Originally Posted By DAR And one at least worth looking at. <a href="http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/index.htm</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm all for alternative plans, but I didn't see a single proposal beyond platitudes and unfair smears of the Obama plan. >>“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans.<< Really with the rationing? I wonder if Britain and France feel rationed. Probably not, since the World Health Organization lists them in the top 10 of healthcare. The U.S.? 37th. I'm fine hearing his proposal, but it's not at this link (though I didn't clink on any of the other links, so maybe the details are buried in their somewhere). But I'm already skeptical when he starts out with right-wing rhetoric about rationed care that works extremely well in other countries. Until Republicans have a real answer to that, they just aren't cutting it.
Originally Posted By Mr X It's irrelevant so long as Congress is controlled by Democrats anyway (which is not to say the Republicans won't water the Democrat plan down to nothing with help from "Blue Dogs"). But I agree with EC. What's new about that!? It's like McCain claiming that he was "change" for the country and then spouting "tax cuts" as his only solution to EVERYTHING. What's new about that?
Originally Posted By ecdc Ok, in fairness, I went back to the link DAR provided and there was a PDF under the link "Long Summary." Overall, I'm pretty underwhelmed. I'm pleased that it addresses the tax benefits saved by the wealthy (huge) vs. the tax benefits saved by the poor (nonexistent) for health benefits. It addresses some other cost-saving ideas. The problem? Every single one of those cost-saving ideas is already being addressed. These particular high-costs are a bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees the costs are too high - it's how we control them. This plan, for example, suggests a Patient ATM card to keep track of medical records. Obama's been pushing for computerized records in every speech and touting the savings. There's no difference there. Other proposals seem ludicrously optimistic - such as web pages where people can check their own health as a preventative step. Those websites exist now - they're called WebMD, and people don't use them. I'm overweight. I know I am - I don't need a website to tell me that. The focus of this plan seems to be tax cuts so people can afford healthcare, and tax-free savings accounts with high deductible options so people can buy a plan. There's two problems here: 1) There's no way the tax breaks would be great enough to pay for the costs if someone had a medical event. If I have a $10,000 deductible, I'd have to pay almost 0 tax just to pay the deductible. 2) The savings accounts are just like a bank account. You can calm them a health savings account all you like, but that doesn't stop John Doe from taking out $4,000 because he lost his job and now he has to pay his mortgage. That's exactly the problem we have now: healthcare costs are bankrupting people and they have to choose between medicine or other necessities. This plan guarantees the same thing. I'm not the least bit surprised this was drafted by Republicans. It seems to have very little real-word concepts in it for poor or lower middle-class Americans. It refuses to acknowledge how fundamentally we need to change the system, and it's far, far too weak of a proposal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Other proposals seem ludicrously optimistic - such as web pages where people can check their own health as a preventative step. << Kar2oonman checks his health plan web page, 2015: Hmmm. My insurance company web page says "It's probably just the sniffles. No appointment necessary." This is great! I'm so glad we didn't get that rationed, socialist health care plan Obama wanted to foist on us.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> Those websites exist now - they're called WebMD, and people don't use them. I'm overweight. I know I am - I don't need a website to tell me that.<< Yeah, I have Flickr for that!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I always like the talk about health care savings accounts. The savings rate in America has been hovering around zero, and even negative, for many years now. What money do politicians think the average American is going to start saving? Americans are broke. They have no money to save anywhere. The only way anyone has bought anything in the last decade is through easy credit. Where is this mystery money for the savings account going to come from? Can you charge it to your Visa?
Originally Posted By mele Ha, 2oony! I use WebMD all of the time. In fact, if I hadn't looked up my symptoms online earlier this year and seen that I needed to go to the dr, I most likely would have died in a matter of a handful of days. Of course, it was stupid of me to be so sick (even if it was for less than 24 hours) and not go to the dr. but how many times have we been to the dr. only to be told that we just have a virus and told to go home and rest? The problem with websites like WebMD is that they give you ALL diagnoses that fit your symptoms. This means you could have minor stomach upset or possibly cancer. Kind of frustrating to have such a wide sweep of options. So, while they can be extremely helpful, they can also cause a lot more stress and worry and might even burden the health care system more.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yeah, I have Flickr for that!<< LMAO! Sadly, I know what you mean. Unless this particular plan can offer substantial numbers for first reducing healthcare costs, then the savings accounts are a moot point. My wife had surgery a month ago to widen her nasal passages and remove her uvula. She has sleep apnea, but it's not because she's overweight, so a c-pap doesn't help. But she was exhausted all the time and slept terribly because she just wasn't getting enough oxygen. It's great that our medical science has advanced enough to solve these issues. 100 years ago, someone with my wife's problem would probably just be diagnosed as "delicate" and sent on her way. People die from sleep apnea - it causes heart problems and a host of other problems. My friend's brother died from it and a co-worker's son died from it. I really am on board with the need for innovation and I don't want to stifle that - it probably just extended my wife's life by several years. But the cost of the surgery? $23,000. It took an hour and it was out-patient. I could've paid for it with my 401K (which is much lower thanks to the market crash) and that's about it. I'd love to say I have $23,000 lying around, but I don't. And I think most Americans are the same way. Unless this plan has a way to get that surgery down to around $5,000, then the savings account won't help. The plan seems designed to offer minor solutions without holding the healthcare industry accountable for the fact that it exploits American illness and pain to make a profit. So long as this is a for-profit industry, it will be extremely difficult to reign in costs.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Health Savings Plans already exist. The are more commonly referred to as HSAs and are used in conjunction with a high deductible insurance plan. The problem is that they are very complicated plans and, because the IRS limits the dollar amount that can be contributed to the account, are not very good plans for people with serious health problems like cancer. So really they are not proposing anything new. These special accounts already exist. There are IRS penalties for using the funds for unqualified expenses but it happens all the time anyways. It will not fix health care in the long term. Tax cuts will not do it either. One other thing that always bugs me to no end about this debate...you hear a lot about "socializing health care". Do people really not realize that our public schools, transportation systems and countless others are "socialized". Your tax dollars pay for these things whether you use them or not.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The problems and inefficiencies in health care that cause such high costs aren't coming from the hospitals and doctors. We have an entire layer of for-profit insurance providers that other countries simply don't have, and that layer demands tribute from every health care dollar we spend in this country. Instead of maximizing the amount of money going toward health care, these for-profit companies are maximizing shareholder returns. This plan doesn't address that fundamental piece. All it does is set up tax breaks that in effect subsidize these for-profit insurance carriers while still choking payments to the people actually delivering health care. Until the for-profit model and its pound of flesh is seriously looked at as a significant contributor to the rising cost of health care we aren't going to have meaningful reform. Our health care dollars should go to nurses, doctors, and hospitals and not to some mid-level insurance executive in Connecticut. This plan just calls for more of the same of what we have now, with a minor tax incentive to buy insurance.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I've seen how the government operates a medical system from the inside...they do a pretty good job. The only really wastefull part I've noticed has to do with our no-show rate. Patients who call to book appointments and neither call to cancel or show up for their appointment make our waiting time even longer. And we can't do anything about it except wait for them to call again and rebook them and hope they show up the next time. The doc's time is wasted, other patients have to wait longer, and it's, at the basic level, rude and inconsiderate.
