I love the post office analogy. If I ever send something by mail that I want to get somewhere with 100% certainty I use FedEx and/ or UPS. The post office is a crapshoot....you get what you pay for.
Originally Posted by dnf777
Now apply that to healthcare and I would rather pay more for quality service than put a 42 cent stamp on my head and walk into the doctors office hoping I get seen that day.
I can hear it now......."the government has decided to cut the delivery of healthcare services to 5 days a week to match the delivery of the mail":p
Try this. Walk into a UPS store and ship something. Walk into a FEDEX and ship something. Walk into a post office to ship something and compare your wait and the customer service. Compare prices and understand that your tax dollars are subsidizing that poor service and long line. Like I said before, great business model for socialized medicine to follow. I can't wait.
Originally Posted by Mike Noel
Thats the truth. I really could not believe that BHO compared healthcare reform to the post office.....the post office is cutting back on service, is that what we should expect from a public option?
Originally Posted by Hookset
[QUOTE=Mike Noel;484894]Thats the truth. I really could not believe that BHO compared healthcare reform to the post office.....the post office is cutting back on service, is that what we should expect from a public option?[/QUOTE]
Poor service, waiting in lines, lacadaisical frontline personel, Drs that are taxed tired and unmotivated.
Overwhelming rules & procedures that noone really understands.
Waste in spending, poor management of assets.
Name 1 Govt. run entity that does not have these issues, just 1!!
USPS: Probably a good analogy to the proposed health care reform. They are mandated to provide a basic service at a reasonable cost to the public ... whether they can make money at it or not. When they don't make money, the govt subsidizes the loss. They also are allowed to raise their rates periodically.
This sounds an awful lot like what has happened with Medicare. Medicare takes care of the overall most expensive part of the population at a basic level. Over time, Medicare recipients have had to pay increased amounts from their SS check to the program. No choice there. A certain amount is simply deducted from their check before they see it.
The motivation for the program is basically the same as for the current health care proposal. Take care of those citizens who are not able to take care of themselves. Seniors were likely to have more health issues than younger people. Insurance companies would have to charge them large amounts for coverage, because of the high probability of larger payouts than for younger people. So, govt stepped in to even the playing field.
For seniors this makes some sense. They worked all their lives already. They paid into the system. At the end of their lives, they are no longer able to work as they did when they were younger.
BTW, I see nothing wrong with giving end-of-life counselling so that all seniors are aware of the fact that they can make life choices that will reflect their wishes for their last days. I am puzzled, however, why the govt has to pay drs to do this.
There are many sources already in place that could provide this. AARP comes to mind. Senior centers throughout the country provide many programs, and could provide this service. Our local counties have "counsels on aging" that provide many services to less-well-off seniors at no charge. Social workers provide "depression" counseling for seniors. Presumably, better off seniors will have advisors who can provide this information. And, if a senior provides evidence of having taken such counseling, just send them a check for one month of their Medicare contribution. Do O and his advisors realize that such services are already available? Do they realize that there is a simpler way to implement end-of-life counselling? And probably cheaper.
I don't believe that all of those who oppose this particular health care reform proposal are opposed to health care reform. The devil is in the details. If we're going to "reform", then what we end up with should be better than what we started with. I am not convinced that this particular proposal holds such promise.
I know many that are in favor of reform.....just not this reform
Originally Posted by Buzz
As far as the AMA support of it, I know zero doctors that agree with the AMA on this issue and I know more than a few doctors.
You say it in your own answer "they are sick of insurance denying authorization for test they feel are necessary" and you think this reform will make that any better? I would say I know many docotrs in favor of reform, but that reform is insurance reform and tort reform and not the reform of the overall healthcare system
For those who say there will be no rationing or government control of a persons healthcare let me give you this example. We had a patient come over form Italy for treatment. She was 36 years old when she came to us and when talking infertility issues she is approaching critical age. In Italy she was first seen at age 31 and her issues figured out. She was then put on a waiting list for IVF at age 33+ she received her first IVF treatment. Treatment in Italy is very different that here. In Italy they are only allowed to retrieve as many eggs from a woman as they will transfer back into her. That number is usually one or two eggs. Let me explain how the process works. Women are stimulated to release more eggs than they would in a normal cycle, the amount depends a lot on the woman but we usually get an average of 10 (have gotten as many as 36). Out of those 10 8 or 9 are mature and available to be used for insemination. Even though in a majority of our cases we inject a sperm directly into an egg, only 80-90% fertilize normally, so out of those 8 eggs that were injected 7 may fertilize normally. Out of those 7 3-4, on average reach an advanced level of embryo maturity by day 5, the day we transfer them back into the patient. We generally transfer 1-3 embryos based on the patients diagnosis, age, and other factors. With luck this results in a pregnancy (in our practice we get 60% of our patient pregnant and they deliver a baby, but that is high as we are one of the better in the country). As you can see it is a numbers game when it comes to IVF. Now take this example and only start with 2 eggs. Can you see a problem? The first IVF cycle this woman did resulted in zero embryos to be transferred. She then had to wait another 16 months for another IVF cycle making her almost 35 years old. Her diagnosis was advanced reproductive age and low ovarian reserve so her age was a very important factor. When she came to us we were able to get 11 eggs, 10 had normal fertilization, and by day 5, 7 were at a very advanced stage. We transferred 2 embryos and she delivered a singleton about 9 months later. She is returning later this year to have some of her frozen embryos transferred (Something they donít do over there) and hopefully will be able to have a second child. Because they have socialized medicine she was rationed (made to wait to the point that it was almost too late) and the government affected her personal healthcare by limiting the type of procedures that are done.
Rationing and government control of procedures will happen there is no two ways about it.
Bet they do not treat "Abortion" the same way Corey.:rolleyes:
Private industry is prohibited by law from deliverying regular mail. That is why UPS, etc only ship packages.
Originally Posted by dnf777
I think everyone can agree that we do need health care reform, I just don't understand why it is this plan or nothing, well maybe I do understand. My wife asked our Rep at a town hall what he thought about HR2520, the patients Choice act put forth by Senators Coburn and Burr, and Reps. Ryan and Nunes. He told her he hadn't heard of it but, he promised her he would read it. Answers were very vague, when asked about illegals being covered Rep. Larson replied, no they are not covered. The first thing that came to mind is, is there wording in HR3220 that enforces any type of verifacation of citizenship? I don't think so. I thanked Rep. Larson for having the balls to put on the town hall but, that I didn't agree with this proposal. All in all I came away with very little.