Comments on: When Will the Government Decide Your Health Care is Too Expensive? http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:06:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Pond’rings » Health Care in the News http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-42972 Pond’rings » Health Care in the News Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:17:46 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-42972 [...] The Foundry also reports on another indicator that health care will be rationed, by noting the answer to one of Mr. Obama’s answers to a question at the “health care town hall,” as: Another idea is to empower the Medicare advisory panel whose recommendations now tend to be ignored by Congress, or to create a separate, Federal Reserve-like entity to make tough decisions about federal health-care spending. [...] [...] The Foundry also reports on another indicator that health care will be rationed, by noting the answer to one of Mr. Obama’s answers to a question at the “health care town hall,” as: Another idea is to empower the Medicare advisory panel whose recommendations now tend to be ignored by Congress, or to create a separate, Federal Reserve-like entity to make tough decisions about federal health-care spending. [...]

]]> By: Nick B, Maine http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-42651 Nick B, Maine Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:41:15 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-42651 I can't understand why Universal Health Care isn't the common sense thing to do; it seems to be for the rest of the developed world. No one seems to mind us all paying for government run public schooling for everyone whether we have zero, three, or ten children. Personally, I'd rather have medicine over an education. The so-called "entitlements" should be the first things we pay for and the last we cut. I'd also rather have an elected or appointed official of the government (of, by and for the people and bound by law) than an MBA in an insurance corporation (obligated to serve shareholder and maximize profits) involved in my health decisions. Please explain why you don't object to private companies deciding what treatment they will pay for and which they won't. Remember, their objective is to make money and that means collecting premiums and limiting claims. I can't understand why Universal Health Care isn't the common sense thing to do; it seems to be for the rest of the developed world. No one seems to mind us all paying for government run public schooling for everyone whether we have zero, three, or ten children. Personally, I'd rather have medicine over an education. The so-called "entitlements" should be the first things we pay for and the last we cut. I'd also rather have an elected or appointed official of the government (of, by and for the people and bound by law) than an MBA in an insurance corporation (obligated to serve shareholder and maximize profits) involved in my health decisions.

Please explain why you don't object to private companies deciding what treatment they will pay for and which they won't. Remember, their objective is to make money and that means collecting premiums and limiting claims.

]]> By: J. T. Cooper, MD, MP http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41794 J. T. Cooper, MD, MP Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:53:56 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41794 I have written a short movie script (The Committee) about a meeting of three "experts" that takes place a few years from now. During the meeting the Committee is charged with the final decision (or solution) as to whether fifteen patients will receive, or not receive, expensive health care,based on cost-benefit criteria. Cost to produce it should be minimal. I am willing to donate it to any group willing to make the movie and distribute copies on DVD to the general public or its members. It is copyrighted 2009, but I will sign over all rights if the movie is made. It is about 15 minutes long and should make voters angry and also afraid of what could be if we don't clean house in Congress next year. I have written a short movie script (The Committee) about a meeting of three "experts" that takes place a few years from now. During the meeting the Committee is charged with the final decision (or solution) as to whether fifteen patients will receive, or not receive, expensive health care,based on cost-benefit criteria. Cost to produce it should be minimal. I am willing to donate it to any group willing to make the movie and distribute copies on DVD to the general public or its members. It is copyrighted 2009, but I will sign over all rights if the movie is made. It is about 15 minutes long and should make voters angry and also afraid of what could be if we don't clean house in Congress next year.

]]> By: fred-colorado http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41532 fred-colorado Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:26:46 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41532 Today's comments on Tom Daschle's idea of a Federal Reserve style health structure miss the mark. In fact , a health restructuring plan as he suggests is a very good idea as it removes Washington control and places management at a more local level. In addition, local competition may permit management innovation. Unfortunately, insurance companies have declining enrollment indicating that they will not be able to fulfill all medical needs of the public. I share some of the posted comments but railing on about peoples morals, illegal immigration, and religeosity diverts focusing on MEDICAL management problems that currently exist. I'd like to hear some ideas rather than complaints. Today's comments on Tom Daschle's idea of a Federal Reserve style health structure miss the mark. In fact , a health restructuring plan as he suggests is a very good idea as it removes Washington control and places management at a more local level. In addition, local competition may permit management innovation. Unfortunately, insurance companies have declining enrollment indicating that they will not be able to fulfill all medical needs of the public. I share some of the posted comments but railing on about peoples morals, illegal immigration, and religeosity diverts focusing on MEDICAL management problems that currently exist. I'd like to hear some ideas rather than complaints.

]]> By: John, Colorado http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41427 John, Colorado Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:16:21 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41427 Excuse me, that is, 1/4 to 1/3 of every high school graduating class since 1971, which is 18 years after 1973. The number of abortions is estimated to total something like 50 million. Fifty million Americans missing since 1973. That's a significant part of the reason for labor shortages beginning in the 1990's. It's part of the underlying demographic reason for the current recession. Excuse me, that is, 1/4 to 1/3 of every high school graduating class since 1971, which is 18 years after 1973. The number of abortions is estimated to total something like 50 million. Fifty million Americans missing since 1973. That's a significant part of the reason for labor shortages beginning in the 1990's. It's part of the underlying demographic reason for the current recession.

]]> By: Terri from Ok http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41387 Terri from Ok Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:21:17 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41387 About that common stat. that 80% of costs are in the last 18 months.... Let's think about it. Who needs care? Healthy kids: well checks are relatively cheap. Young adults: a majority do not even get annual physicals outside of contraception. Middle aged people: Starting to need "procedures and medications" and the costs begin to add up. Dying people: Car accidents, trauma, gun and knife wounds, hepatitis, diabetes, cardiac symptoms, Cancer, Flu,pneumonia, blood clots, Strokes, sepsis, drowning.....We get them to a doctor, a hospital, try to stabilize and treat. These people often die within a year if they are old or frail. They ARE treatable and many will pull through if we treat them. BUT to "limit the care" just means do not treat the sick. Can they live longer than today? Can they be cured? It doesn't matter if the 80% stat is important to you. To shift the spending means ambulances will deliver to a morgue, not a hospital. About that common stat. that 80% of costs are in the last 18 months….

Let's think about it.

Who needs care?

Healthy kids: well checks are relatively cheap.

Young adults: a majority do not even get annual physicals outside of contraception.

Middle aged people: Starting to need "procedures and medications" and the costs begin to add up.

Dying people: Car accidents, trauma, gun and knife wounds, hepatitis, diabetes, cardiac symptoms, Cancer, Flu,pneumonia, blood clots, Strokes, sepsis, drowning…..We get them to a doctor, a hospital, try to stabilize and treat. These people often die within a year if they are old or frail. They ARE treatable and many will pull through if we treat them.

BUT to "limit the care" just means do not treat the sick. Can they live longer than today? Can they be cured? It doesn't matter if the 80% stat is important to you. To shift the spending means ambulances will deliver to a morgue, not a hospital.

]]> By: Walt, Boca Raton, FL http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41360 Walt, Boca Raton, FL Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:34:55 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41360 Nothing drive personal decisions in the why that finacial decisions do. If one were to apply it to healthcare, it would have a dramatic effect. Instead of a thrid party paying a physician for the services, have the patient pay the doctor. Then the patient may submit the reciept to the insurance company. When the patient finds the cost of care versus the payments., the person will either find a doctor that meets their needs and budget, find a more sympathetic insurance company or change their lifestyle. Nothing drive personal decisions in the why that finacial decisions do. If one were to apply it to healthcare, it would have a dramatic effect. Instead of a thrid party paying a physician for the services, have the patient pay the doctor. Then the patient may submit the reciept to the insurance company. When the patient finds the cost of care versus the payments., the person will either find a doctor that meets their needs and budget, find a more sympathetic insurance company or change their lifestyle.

]]> By: Walt, Boca Raton, FL http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41355 Walt, Boca Raton, FL Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:27:10 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41355 To reduce cost of healthcare the first place to start is to repeal the madatory health benefits for large employers. The original concept of providing health insurance to employees was to encourage people to work for that particular company without having to offer a higher salary. But now the companies offer plans with the employee paying partial premiums with high deductible and in most cases the limited plans offered do not cover the needs of the individual. The employ would be better suited to shop for a plan that met their needs. The problem with currently shopping for individual plans is that the insurance companies have past on the costs that are a result of offering large group discounts to large employers. If the large employers were removed from this equation, the cost of a family or single plan would be greatly reduced. With individuals shopping for their own plans, the individual may find it economically advantageous to modify lifestyle such as smoking cessation. The person would have a greater knowledge of what their plan covers and what their financial responsiblities are. To reduce cost of healthcare the first place to start is to repeal the madatory health benefits for large employers. The original concept of providing health insurance to employees was to encourage people to work for that particular company without having to offer a higher salary. But now the companies offer plans with the employee paying partial premiums with high deductible and in most cases the limited plans offered do not cover the needs of the individual. The employ would be better suited to shop for a plan that met their needs. The problem with currently shopping for individual plans is that the insurance companies have past on the costs that are a result of offering large group discounts to large employers. If the large employers were removed from this equation, the cost of a family or single plan would be greatly reduced.

With individuals shopping for their own plans, the individual may find it economically advantageous to modify lifestyle such as smoking cessation. The person would have a greater knowledge of what their plan covers and what their financial responsiblities are.

]]> By: Walt, Boca Raton, FL http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41352 Walt, Boca Raton, FL Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:10:01 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41352 The problem with he healthcare is that society wants to eat its cake and have it too. The governing individuals whether right or wrong have placed Darwinism as a center piece within its education system. In its simplified version it is the survival of the fittest. If this the dogma that is being taught, why would government take the opposite approach. The government could make the arguement that keeping people healthy and vital will help the economy, but the high end utilizers are usually elderly and will not contribute to society in an economic sense. So why is government involved in healthcare at all? Since government has determined that we have the right to our bodies by virtue of Roe vs Wade, should the taxpayer be asked to shoulder the economic burden of an individual's choices that adversely affect their health ( smoking, overeating, alcohol intake). The problem with he healthcare is that society wants to eat its cake and have it too. The governing individuals whether right or wrong have placed Darwinism as a center piece within its education system. In its simplified version it is the survival of the fittest. If this the dogma that is being taught, why would government take the opposite approach. The government could make the arguement that keeping people healthy and vital will help the economy, but the high end utilizers are usually elderly and will not contribute to society in an economic sense. So why is government involved in healthcare at all?

Since government has determined that we have the right to our bodies by virtue of Roe vs Wade, should the taxpayer be asked to shoulder the economic burden of an individual's choices that adversely affect their health ( smoking, overeating, alcohol intake).

]]> By: Tyler, PA http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/when-will-the-government-decide-your-health-care-is-too-expensive/#comment-41351 Tyler, PA Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:09:17 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=10280#comment-41351 This is very scary stuff. As a future doctor, I would be offended by a government official "advising" me what is best for my patients. Situations are dynamic and different, a politician in Washington cannot understand each patient's situation based on paperwork and statistics. I do agree something needs to be done to curb medicare costs. Though it seems very unethical, perhaps some costly end of life care procedures need to be reduced from medicare, otherwise the system will collapse. I understand that elderly Americans have worked all their lives and paid into the system, but at what point is it worth bankrupting the system for your children and grandchildren who are also paying into the system and will see nothing from it? I also agree that most young people are too lazy, I know of 3 friends of mine who are on unemployment/welfare and are not looking for a job because they have no incentive. Their taxpayer funded paycheck is apparently sufficient to not see the need to be employed, which is sickening. This is very scary stuff. As a future doctor, I would be offended by a government official "advising" me what is best for my patients. Situations are dynamic and different, a politician in Washington cannot understand each patient's situation based on paperwork and statistics.

I do agree something needs to be done to curb medicare costs. Though it seems very unethical, perhaps some costly end of life care procedures need to be reduced from medicare, otherwise the system will collapse. I understand that elderly Americans have worked all their lives and paid into the system, but at what point is it worth bankrupting the system for your children and grandchildren who are also paying into the system and will see nothing from it?

I also agree that most young people are too lazy, I know of 3 friends of mine who are on unemployment/welfare and are not looking for a job because they have no incentive. Their taxpayer funded paycheck is apparently sufficient to not see the need to be employed, which is sickening.

]]>