Ted Kennedy's Cancer Treatment Under Socialized Medicine

Bill-2.0-do you honestly think universal healthcare will make it any easier to get access to Pat Welsh of Hopkins?

No Lisa, but that's not the point either. And btw I misrepresented the doc's name. It's Patrick Walsh of Johns Hopkins.

No, I'm not. I'm decidedly left ;-)

Quoting good ol' Bill Harrison, Oh bull@!$%#. Money talks an' bull@!$%# walks. The rich and powerful get the best regardless. I want a health care plan the just does good enough for everyone.

no one wants to copy Canada or Briton. It is a tool used by those who wish to not reform health care to scare people away from considering the good ways of doing it.

Although I'm not a fan of most universal health care proposals, I have to agree BMS. I don't know of any people in America advocating direct government provision of health care in the manner of the British system. There are some who advocate single-payer like Canada has, but that's different.

Canada's is not single payer. It is directprovision like Briton.

No, it isn't like the NHS. The vast majority of health care facilities in Canada are privately owned. Doctors are not employees of the state. There are government facilities for the military and for mental health, but that's true in America too and we don't call the U.S. a direct provision country. As for single-payer, technically you can pay for health care with private money, but there are strong disincentives and for the most part private spending is restricted to those things not well covered by their Medicare program.

from the same article:

Mr. Romney's fundamental mistake was focusing on making health insurance "universal" without first reforming the private insurance market.

As far as I know, Both Obama and Clinton want to reform the Insurance industry.

Bodhi, doing nothing is not a solution. Just because soemthing costs a lot of money does not make it unworkable. We pay more per capita for health care in this country and millions of people do not get any. More efficent use would be to cover everyone with preventative and emergency/catastrophic care with more money going to health care and less going to corprate profits of thousands of companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care#Canadian_health_care_in_comparison

here Bohdi,

a nice comparison of western healthcare systems. Notice how the US system ranks. I say... lets lower the government expendeture on healthcare to the level Sweden has and lower the % of GDP to teh level sweden has and lower the percapita costs tot eh level sweden has.

See... I want to SAVE the government and the peopel money.

considering that he is looking at a system that has little relevance to what we will do, I don't see how you can agree with anything he said.

Well exactly what will we do? I haven't seen anything approximating an actual proposal, just a whole lot of "health care is broken" and "we need change" or some false debate about the merits of a "single-payer" system, as though the bill would be sent to some unseen benevolent force.
I want to be clear: I keenly appreciate the need for affordable health care and I am not opposed to some governmental solution. I just don't want a Federal attempt at providing it. The issue is entirely too complex to allow for a single overriding solution.
I know this conversation is quickly devolving in to a debate over whether government is good or bad, but I don't think it must. Perhaps a creative definition of government is in order here; perhaps some small towns or municipalities could function as a group like, say, the Farm Bureau or a Labor Union and negotiate a plan that could be offered to everyone locally. Perhaps larger cities could do the same, or even self-insure. But whatever solution is applied to the payer portion of the equation, there still must be some conversation about the consumer portion of the equation. How many of us have an expectation that we should never be sick? Or that we should stay alive until there is absolutely nothing that medical science can do keep us from dying? Or that we should have no more responsibility for our health than to remember to take our pills? We Americans are an extraordinarily indulgent and sedentary people, why wouldn't the cost to ensure ourselves the highest standard of health care on earth be expensive? I believe that a realistic and pragmatic view of our health would go a very long way towards making health care more affordable for everyone.

Then perhaps you should bother READING their proposals at their sites!

Reading is for liberals and other subversive types....couldn't you have a talking head carry on about it in an angry tone instead?

Oh, nice. I'm trying to put forth a reasonable debate and this is the crap I get? Did you read past my first sentence? Obama's site has pages of nothing written. NO numbers, just "reasonable premiums and copays", whatever that means. And a couple of proposals out of the Bush playbook, namely forcing the taxpayers to put together some huge database of every medical condition of every citizen in the country (I shudder to think how easily that can be abused). And a Governator proposal to allow us to shop worldwide for our prescription drugs. Awesome, very creative. Now, tell me again how much this will cost? Will my 19 year old neighbor, in perfect health, be paying the same as some fat old drunk that needs a new liver?
More rhetoric, NO substance. As usual.
Tell me again, Jones, who has the angry tone?

It's called "humor" crutch.

I'm sorry. I'm being sensitive.

#11.2: perhaps some small towns or municipalities could function as a group like, say, the Farm Bureau or a Labor Union and negotiate a plan that could be offered to everyone locally

Interesting point. Insurance works by pooling risk (a free market collective response), yet regulations block this, particularly across states. Pooling need not be done geographically, but it is currently blocked geographically. These articles have some offerings along this line:

The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange

How Eight States Destroyed Their Individual Insurance Markets

Affordable, Accessible, And Flexible Health Coverage and topic in general.

Health, Welfare, and Entitlements

I have an HSA. It's not bound to my employer, is tax exempt, encourages savings, is reasonably priced, etc. etc. I shopped for the plan, rather than being forced to "choose" amongst employer plans (consumer market pressure).

In fact, not long ago I actually paid a doctor directly for services! When was the last time you did that? I got a good deal and he made 3 times as much as an insurance company would have reimbursed him for the same exact service. It's almost like being free people in a free market! Remarkable, but I know it won't last, since there's too much freedom involved.

sirmonkey,

Who do you think blocked the pooling as such?

Try paying directly when your Son has a surgery that costs 100,000 dollars.... and it is part of his chronic condition that has made him go through 8 surgeries in his short 6 year life so far. Direct pay works great for primary care, not so much for secondary, tertiary or quaternary levels of care.

#11.9: Who do you think blocked the pooling as such?

Not sure, but as for where things stand in recent times:

Health Insurance Reform: What Families Should Know ^{by Connie Marshner (December 13, 2007)}

Limited Choice. Free market forces, driven by consumer decision-making, do not operate in America's private health insurance system. .... No Portability of Coverage. In the current system, the worker pays for the health insurance policy (which is part of his compensation), but the employer owns it. Therefore, workers cannot take their policies with them if they change jobs. Even if it offers the same package of benefits, buying a health insurance policy outside of work can cost up to 50 percent more than getting it through an employer. The lack of a tax benefit puts the cost of individual health insurance out of reach for many people. Problems of Conscience. Some patients have moral or religious objections to what is included in their health insurance packages.

And as for who would "win/lose" from empowering individuals through the suggested reforms:

Taken together, these federal and state reforms would expand personal ownership and control of health insurance. Needless to say, these changes would be opposed by many big institutions that profit under the status quo, especially firms that would be forced to change their way of doing business. Under such reforms, individuals and families would become the key decision-makers, and companies would have to compete for their business. But when companies compete, customers win.

It must be nice to be in business when you have lobbied government to protect your market from competition. Nice for that business, but not nice to consumers (and "market health").

#11.9: Try paying directly when your Son has a surgery that costs 100,000 dollars

Not only do prices vary (often increasing for an individual), but even getting a price on procedures is difficult or impossible. Regarding high expenses, remember than an HSA (Health Savings Account) is only available to those who are enrolled in HSA eligible health insurance plans. In other words, if you hold an HSA, you are insured by a decent plan. I am insured, for example. This is an implication of holding an HSA that all should understand.

I shopped directly for my plan (rather than just defaulting to an employers choice)... I hold my plan despite change of jobs, unemployment, part-time work, employer that doesn't offer "coverage", self-employment, etc. etc. (Portability) I also can pay directly (tax exempt) when I so choose. I am also encouraged to accrue savings. Etc. Etc.

Keep in mind that "Insurance Companies" have become "health care providers" over the years, rather than simply insuring against risk. So the current typical arrangement is:

employee - employer - (government) - insurance - health network - health service provider

Quite a disrupted arrangement of market forces, right? Contrast that with my recent experience of:

individual - doctor

It was a very refreshing experience, to say the least. I'm sure it will be made illegal soon, though.

Health Insurance Companies are health care payers, they do not provide the health care services.

You want to lower prices on health care services? then create a futures market that can be used as a guide by people to see if their dollars are well spent or not. Force hospitals to index their emergency care prices upon the futures market for the services rendered so there is no choice needed in emergency cases, force every state to create a transparent reporting system for people and the media to look at performance of a hospital and the prices they charge, Force similar actions on the part of private practices.

Opening up the market in health care service providers will lower prices dramatically because it will let consumers and competitors see what the others are charging and also how those charges relate to what the market says they should be charging for those services.

Health Insurance Companies are health care payers, they do not provide the health care services.

I think that underestimates the extent to which "Insurance" companies control providers, procedures, practices, etc. It's almost like doctors aren't doctors any more... at least that's what I've heard described. I think this is so widespread that it has become cliche and people forget that this transformation has occurred and don't fully contemplate the loss. Or they see it as a "loss of pride" for doctors, and miss the loss to the "market" by so radically dissociating consumers from producers.

A futures market is an interesting thought. I'd have to digest that one for a while to comment. I generally think that when there is a healthy economic market then consumer pressures tend to bring out the needed information and accountability (the main necessity being consumer choice). Needing to have government "force" things upon the market is a sign that something is amiss. But nonetheless it's an interesting thought.

BTW, providers also become indirect "insurers" or poolers at times. For example, I had an ER & hospital visit in the $30-40K range not long ago. The hospital became enamored of me because I had great insurance and could be milked in order to help cover the many others who were uninsured that they still treat. So insurance companies are crafting care, and caregivers are acting as insurers. It's a murky world where my "costs" were not even just my own, so there are not even clear numbers available anywhere to be forced out and revealed.

There is NO WAY I would ever want to be at the mercy of the government in terms of potentially life saving treatments

You prefer being at the mercy of an insurance company executive? That's what we have now, unless you are able to pay a doctor out of pocket.

it's way to much trouble to get to a dentist there so people just don't bother...yucko.

I guess you are forgetting the vast numbers of uninsured here, or those who cannot find a doctor/DDS that is available outside of work hours.

TJG---if certain people have problems now finding a doctor/DDS the laws of supply and demand mean that such will be the case for FAR more people in a universal healthcare system. I am not in any way saying our system is perfect---market based solutions to take cost out of the system are what is needed not more government in charge of whether we live or die. Our government is already in charge of TOO much of our healthcare with medicare, medicaid etc.

yes, TJG... So many people who are against Universal Coverage do not give a single thought to the fact that their health care is controlled by a person who's JOB is to make sure they pay out as little as possible for your health care.

lisa,

you want to lower health care costs? then we need a market for health care services. The payer is immaterial to the cost of service. Single Payer health care works better than get what you can afford health care. costs can be controlled fine using a market and I am all for that.

the laws of supply and demand mean that such will be the case for FAR more people in a universal healthcare system.

Perhaps not, more people might go into medicine knowing that they won't be dealing with the headache of insurance paperwork and insurance people making their medical decisions for their patients.

You sure you like it now, with some insurance rep making the calls on what tests and care will be covered for you?

Perhaps not, more people might go into medicine knowing that they won't be dealing with the headache of insurance paperwork and insurance people making their medical decisions for their patients.

TJG---I seriously doubt taking the market out of medicine all together will invite more people to become doctors. That would be a good survey question for our young people. And in your above quoted statement---just substitute the word "government" for of all the paperwork and folks making medical decisions...that will certainly not go away just because the government takes over the healthcare system.

A lot of it will go away because it won't be for-profit.

Are you kidding me? It's free if it's an emergency.. like sen K. Why do you think so many hospitals have closed down? Because they treat emergency room patients who have no health insurance.

Why don't you ask Ted why he gets health insurance at taxpayer expense... and the people do not?

Oh that's a really short article.

Kennedy has a seizure. He calls 9-11 and an ambulance dutifully picks him up and takes him to the hospital where he's treated for the seizure and checked for a concussion or other injuries incurred.

None are found but absent any health insurance and means to pay privately (we're assuming Kennedy is a regular Joe living paycheck to paycheck) the hospital won't admit him for anything more extensive than the ER. He's given a prescription (which he can't afford to fill) for epilepsy drugs and sent home.

His family then gets a bill for a few grand for the ambulance ride, which pretty much wipes them out. The kids drop out of college. It's bad.

Another seizure and another trip to the hospital. This time the symptoms are more severe and the doctors, despite the fact that he's not on the epilepsy drugs, manage to diagnose the tumor - or at least a mass - on external symptoms. They'd have gotten it much earlier, but with no insurance the hospital wasn't about to put another 10 grand on the line for a brain imaging workup.

So Ted's got a mass in his brain. No one knows if it's malignant or benign. His family still owes the hospital from the last visit and a biopsy is going to require an OR and in-patient admission, neither of which is going to happen without a means to pay.

So Ted is sent home. The family scrapes together everything it can, asks local churches for help, the whole nine. Nothing ever comes of the drive though. The tumor is aggressive, the most common form of inter-cranial tumors in adults, and Ted dies, untreated and hardly himself just six months after the first trip to the hospital, leaving his family heavily in debt and, thanks to a family history of cancer, largely uninsurable.

Well stated Kill.

The further irony is that people with insurance can go through similar scenarios via an insurance company's cost "efficiencies" program that would simply call the procedure "experimental", decide not to pay, and take the chance that an already broke family won't be able to afford a lawyer to sue them.

Yeah, this system works great, it's so humane.

KILL: That about sums it up. But you forgot to mention the 13 million (or so) illegal aliens who sap the medical system dry and don't pay period. Nor the rising problem of "medical insurance" identity theft.

Lets talk about a People Solution. I would gladly redirect my Social Security Tax to pay a Health Care Insurance Tax. Of course we know it would never work because Congress would use it as a General Fund.. and there wouldn't be a penny left over for my medical care.

The mere notion that "Government" is going to provide Universal Health care is nothing more than a shell game to further enrich their own pockets. Thats how the government works.

Government already provides universal healthcare coverage for everyone over the age of 65. It's called Medicare.

Yea but if we're going to assume that Kennedy isn't wealthy in the imaginary social health system I think it's reasonable to assume that he's neither wealthy or old enough to qualify for medicare in the US system.

Bill Scoggin,

Hospitals are only required to stabilize a patient if they come to their ER for the symptoms that they present. Traumas requiring a stay are regularly admitted due to the "stabilize" clause, but non traumatic injuries are treated and streated.

Yes... that is how it works. Universal Health care for EVERYONE is not a god-given right. That may be inconvenient to hear for most socialist, but it's called "reality" in a free market system. With health care costs already through the roof, and co-payments getting higher, the end-game of Universal Health care will only serve to inflate costs. Yes, your premiums will go UP. That may be ok for some, but for average Joe's like me, it's going to costs more. Simple economics. There is no magic bullet here... everyone will pay higher premiums to make up for those who can't pay. And your favorite U.S. Senator (Mr Healthcare) will still have the "cheapest" premiums and the "best" health care than any of us.

The solution is something you have never even heard of. It's called Medicare credits. A third grade math solution. If you are already contributing to Medicare you should be able to use credits to cover current medical costs. These credits could be converted into government bonds to draw interest. Medicare credits would be service value based to prevent overcharges. Credits would cover all immediate family members. Excess credits in the system (due to deaths without beneficiaries) would be diverted to assist other families with greater need. If credits were ever exhausted, affordable healthcare plans could be purchased with government assistance. Those not contributing to Medicare should be given access to Military Hospitals. That would require growth.. but the benefit would be growth to sustain national emergencies.