Healthcare - What solution, of those that are on the table, do you support?

[nageov3t]

please add a soylent green option to the poll, I believe it's our only answer.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: charrison
3. Tort reform. As an article on CNN pointed out today defensive medicine is a huge cost..

The CBO reported four years ago that
"Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued that much greater savings in health care costs would be possible through reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small."

In the meantime, we've seen numerous studies about the escalating utilization of revenue generating tests and treatments. And both Medicare and private insurers report noticeable increases in specific types of tests once physicians own the diagnostic equipment.

There are two other things about tort reform that don't get mentioned much in these discussions:

1. A lot of malpractice litigation is oriented toward paying for additional medical treatment. IOW, doctors get sued because their mistakes create situations that require more (sometimes long term, continuing) care. The incentive for that kind of lawsuit evaporates in a system where an individual's health needs are going to be met no matter what. The same applies BTW, to situations such as school athletics or even auto accidents. Mistakes become easier (and less expensive) to manage when you remove the spectre of medical bills from the picture.
   
2. Tort reform in Texas really hasn't made a difference in controlling rising health care costs there. About 1/3 of Texas are uninsured (the highest in the country) and, although it does rank among the lowest in terms of per capita expeditures, it also inclues the second most expensive Medicare county in the country.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

All good ideas, but fall short of what we really need, imho.

1 is fine as the current employer-based system is fundamentally flawed. To me, a region/locality-based scheme that citizens buy into would be preferable. (these wouln't necessarily have to be gvt-owned) However, although HSA's can be quite useful, they really are just self-insurance by another name.

2. I think that this has been in the works for quite sometime. There are many companies now that have been making medical software for just that purpose for years. IIRC, during the Bush era a goal was set that all hospitals had to have EMR by a certain deadline and the software had to meet certain interoperability standards. Say what you want about Bush et al., but he did something good there. However, this caused a significant financial strain on smaller community hospitals which my former employer catered to for this purpose though. The current debate on EMR should focus more on getting these systems deployed to these smaller hospitals that do not have the financial resources.

3. Tort reform is nice, but you really have to keep in mind that no amount of tort reform can fix the current system by a longshot. As it stands now, you really can't "hit the redneck lottery" with a malpractice suit these days. If you do get a large award, you have to be pretty fucked up physically and be able to show gross negligence. I'm not denying that tort reform is part of the solution, but simply saying that too often it is used as an excuse to ignore other things that need fixing in the healthcare system.

Sorry for the teel deer, but I'm feeling particularly ranty right now.

I don't think people understand HSA's very well as they are a form of self insurance combined with catastrophic care. I can think of no better solution if you can afford to get it set up. You only pay to be a part of the network the PPO uses and major medical, why pay a premium for standard health care like shots, colds, and the flu??

I don't know much on EMR, I like to know more.

It isn't just the "redneck lottery" that is the problem, there are a lot a shitty lawyers out there that play the system against us. Tort reform is needed as it affects ALL insurance, like home owners and business, not just health.


edit: Almost forgot: I chose #2, we don't need to tear it completely apart to fix health insurance.

 

[vi edit]

The government sucks at multitasking. Either reform the existing system in hopes of cutting cost and improve quality care or expand by adding more people to it. They won't be able to do both at the same time.

Whatever the goal, a couple months of homework is not sufficient enough to provide a quality solution. This thing is rushed and being forced for the wrong reasons.

And can anyone actually find me a *TRUELY* objective cliffs note of this 1000 page bill? Anything I've really heard up to this point has been nothing but partisan drama from both sides of the isle that I have to try and sift through the BS.

 

[Modelworks]

I want what the Mayo Clinic suggested. Let people who have a clue make the decisions, not politicians who can't even understand what they read, so they don't bother and just sign on the dotted line.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...r/recommendations.html

I can read and understand their recommendations and they actually make sense. Unlike the political BS that every doctor will have to hire a lawyer to interpret.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

EDIT: nvm. I'll wait for more numbers to come in before attempting to analyze the results.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Posted this in another thread, but this thread seems like a better place to discuss.

Finding methods to cut paperwork/inefficient processes in the current system - Come up with a standard set of charge codes, and reporting mechanism that all doctors/hospitals/insurance companies would use. Bring everyone in the healthcare profession up to the 21st century and make everything electronic, including the measure to ensure patient data security/confidentiality.

Tort reform ? I know this is a sticky subject, but litigation in this country is out of hand. People use the legal system in this country like a form of lottery. Sometimes, in spite of a doctor?s best efforts, things just don?t turn out well. Admittedly that can be heartbreaking, but it doesn?t mean that it?s anyone?s fault and that somebody should be obligated to pay.

Better policing of doctor performance ? In other words pull the licenses of genuinely bad docs; don?t let them get away with setting up shop in a different state.
Cut back on defensive medicine ? Doctors/hospitals are so afraid of litigation, they put patients through batteries of expensive tests just cover their collective tails.

Give doctors/nurses incentives to donate their time to free clinics ? Could help alleviate some of the unneeded trips to the emergency rooms.

Allow health insurance to work across state lines ? Increase the group size to reduce the overall cost risk to the insurance companies.

Find a way to cover people with pre-existing conditions ? Admittedly, this one may need to be funded by a public option or .gov subsidizing private insurance for people in this category.

I honestly think we could work this out in less than 1000 pages that could be understood by your average congressdrone and be done largely through the private sector. The infrastructure to do this is already in the private sector; it doesn't have to be co-opted/reinvented by a government that has a consistent track record of not being able to do much of anything well.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
My vote is the same as the OP. The current bill is a joke and those who support it probably think so as well. It's just that at this point anything is better than nothing.

It is not a joke because Obama and Nancy told me so.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
[ ... ]
Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy.

No, you really can't conclude that from your poll, because that's not what you asked. Having a different first choice does not mean opposition to all other choices. For example, if your poll asked people to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, a vote for chocolate does not imply the person is "against" vanilla.

Actually, i believe the answers, as they are written, quite clearly indicate that at least 72+% of those polled are against the current proposal for one reason or another. ...

You can believe the sun rises in the west, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think your ice cream analogy works at all. ...

No doubt, since it clearly shows how your reasoning is flawed. You ask people to choose from a limited, over-simplified set of options, so they pick the one that most closely matches their views. It doesn't allow people to accept multiple options, rank options in order of preference, add caveats or conditions, or generally acknowledge the real world isn't divided into four simple buckets for your convenience. I didn't vote for option three myself because I think there's room for improvement, though I would certainly take it over the status quo.

Bottom line: The current proposal sucks and the vast majority of those polled don't support it.

Bottom line: what you asked and what you want to prove don't match.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I didn't vote for option three myself because I think there's room for improvement

That would be choice #2. Thanks for voting.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Bottom line: The current proposal sucks and the vast majority of those polled don't support it.

Bottom line: what you asked and what you want to prove don't match.

I didn't set out to "prove" anything with this poll. After all, it's an internet poll.

The numbers here speak for themselves.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
[ ... ]
Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy.

No, you really can't conclude that from your poll, because that's not what you asked. Having a different first choice does not mean opposition to all other choices. For example, if your poll asked people to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, a vote for chocolate does not imply the person is "against" vanilla.

but you can conclude that nearly 70% of those that voted want something less than what is on the table at congress.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
[ ... ]
Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy.

No, you really can't conclude that from your poll, because that's not what you asked. Having a different first choice does not mean opposition to all other choices. For example, if your poll asked people to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, a vote for chocolate does not imply the person is "against" vanilla.

but you can conclude that nearly 70% of those that voted want something less than what is on the table at congress.

no, that's not accurate either. Option #2 does not imply that voters want something "less."

I think it's a bad idea to look at the issue as a matter of scale with the current bill squarely in the middle. While the status quo and single-payer UHC may qualify as the polar extremes in this debate, the actual problems with the current proposal are not a result of it being somewhere in between those two options.

I believe that the problem stems from the fact that the current bill is very poorly written and it contains too many vague descriptions of new Government powers. There are not enough details or specifics anywhere in the bill. As a result, many of the passages can easily be interpreted as too dangerous or too costly.

IOW, it's just one shitty piece of hastily-prepared legislation that should be scrapped and re-written from scratch. The end result doesn't necessarily need to be less or more than what we see now, it just needs to be different and better.

 

[piasabird]

Vote for freedom. The alternative is being a slave to the government. Sooner or later you will pay or care will be rationed. Under the current system there are alternatives and people can find the doctor of their choice.

 

[Chaotic42]

I will only consider supporting the current solution which is infront of congress if it is made law that all members of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Legistlative Branch and their families through the generations be forced to take the public health care option.

I don't mind some reform, but what I currently have works extremely well for me. I simply do not trust the Congress or this administration to do anything in my best interest.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: charrison
Lots that can fixed without throwing govt into the mix.

1. kill the tax shelter for employer provided health benefits and encourage individuals to carry their own catastrophic health insurance. Encourage companies to fund employees HSAs.

2. Encourage use of electronic records, but let the patient own them. No need to let them filter up to federal govt.

3. Tort reform. As an article on CNN pointed out today defensive medicine is a huge cost.

That would be a decent start and all 3 would probalby without too much difficulty as separate bills.

The crap that is being pushed though congress right now, is just that....crap.

1. This would encourage private insurance plans over employer plans which would lead to people with preexisting conditions, such as myself, high and dry. Having a job with a health plan is the only way I can be covered.

2. I'd trust the government to keep a life-saving record more than I would the average idiot american

3. tort reform is a red herring; texas restricts rewards at 250k and it has done jack to help health care costs, though it did bring in doctors.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
[ ... ]
Thus far, the poll still indicates a strong combined 70% of posters against the current proposal, which makes me big happy.

No, you really can't conclude that from your poll, because that's not what you asked. Having a different first choice does not mean opposition to all other choices. For example, if your poll asked people to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, a vote for chocolate does not imply the person is "against" vanilla.

Actually, i believe the answers, as they are written, quite clearly indicate that at least 72+% of those polled are against the current proposal for one reason or another. ...

You can believe the sun rises in the west, but that doesn't make it so.

nm... posted to wrong thread

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
3. tort reform is a red herring; texas restricts rewards at 250k and it has done jack to help health care costs, though it did bring in doctors.

Bringing in doctors is bad? Sure, it might not have lowered costs, but until lawsuit awards start reflecting the actual damage done and not just some absurd penalty, some kind of reform is needed.

 

[ZeGermans]

sure it doesn't work, but will someone think of the doctors? 250k ought to be plenty for a lifetime of debilitating injuries suffered from malpractice

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
sure it doesn't work, but will someone think of the doctors? 250k ought to be plenty for a lifetime of debilitating injuries suffered from malpractice

That all depends on the "injury."

I'd consider several of my appendages to be worth much more than that... in fact, I'm quite attached to all of them.

250k? Fuck that.

That number's too low.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
sure it doesn't work, but will someone think of the doctors? 250k ought to be plenty for a lifetime of debilitating injuries suffered from malpractice

Your sarcasm aside, it depends. My mother was killed by nursing home malpractice (after being hit by a speeding drunk driver and our family ending up being found liable). It's hard to put a price on the human life.

My concern is not the over payment for debilitating injuries, but overpayment (or payment at all) for minor/non-existant things. I'm no medical lawyer, but looking at some of the lawsuits which make the news and some of the things for which one can be sued...

I just want to be sure that lawsuits are reasonable and about making people whole again, not making greedy people rich.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Roughly 87% of those polled are against the current reform proposals, for one reason or another.

Excellent!

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Single payer. Nothing less. Screw the insurance companies.