When a conservative asks do you want the government to determine health care...

The only answer that should be forthcoming is it's better than profit minded insurance companies stepping between the patient and the health care provider...

Why don't people understand that simple argument.

And Companies certainly determine which doctor you can see by switching plans that may or may not recognize your doctor, the one you have been comfortable with for years.

Come on now, can't anyone on our side make that simple argument?

I know Chuck Schummer and the other Wall Street Democrats are frightened by what surgically removing that cancer that is the insurance companied from the health care mix will do to their campaign coffers, but we must make them aware that this is the right time and the right place to get doctor and hospitals and all sorts of health care providers back to providing care that they believe is right for the patient.

If they go this route, some cock-a-mamie fixer, then fuck it. It's no better than what we have now.

They determine health care, or lack thereof, of the millions who have no health care through an employer.

Also, the screed about not being able to choose your doctor absolutely astonishes me, as I have not had a genuine free choice of my doctor for about thirty years. Every health plan I've ever belonged to has had a preferred providers list. Yes, you can go outside the list, but you'll pay more.

I am currently underemployed (two part time jobs because that's all I can get and I do continue to apply and interview for better jobs) and have no health insurance.

You're free to choose whatever doctor you want.

1. You're free to go out-of-network and pay a ton extra.
2. You're free to pick another insurance plan.

See? Free as a bird.


Every time some Conservative asshole howls about the nanny state picking everyone's doctor, I want to dump a bucket of offal on his head.

the employer, one is hardly free to pick another one. At least not without a humongous cost.

Part of what makes me crazy about some of the debate about this is that the conservatives seem to think that there are no costs already associated with the "system" we have now. Our costs are tied up in salaries for the CEO's of the insurance companies, for the thousands upon thousands of people employed all over the health care sector (in doctors offices, hospitals, insurance companies themselves) who file the paperwork involved, who deny claims, who re-file for benefits. Not to mention the insane cost of medical school.

who has no financial incentive to deny me vs an insurance company bureaucrat who DOES have a financial incentive to deny me? hmmm...

It's called "single payer" because the govt. PAYS for it.

YOU and YOUR DOCTOR decide what health care you need. There are NO "government bureaucrats" involved.

i had always assumed that there would be someone deciding whether something is covered or not or what. maybe that is just my thinking because that is what they do now (the insurance companies) and since that is what most folks know, then that is what they assume will be happening. how does medicare work? is that a 'single payer' system as howard dean says? thanks. i admit i am blonde at times. LOL!

I can walk into ANY doctor's office or hospital with a problem and I will be treated. The doctor will make recommendations with my permission. I get treated. Story over.

There are no "mysterious people" who are whispering in the doctor's ear. No accountants saying "sorry, you have a pre-existing condition".

You walk in, you walk out. No paper work. No intermediaries. No bill.

Simple.

process will be as it is now, with the government doing what the insurance companies do. I never thought of it in the terms of just the doctor and me deciding... because that is not how it has ever been!! that sure sounds nice though. i forgot that other countries don't have paperwork to fill out endlessly and bills.

They say that France's system is the best, with a mix of low-cost private insurers and the government.

But the services they get are mind-blowing. Home visits, cash for transportation, free prescription drugs...

The US is the only country with such a barbaric and punitive health care system.

americans in england were talking about all the stuff they got.... maternity leave for a lot longer than six weeks!! people that came to their house to help out. i could have cried!!

About 25 years ago I needed major surgery. At the time we had Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I chose my doctor -- no questions. The doctor and I decided what needed to be done -- no questions. I even got a second opinion from another doctor of my choice -- no questions. And our insurance was pretty cheap, too. That's how it used to be.

I can go even further back. When I was a kid, the doctor used to come to the house to treat us. What a concept, eh?

And I'm 55, so there's still quite a few of us who remember those days.

The biggest troubles I have had was with my depression. From going to the doctor to the cost of medicine to going to counseling.... mental health is difficult. thank god that in NY they have to charge the same copay now as they do for a regular office visit. but i don't have the same insurance i did even a year ago. we had to go with a cheaper high deductible insurance because the cost of our independent health went up $100/mo. though, the irony is that the insurance switched in january, which was also when i found out about my oops pregnancy. So instead of being happy about a baby (that the prolifers want to make sure i have to have) I have to worry about how this will effect us financially. So far it's been ok.... just better hope there aren't any complications. It's really frustrating.

but thanks for letting me know it hasn't always been this way. what a concept.... a decision being between the doctor and the patient. i bet the cost of healthcare wasn't as bad as it is now, either. yet somehow this isn't a possibility. it seems that the people that are in a position to make the decision regarding our healthcare system don't themselves have to worry about their healthcare and therefore don't really care. and that's not all of them. there are a few who are really trying.

As long as what you need is covered by the Medical Service Plan, the doctors have the say and will get paid, period. Yes, there are wait times for elective procedures, but you got those anywhere. You don't ever get on the phone and have to negotiate with an administrator to have something done.

This whole argument is a myth.

Same reason that they're willing to pay TONS more to private insurers, for far worse coverage (that would potentially bankrupt them in the event someone in the family was injured or required a hospital stay) -than they would if an amount appeared on their tax statements.

pfft...

And to the money issues of campaign financing, I would add that this would be an excellent time to bring into play the concept of "Clean Money."

K&R

But the point is to make everyone shut up and go home for a while. Itll probably accomplish that quite well.

And I still can't say that I understand them. I understand what they are saying, I just don't understand how they arrive at their position- with the exception of one group. That would be the ones who are upfront about the fact that they believe that because they work hard and pay for health insurance (as well as cash outlay) that they should get superior health care. They grudgingly accept that everyone who needs emergency and major care will get it on the taxpayer dime, and that those who do so probably aren't taxpayers in their book. But the numbers should still sway these people, ie that we as a nation are spending more and getting less than other western nations.

They object to the word "we". They object to the idea of collective delivery. For a group of people who are always accusing us of "zero sum" or some kind of buzzword for thinking that resources are finite, they seem to be quite OK with the idea that healthcare resources are finite and they want to be in the front half of the line to get it.

You can reason with them six ways to Sunday- they will not budge. You point out that THEY will EVENTUALLY be on Medicare- they simply state that they hate Medicare. You point out that they have adult children who are not insured- not their problem. Hell, some of these people are ON Medicare, some of them are on MEDICAID and they still fight it. A real hornets nest is pointing out that there is a certain noble occupation in which everyone is on government healthcare- and it comes back "I earned that."

Well sure you earned it. And the guy who picked your tomatoes, and who fixed your car, and who mows your lawn... fuck him, right?

I do not understand such people.

We have no plan to determine health care at all. None. Nada. Zip. What's on the table is having the government provide a health insurance program as an added to choice to what we have today.

If the government has no role in shaping (x), then to whom does the power go?
Hint: it's generally not you and me.

If the government gets into the business (x), I have -- however tenuously -- some influence over the policy,
via my representatives, senators, etc.

If the government hands this role over to corporate forces, then corporate officers and boards of directors dictate the terms, and my influence is limited to how much stock I can buy. Which these days, ain't much!

And, as others in this thread have pointed out very eloquently, the idea that going to government-run health insurance will take away this or that,
is a shibboleth. Nothing is more carefully controlled, rationed, and allocated as health insurance run by for-profit concerns.

On the other hand: maybe what we need to do is make an end-run around Congress on health insurance.
Follow the Nature Conservancy model.
Get a (large) bunch of people together. Pool funds. Hostile-takeover the top 10 health insurance companies. Define a policy we can live with,
essentially, a fait accompli.

Nah. We'd probably get shot.

J.

the care that I receive.

Now, your health care is determined by some soulless person in a windowless office with a playbook that tells him/her how to deny or delay care -- AND he/she gets a bonus for "keeping costs down" (loosely translated, denying treatment).

system now. Just like the energy traders that reveled on "shutting down grandma's power", the soulless people you refer to are the same thing.

He knew something was wrong last November when his PSA suddenly went off the charts.

After extensive testing, the doctor determined that he had cancer of the prostate and the bladder.

He is still waiting for his HMO to give him a referral to an oncologist -- six fucking months.

This is one of the "premier" HMOs in the US.

Better not try to tell him how people have to wait in other countries.

Another friend had a flare-up of an ongoing back problem while in Spain. His friends took him -- in extreme pain -- to an ER. He was seen right away, given a thorough workup, and they changed the meds he was on. (The ones he had gotten from his MD in the US were worthless -- even dangerous -- because the drug company had hidden important research from the FDA.)

They have him a referral for the next week to a specialist.

Since he wasn't on the national health plan, he had to pay. Five hours in the ER, meds, MRI, X-Rays. Grand total = $130 US.

We're Number One :sarcasm:

what kind of health care a woman receives.

know someone who was kicked out of the hospital too soon because their insurance company said it was time to leave....and the times we had to rush that person right back in.

Heartless assholes.

"Why don't people understand that simple argument?"

Because the TV tells them it can't work.

Paid for by the insurance companies.

Simple explanation. Go ahead and make all the logical arguments you want. All you will get is an eye roll, because their trusted talking heads tell them it can't work. The brainwashing power of TV is real, and is the biggest problem we face for most important issues.

While talking to right-winger about health care, tell him/her that you simply wish to be able to buy in to Medicare.

They get real quiet and don't know what to say.
Most people have parents or grandparents on Medicare and wish they could have it too.

We used to say that all the time in the 1970s.

And that is what happens many times with insurance companies.

... what products or services are available to the market?

When insurance companies can determine that a customer is not allowed to have coverage for a medical procedure isn't that the insurance company deciding whether a patient can be treated, and wheter a doctor can fulfill their oath?

Am I missing something?

I'm kinda brain-dead at this hour, so I may be wrong.