National Health Care (U.S.)

Chris55 · Post by **Chris55** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm

Just a reminder..do any of us have a clue how many different versions of this bill have been printed? How do we know the reference to seniors wasn't different in another version of this bill?

peekaboo · Post by **peekaboo** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:58 pm

chris55 wrote:

How do we know the reference to seniors wasn't different in another version of this bill?

I don't think that is an issue here. I believe we all were using the link Loryas supplied. Do we know that there are other versions out there? That would be diasterous!

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:19 pm

Loriyas · Post by **Loriyas** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:51 pm

Actually, it's not appropriate, just incredibly disappointing. After this post, I will be signing off of this thread. It has turned into what I tried to avoid.

It seems that some with their minds made up want to seize on a single issue capable of differing interpretations. Then, instead of reasoned debate we resort to Bill Maher's arrogant commentary.

I will leave it at this. ALL provisions of this Bill need to be read in context. My context is this: You simply cannot add 46 million people to a health care plan, reduce costs and increase the quality of care all at the same time. It defies logic and it defies the numerous examples provided by previous government programs in the US. It also defies the experience of other countries with government run health care systems. The system described in the House Bill will be able to function only if health care is rationed.

When the doctor tells your 80 year old grandma that she's too old for open heart surgery because care must be rationed but instead the government will pay for him to talk to her about "end of life" issues we have reached a place that I don't want to be.

In sum, this Bill has to be read in context. If one chooses to believe that single payer, government run healthcare will not result in rationing, then debating the nuances is a moot point.

I choose to make these decisions for myself.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:07 pm

catfreak · Post by **catfreak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:31 pm

OK, I have been following this thread and just reading because I don't know what to believe anymore.

I looked at pages 425-430 of this bill and the only thing I got out of this is that they want to be sure patients are consulted about advanced directives (living wills ect..)and in case of the need for hospice or life support (my words). I'm sure there is much more to this than my simplistic explanation.

My 2 cents.

Cat

cheerleader · Post by **cheerleader** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:40 pm

Loriyas wrote: When the doctor tells your 80 year old grandma that she's too old for open heart surgery because care must be rationed but instead the government will pay for him to talk to her about "end of life" issues we have reached a place that I don't want to be.

In sum, this Bill has to be read in context. If one chooses to believe that single payer, government run healthcare will not result in rationing, then debating the nuances is a moot point.

Umm....that paragraph is exactly the fear-mongering I was referring to...there's nothing in the bill that comes close to "rationing" health care for elders, or Soylent Green euthanasia scenarios. No one's going to kill anyone's grandma. I am reading the bill in context.

...Although, scary stuff might start happening soon, cause Bob and I actually agree.

I believe that having a government run OPTION will allow uninsured people to purchase health care. That's a good thing. It will save us millions as a country, in medical costs of the uninsured we currently have to pay. I believe that having rules and regulations as to how much a certain drug can cost will benefit us all...how can anyone look at the current CRAB prices and think that pharma isn't hosing us all? Think about who will benefit from defeating this bill...not the American public, but the insurance and drug companies. They want this gone.

(Cat....believe your eyes. That's the bill. Lori gave us the link. We can read for ourselves and no one's gonna go after grandma.)
cheer

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:29 pm

Loobie · Post by **Loobie** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:58 am

In response to the "is there more than one bill?" question:

<shortened url>

It looks like there's the original legislation, and then another version put together by what are known as the "blue dogs". There may not be much difference, but I thought I'd bring this to attention since the question was asked. So judging by this article, there may be a final bill that is a 'blend' of these two. I guess stay tuned! Looks like the Speaker has some serious reading to do! Man I wouldn't want the job of wading through two of these dudes.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:32 am

Loobie · Post by **Loobie** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:51 am

Absolutely.

notasperfectasyou · Post by **notasperfectasyou** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:51 am

Some actual numbers from the NEJM

Loobie · Post by **Loobie** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:58 am

notasperfectasyou wrote:Some actual numbers from the NEJM

The challenge of finding acceptable ways of paying for near-universal coverage is formidable and may prove insurmountable. For reasons that President Obama has forcefully stated, health care system reform is vital. But the full reform agenda may be beyond immediate political reach. It is therefore essential to identify elements of the full plan that would set the stage for later reforms and that can be financed at a politically digestible price — and find a way to ensure their passage.

This was the last paragraph of that guy's article. Everything about this whole issue seems so pessimistic, but as Bob stated above, this 'ain't no small task.

notasperfectasyou · Post by **notasperfectasyou** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:02 am

Loobie wrote:Everything about this whole issue seems so pessimistic, but as Bob stated above, this 'ain't no small task.

You could just as easily be talking about finding the cure for MS. I believe we at TIMS, are here, in part, because we feel strongly we can do something about what others might see as insurmountable. Ken