Report: House Health Care Bill INCREASES Costs By $289 Billion

[xj0hnx]

People with insurance get denied all the time.

Especially people with Medicare. Only an idiot would think that the government is going to be able to provide insurance to all of America and think the magic insurance fairy is somehow going to keep more people from being denied.

 

[Modelworks]

You listed the stupidest one you can think of. Many conditions are as successfully diagnosed simply by symptoms as they are through an MRI. MRI's are woefully over used.

If a doctor decides to use one in a diagnosis how is anyone else to say they are wrong ? Are those same people saying not to use an MRI going to be liable if the patient dies ? Most doctors I have met want what is best for their patient, often not able to deliver it because of an insurance company or other bureaucrat. When I get sick I want my doctor to do what is best, not an accountant 1000 miles away and definitely not a politician.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If a doctor decides to use one in a diagnosis how is anyone else to say they are wrong ? Are those same people saying not to use an MRI going to be liable if the patient dies ? Most doctors I have met want what is best for their patient, often not able to deliver it because of an insurance company or other bureaucrat. When I get sick I want my doctor to do what is best, not an accountant 1000 miles away and definitely not a politician.

One of the best diagnostic tools is a complete patient history. It takes about an hour and a half to do, but considering that the average internal specialist gets to spend 7 minutes with a patient on average, that doesn't happen. Instead a battery of tests are ordered, which costs a lot.

Now I'm not saying that MRIs are bad. Far from it. I am saying that the entire emphasis of cost over care is bass ackwards. If practioners had the time to do a more complete initial workup with the patient, then it would save a lot of money. Unfortunately that's not how production line medicine works. Get em in, get em out. Any government system will be just like that.

Too bad these people never wanted to know what makes good medicine. Politicians (and insurance companies too) make lousy doctors, yet they control medicine.

Go figure.

 

[sandorski]

If a doctor decides to use one in a diagnosis how is anyone else to say they are wrong ? Are those same people saying not to use an MRI going to be liable if the patient dies ? Most doctors I have met want what is best for their patient, often not able to deliver it because of an insurance company or other bureaucrat. When I get sick I want my doctor to do what is best, not an accountant 1000 miles away and definitely not a politician.

Let me bring the discussion back to what my first response was directed at regarding MRI's.

We have 2 situations: 1) The US where anyone can go to their Doctor and get an MRI in an hour(not sure if that's accurate, but for arguments sake let's assume it's true); 2) Canada where someone goes to their Doctor and (usually) has to wait Weeks to get an MRI.

How Sick/Ill are these people?

a) If they are not and just want an MRI, getting one in an hour is completely unrelated to HealthCare and just curiosity. So the US Patient gets some pics of their innards within an hour(ignoring Development/Printing times), the Canadian Patient waits Weeks, perhaps Months, or likely the Doctor refuses o order one. Whatever, nothing is really gained HealthCare wise from this scenario.

b) Patient is somewhat Ill, MRI could be useful. US Patient gets an MRI in an hour, Canadian Patient(assuming the Doctor deems the test useful)gets put on a Waiting List, Its' position on that List depends on the perceived seriousness of the Condition.

c) Patient is very Ill with a Life Threatening Condition, MRI Required. US Patient gets MRI within an hour, Canadian Patient gets moved to the front of the Line and gets MRI ASAP(could be an hour depending on Location, time of Day, equipment in use, whatever).

Keep in mind that for b and c there are usually other Tests that can be performed first to narrow down causes and could possibly eliminate the need for an MRI if they are performed first. Also keep in mind that the Health Outcomes of the 2 Systems are not proportional or even somewhat related to how convenient the access to MRIs is between the 2 systems.

IOWs, access to MRIs between Canada and the US in regards to Quality of Care is a completely Moot point and just a Monkey Wrench thrown into the thread by an experienced Monkey Wrench Tosser(Patranus).

 

[werepossum]

Let me bring the discussion back to what my first response was directed at regarding MRI's.

We have 2 situations: 1) The US where anyone can go to their Doctor and get an MRI in an hour(not sure if that's accurate, but for arguments sake let's assume it's true); 2) Canada where someone goes to their Doctor and (usually) has to wait Weeks to get an MRI.

How Sick/Ill are these people?

a) If they are not and just want an MRI, getting one in an hour is completely unrelated to HealthCare and just curiosity. So the US Patient gets some pics of their innards within an hour(ignoring Development/Printing times), the Canadian Patient waits Weeks, perhaps Months, or likely the Doctor refuses o order one. Whatever, nothing is really gained HealthCare wise from this scenario.

b) Patient is somewhat Ill, MRI could be useful. US Patient gets an MRI in an hour, Canadian Patient(assuming the Doctor deems the test useful)gets put on a Waiting List, Its' position on that List depends on the perceived seriousness of the Condition.

c) Patient is very Ill with a Life Threatening Condition, MRI Required. US Patient gets MRI within an hour, Canadian Patient gets moved to the front of the Line and gets MRI ASAP(could be an hour depending on Location, time of Day, equipment in use, whatever).

Keep in mind that for b and c there are usually other Tests that can be performed first to narrow down causes and could possibly eliminate the need for an MRI if they are performed first. Also keep in mind that the Health Outcomes of the 2 Systems are not proportional or even somewhat related to how convenient the access to MRIs is between the 2 systems.

IOWs, access to MRIs between Canada and the US in regards to Quality of Care is a completely Moot point and just a Monkey Wrench thrown into the thread by an experienced Monkey Wrench Tosser(Patranus).

Sweet Lord. What in the world do you think IS related to the quality of health care? And do you honestly think these machines are dreamed up by doctors just to make money?

Perhaps we should split health care into two groups, conservatives with access to lots of MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, and other high-tech equipment, and liberals with very little such equipment (access to which by your measure is not even somewhat related to the quality of Health Outcomes, whatever the hell that means) but with equal access for all under the benign, warm love of Government. Then we'll see how many people sign up for your group.

Honestly, that's the most asinine thing I've read on the Internet in quite some time.

 

[sandorski]

Sweet Lord. What in the world do you think IS related to the quality of health care? And do you honestly think these machines are dreamed up by doctors just to make money?

Perhaps we should split health care into two groups, conservatives with access to lots of MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, and other high-tech equipment, and liberals with very little such equipment (access to which by your measure is not even somewhat related to the quality of Health Outcomes, whatever the hell that means) but with equal access for all under the benign, warm love of Government. Then we'll see how many people sign up for your group.

Honestly, that's the most asinine thing I've read on the Internet in quite some time.

You think the Outcomes are vastly different?...they are not.

 

[werepossum]

buzz. we're sorry, try again please. Income taxes make up a rather small portion of government income, but please try again.

I never thought I would say this, but I hope to G-d you are intentionally lying. I hate to think an American with a computer could be so willfully ignorant.

Here is the link for the spreadsheet from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist02z2.xls
It goes from 1934, when personal income taxes at 14.2% and business income taxes (which get passed along to consumers as an expense) at 12.3% formed a small minority of government income. Note that in 2007, the last year for which numbers are available, personal income taxes at 45.3% and business income taxes at 14.4% form a majority of the federal government's income. Social Security taxes form another 33.9%. Only 6.4% of the federal government's income comes from excise and other taxes, and even that number is projected to drop to 4.9% by 2013. Capital gains taxes form part of personal income taxes and are not calculated separately, but typically run between 4% and 7% of the total (or about 2 or 3% of total tax revenues.) There is no freakin' magic cupboard.

Want to know who pays these taxes? Here's the breakdown. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
The top 1% earns 16.77% of the income and pays 34.27% of the income taxes (2003 numbers), almost ten times as much as is paid by the bottom 50% of earners who earn 14.23% of the income and pay 3.46% of the income taxes. (This doesn't count those who do not work, but draw income from the government, nor does it count payroll taxes which the lower income earners pay at a higher rate until you count earned income credit, which has become a form of welfare.) The top 5% of wage earners make 31.18% of the income and pay a whopping 54.36% of the income taxes.

Incidentally this disparity in income didn't start with Ronald Reagan as liberals seem to think. (Sorry, seem to feel.) In high medieval times the disparity in wealth (wages not being tracked) was already 20/80, with 80% of the wealth owned by 20% of the people. As any society begins to specialize, its wealth begins to become unevenly distributed.

Please, please, learn whereof you speak. This is the very reason our country is going to hell, we are the most ignorant Western country yet we think we are the most learned. THERE. IS. NO. MAGIC. CUPBOARD.

 

[werepossum]

You think the Outcomes are vastly different?...they are not.

The numbers beg to differ. US survival rates are better than Europe or Canada for all cancers combined and for 13 of 16 specific cancers in the 2000 - 2002 study by Verdecchia et al. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596#footnotes

This is in spite of the fact that Americans are by far the fattest, the most sedentary, eat the worst diets, and have the highest percentage of blacks (who have higher mortality rates and lower survival rates than do whites in any Western country.) The differences are our higher per capita numbers of highly trained professionals and sophisticated and very expensive diagnostic equipment. When corrected for race and overall shape (including obesity), with virtually every disease or injury one is more likely to survive in the American health care system than in any other, which is why it costs so damned much.

 

[sandorski]

The numbers beg to differ. US survival rates are better than Europe or Canada for all cancers and for 13 of 16 specific cancers in the 2000 - 2002 study by Verdecchia et al. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596#footnotes

This is in spite of the fact that Americans are by far the fattest, the most sedentary, eat the worst diets, and have the highest percentage of blacks (who have higher mortality rates and lower survival rates than do whites in any Western country.) The differences are our higher per capita numbers of highly trained professionals and sophisticated and very expensive diagnostic equipment. When corrected for race and overall shape (including obesity), with virtually every disease or injury one is more likely to survive in the American health care system than in any other, which is why it costs so damned much.

Study is narrow and doesn't even indicate MRIs are the difference, but other Tests(like PAP smears). Other stats show that including All Cancers Canadian Cancer Survival Rates are actually higher than in the US.

You might want to fix this--"for all cancers and for 13 of 16"

 

[werepossum]

Study is narrow and doesn't even indicate MRIs are the difference, but other Tests(like PAP smears). Other stats show that including All Cancers Canadian Cancer Survival Rates are actually higher than in the US.

You might want to fix this--"for all cancers and for 13 of 16"

Thanks; the first statistic is for all cancers combined. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What stats show Canadian cancer survival rates higher than the USA's? And is that corrected for other factors - the USA has quite a penalty in our obesity and poor lifestyle that won't be corrected by universal government health care. (Note that the study I referenced is not corrected either; it is raw survival numbers.)

 

[Acanthus]

Especially people with Medicare. Only an idiot would think that the government is going to be able to provide insurance to all of America and think the magic insurance fairy is somehow going to keep more people from being denied.

You know they are reforming the policies of insurance too, right?

The public option is like 1/20th of the bill lol.