence. I'm sure you'd understand that naturally I'd be suspicious of subtle messages such as yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2009 9:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2009 6:44 AM Taz has replied
 Message 42 by Asgara, posted 08-17-2009 7:19 PM Taz has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 72 (519778)
08-17-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taz
08-17-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Big Pharma
quote:
I didn't have a problem with the forcing doctors to accept all insurances thing. I had a problem with you specifically saying some doctors don't accept medicare and medicaid. It's like dropping Obama's middle name right in the middle of a conversation.
There's been a lot of disinformation flying around, especially from your side of the fence. I'm sure you'd understand that naturally I'd be suspicious of subtle messages such as yours.
Why? It's a true statement, whether it is all encompassing or not.
This is how useless battles start. I have no idea how Medicare or Medicaid were accepted since inception. Because I take care of my mother's health and finances, I only know current dealings. There is nothing wrong with avoiding what I don't know for sure.
As far as Message 35, my thoughts were on the government run public plan and questions that were asked in the town hall mentioned that brought up Medicare. It brought up the thought that if the Public Plan doesn't reimburse doctors much better than Medicare, how is it going to help if doctors can refuse to accept it the same way they do Medicare. I can't tell if it will or not by reading H.R. 3200. Private insurance wasn't on my mind, but that would also fall under the issues of doctors accepting and refusing insurance.
I'm sorry if my statement wasn't specific enough or all encompassing enough for you, but I still don't understand the problem with it or why it makes anyone suspect misinformation or why that puts me on any specific side of the issue.
If there is a statement in one of the health plans that will require doctors to accept all insurances, then point me to it. I'm trying to understand this issue and quibbling about an unimportant phrase doesn't help understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 12:18 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 3:54 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 72 (519822)
08-17-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by purpledawn
08-17-2009 6:44 AM


Re: Big Pharma
purpledawn writes:
Why? It's a true statement, whether it is all encompassing or not.
Yes, and so is saying "Barack Hussein" in the middle of a conversation. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to say, since that's his middle name. But please, we're not naive here. We all know why a person would drop his middle name in the middle of a conversation. Let's not play this game.
Same thing with the statement "some doctors don't accept medicare". It's a true statement. In fact, it's almost a universal statement, since some doctors don't accept some insurance, period. Please understand that some of us might interpret this as your way of dissing public health care option.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2009 6:44 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2009 4:39 PM Taz has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 41 of 72 (519830)
08-17-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
08-17-2009 3:54 PM


Re: Big Pharma
quote:
Please understand that some of us might interpret this as your way of dissing public health care option.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 3:54 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 10:04 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 42 of 72 (519849)
08-17-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taz
08-17-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Big Pharma
Wow Taz,
What side of the fence are you "assuming" PD is on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 12:18 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 08-17-2009 10:05 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 72 (519856)
08-17-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
08-17-2009 4:39 PM


Re: Big Pharma
purpledawn writes:
Why?
I meant to reply like 5 hours ago but had to go on some lite businesses that eventually took about 4 hours...
Ok, let me explain in detail.
I don't think there's a word for this kind of behavior which I'm about to explain, at least not yet anyway. In a conversation, a person could drop in a line or two that are perfectly correct statements that can act as a reference to something else, usually something bad, and not have to answer a confrontation. Let me give a few examples before I go on.
During the 2008 presidential debates, I often found people randomly dropping in Obama's middle name right smack in the middle of the conversation. When I called them out on it, they just said it was his middle name and there was nothing wrong with saying his middle name. But since I was not a child and they were not children, we all knew they were trying to connect Obama with terrorism without actually saying it.
I remember once upon a time I worked in an office. There was this guy that always mentioned the fact that the elevator shook every time this big woman stepped in. Yes, it was a statement of fact that the elevator shook every time she stepped in. But it was also a fact that it shook every time ANY OF US stepped in. So, why mentioned it only when this particular woman stepped in? Again, I was an adult and so was everyone else. We all knew he was referencing her weight.
Even in our everyday conversation, we could say something without actually saying it by putting the concept in between the lines. Say someone cut in front of me in the grocery checkout line (inadvertently or not). I could say "people can be so inconsiderate at times", which is a statement of fact that is true all the time. If the person happens to hear me and tries to argue with me, I could just say "I was referring to... my neighbor last week..."
I can think of a kazillion other examples, but hopefully by this time you know what I mean.
"Some doctors don't accept some insurance" is a statement of fact. "Some doctors don't accept medicare" is also a statement of fact. The health care reform encompasses both private and public insurance. But when you only made your perfectly valid statement of fact about medicare, forgive me if I'm being suspicious that there could be some ulterior motive behind your statement. But like every other statement of its kind, it's impossible to pin down because (1) it's still a statement of fact and (2) one could always deny the implications that other people get from the statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2009 4:39 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2009 7:05 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 72 (519857)
08-17-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Asgara
08-17-2009 7:19 PM


Re: Big Pharma
The side that lives out in the countryside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Asgara, posted 08-17-2009 7:19 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2009 5:49 AM Taz has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 45 of 72 (519888)
08-18-2009 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
08-14-2009 1:51 PM


Re: There's private insurance everywhere!
What you're saying makes sense (except "poliklinika" ---I assume that means "public clinic" or something like that).
So, the only difference will be that poor people who can't afford good healthcare will at least get some healthcare?
That's the general thrust of things, yes - although I don't know exactly what Obama's proposing and whether it'll be any good. 'Poliklinika', I think, is from the Greek 'poly' for many, as you'll have a general practicioner, an ear, nose and throat specialist, an osteopath, a gynaecologist etc. all in the same place.
Another point somebody mentioned that I wanted to address:
Socialised medicine doesn't necessarily mean higher taxes, depending on the system involved. US government spending per capita on healthcare is higher than that of Britain, Germany, Japan or many other countries with unversal healthcare provision. Based on WHO figures from 2005, and excluding countries with populations below a million, US government per capita spending on healthcare ranked 8th in the world, and Austria only just tipped them to 7th place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2009 1:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024