Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

what would successful health care reform look like to you?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:00 PM
Original message
what would successful health care reform look like to you?
I dig a public option myself, but can concede that it just might not be do-able.
I am currently "insured", but spend about $200.oo per month on buy in, co-pays, and deductibles. For me successful health care reform would look like a lower monthly out of pocket medical expenses. If the reform bill gets my out of pocket expenses down to $175.oo I could could consider Obama "successful". Anything more would be a major coup against the corporations (not bloody likely).

What would successful health care reform look like to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. A single payer system that contains costs and covers everyone with comprehensive care.
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 12:05 PM by John Q. Citizen
Everybody else around the world can do it except us because the Dems are too scared to try. So they keep trying to pass what has already failed repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. How to contain costs though? Restricting care? Who decides if I get my hip replaced?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You and your doctor. Ever been to Canada?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Bob from Blue Cross decides now
If you think otherwise you are mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. My Aunt wanted to get a hip replacement. She had Kaiser Permanente. They told her no, she was too
old and the rehab time would be so long and painful that she would probably never walk again if she had the surgery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Bullshit. My 90 year old uncle just had his second hip replaced.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 12:55 PM by mnhtnbb
He had his first at age 88. There is a new anterior procedure which is done that doesn't cut
muscles. Not all ortho guys do it; I know I researched it for my own hip replacement and found the ortho guy who did my uncle's for him. You are up walking around the day after surgery. Most people are
walking without a walker or a cane within 2-3 weeks.

That's the problem with being in an HMO and is the reason you want to be able to choose your own
physician.

If your aunt has an extra $40K lying around and wants to spend it on a hip replacement, PM
me and I'll tell you how she can find an ortho guy who does the anterior procedure.

On edit: BTW, the guy who did mine learned how to do the procedure in Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. She's dead now, so it's a moot question. But Kaiser wouldn't OK it when she
wanted it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. I'm sorry to hear that. My point still stands, though. HMO's make
money by denying care. They aren't the place where you'll find MD's doing the latest procedures.
Innovation costs money and that's not their purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Your point was a good one, certainly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdsilv Donating Member (883 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. single payer for basic services.....
checkups, emergency care, prescriptions. Paid for by expanding medicare. Supplemental policies for dental, 'elective medicine', optical, paid for by private REGULATED insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. HR.676
We have the model, we have the bill, we have the cost and coverage and implementation already to go. The only thing we lack is the political will to do it.

This whole "debate" is nothing but theater to convince us to accept billions more in corporate welfare while millions more citizens needlessly suffer and die over the next decade.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've always thought about a single payer system financed by
a national sales tax. The more you consume, the more you wind up paying. Cut the insurance companies and trial lawyers out of the equation and prices/costs would plummet, also provide a government run malpractice insurance program to physicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. medicare for all - private supplementals for those who want it.
I have no problem with insurance companies offering Medicare HMOs to everyone just like they do now or supplementals and add ons. And I want the doctors offices to only have to deal with one billing entity and one set of rules. The administrative costs of fighting with so many companies are killing them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. Easy solution
S-Chip for kids until age 21

basic coverage for 22-49..with options added for pregnancy, chronic conditions, catastrophic, etc. (at an extra cost)

50+ medicare , with supplementals for the 20% not covered by medicare.


for the 22-49 people, a comprehensive plan similar to what government employees have, based on INCOME/ASSETS, and funded through payroll deductions..NO employer participation.. the money NOW paid by employers would be immediately given to employees as the raises they had deferred all along.

for the 50-64 entering medicare early, they would pay a sliding scale supplement, based on income.

That should do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. I like your plan
I think that medicare should be extended for those in their fifties. There are many now who are actually losing their good jobs and benefits who are in their fifties. Also, like the idea of extending the SCHIPP program for children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nationalize the hospitals
expand the VA model to everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlyDemocrat Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. The VA model is scary, there's no need to nationalize the hospitals
The single payer system with private hospitals will work just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The question was what I thought, not what I thought you thought.
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 12:30 PM by DefenseLawyer
But thanks. What's so scary about the VA? It actually gets high marks for efficiency and cost containment, despite the urban legends that call it "scary".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlyDemocrat Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Walter Reed ... 2006?
VA care is a travesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The problems at Walter Reed
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 08:54 PM by DefenseLawyer
pertained not to the quality of medical treatment for wounded soldiers in the hospital but rather to the level of care for those who are well enough to be outpatients, living in Army housing at Walter Reed. One building was singled out as suffering from ill-repair, including mold on interior walls. Besides that, if I'm not mistaken, Walter Reed is an Army hospital not a VA hospital. You don't know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlyDemocrat Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Investigation of Walter Reed led to findings about the poor care at the VA hospitals
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 09:17 PM by GodlyDemocrat
I'll concede that Walter Reed is a DoD hospital, but this scandal ensnared both the DoD and the VA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Army_Medical_C...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. yeah, some people forget that the * administration
privatized the shit out of the military. You know what has happened in the past eight fekkin years is privatization of some services that used to be provided by the government. Crappy food and tainted water for soldiers to disrespectful security guards at military posts. The same goes with Walter Reed-some of it's services were privatized.

And when I see that damned add against health care, that refers to the post office being incompetent--well, year's ago it was made to stand on it's own for profit organization. I have a friend who works for the PO, some of the crap she has to put up with--they're now total corporate tools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. but the throw away mentality of the neo-cons is no longer in vogue
I hope the new boss will treat our returning troops with the dignity that they deserve. What happened at Walter Reed was based on a refusal to believe war causes pain and suffering. Sure is causes "freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at a cost. Walter Reed was the result of refusing to believe there is a cost (and not just profits) to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. Talk to a physician that trained at a VA hospital
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 01:43 PM by Sgent
and you will probably find a physician that uses the VA system (if they are eligible) to pay for their drugs and nothing else.

The VA does great on certain benchmarks -- those that can be computerized and thus prompted every time a physician logs onto your chart, but look at their surgery survival rates, infection rates, etc. Those aren't publicly released, and there is a reason for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. thanks for the reply
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. 676
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sliding scale premiums
With very low deductibles and co-pays available for very low income people. The House sliding scale looks pretty good, starting at around 1% of income. 12% might be too high on the other end though. As long as we have that, where everybody can afford coverage, people will start paying attention to medical costs and we can move forward from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. A real public option with Medicare pricing of services available to all Americans.


Such a plan would be real reform, and (in the absence of the insurance industry becoming price competitive) would lead to increasing numbers of Americans opting into the public plan.

Anything less (such as a castrated public plan designed to guarantee insurance industry perpetual dominance) would seem to be a step backwards.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlyDemocrat Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. It would have to be single payer
A multi payer system would lead to Massachusetts and some European countries, where insurance companies are creating artificial shortages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. I have Medicare. I believe everyone should have it.
Simple. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. but would you consider it a failure if we didn't get single payer
medicaid for all?

That is a high bar for Obama to pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. Single payer
I am willing to call a strong public option a reasonable step forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. Universal Healthcare like I had growing up in
England. Short of that, a strong, affordable Public Option - where the Option is mine!

At the very, very least, I want what our illustrious leaders have!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
23. Truly successful would be HR 676. Moderately successful would be a true public option
Anything less than that is a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
25. hr676 it's the only thing that make sense.
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 09:24 PM by dysfunctional press
obama needs to have a "fireside chat" with the american people, pull out the charts, explain the facts of the situation, and counter every one of the insurance industry's lies with the truth.
polls already show what the american people want- a lot of them just need to be led to an understanding of it.
change(and a black man in a position of power) can be scary for some people...
but luckily- they have pills for that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
26. It would look like the hospitals
and doctor's offices and pharmacies that you saw in "Sicko".

Doctors and nurses and pharmacists who do their job because that's what they want to do.

Doctors and nurses and pharmacists who feel sorry for people who live in a greedy, corporate-nation where they have to do without health care.

And not one insurance company in sight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Gunslinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
29. single payer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. looks like we have a high standard for success
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
32. "For Sale" signs on buildings owned by Humana
Sigma, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
34. every single person is covered
and pays a percentage based upon their income (ex. you earn > $100,00/yr, you pay 7.5% of income. You earn $75,000-$99,999/yr, you pay 6% of income, and so on). Those making less than some predetermined amount pay nothing. If we have to have insurance companies, they would have NO SAY in what procedures are done. It is up to the doctor and the patient. Period.

My ideal is single payer though. Always has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
35. Single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
40. a pretty high bar indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeeHopeWin Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
41. See my post here for your answer...And comments please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC