^^Yup..^^ ..read that article already. I think that article is a counter-argument to the original health-care plan envisioned by Prez BO & his Dems allies in Congress. What the rest of the Congress people are debating/fighting for right now is how to retain those 5 "health care freedoms", which most likely will have to stay if they ever want to pass an "overhaul" HC bill.
I have no argument with the points in the Forbes article, but one sentence confused me:The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists. Isn't that the purpose of us GP's? Or does everyone with post-Superbowl heartburn run directly to a cardiologist for a pre-Rolaid echocardiogram? (sorry, I meant, "...everyone with post-Superbowl heartburn and insurance...")
Currntly in US, we have option of PPO or HMO. In case of HMO, yes, you need GP's referral. However, if you have PPO and welling to pay for the 20% co-pay, "Go ahead, make my day." Go see the Neural Surgeon for your post Super Bowl depression and see if I care.
Ahh. Thanks for that. Haha! Poor brain surgeon consulting on football fan.....not much 'material' for him to work with.
Here is another good read. As I said before and I will say again. At the end, we will get a final bill no one like and nothing works. OB is going to sign it to say he got it done and we are so SCREWED! http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/obamas-ex-doctor-enters-health-care-debate.html
Usually Lobotomy is not required for American Football fans. The brain is pretty much dead after all the eating and beer drinking...
Though Singapore is strictly speaking not a one-party state like the Communist Party of China, having a very dominant party as government helps in effecting and implementing legislation on healthcare and other related issues. Singapore's relative small size also helps. With the increasing cost on Healthcare, this subject has become a very sensitive but important issue and our Minister of Health has been kept very busy for the past few years to come up with a better solution that is fair and manageable, yet maintaining the service quality and it must be easily accessible to all social classes of our society. This involves the cost of healthcare providers, especially among the public and private hospitals, how to ensure that there is not too great a difference in their pricing, increasing productivity (like cutting down waiting time) and reducing cost of administration yet maintaining quality standards, implementing a co-payment insurance scheme that takes into account the longer life-span of Singaporeans, like stretching coverage to 80 years of age and probably beyond later, having different hospitalisation schemes to cater to the different income groups with appropriate subsidies and to ensure that even the poorest in society will not be denied of medical care. It seems the average Singaporean feels that it is better to die than to be bed-ridden or incapacitated for life, not only because one cannot enjoy and participate in the activities around oneself but more importantly the cost of healthcare is astronomic and will go even higher!
This is what I don't like about our health care system. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Guess what, if your health insurance has a rate need, guess what, don't raise the premium rate. Just raise the tax rate of rich people. and next thing you call the family makes more than $150,000 rich and tax the sh*t out of everyone. Or just run a deficit and borrow money to cover the lost. We are so screwed...
^^Will continue..^^ ..as a matter of fact, the Dems in Congress are going to target their own; those who make more than $250k. If this bill really passes & gets signed by Prez BO, we'll see how the people are gonna feel more pain...if they're not already with the Medicare program..
This is a good debate video on the proposed health care plan in the U.S.... ..i think master silentheart and cooler would love this hot debate. From the McLaughlin Group panel, consisting those on the left/liberal/supporters of the overhaul plan and those on the right/conservatives/against the plan. Moderated by Mr. McLaughlin. Ms. Crowley made some very sound arguments. http://www.fednet.net/asx/mg/MG072409.asx
Here is an Op-Ed in W.J. I suggest people to read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html Mr. Mackey has the right idea and it is very workable. However, Obama Freaks is calling a boycott of the Wholefood store. So tell me, who is close minded? Just because we think there is a better idea than the "All talk and no solution" president and we are in the way of progress? Just because we do not agree with what congress currently proposing, we are obstructionist? The world is in a recession because of US. We are in a mess right now. We can not afford to make mistake. What DamACrap is proposing is a crap and desaster waiting to happen. One last thing, Just like Mr. Mackey said, Health Care is not a right. Just like the food you eat. If it is a right, your government should provide everyone the same quality and quantity of food regardless of your birth and gender. What is that call? "COMMUNISM"!
Singapore doing more for healthcare The Straits Times Aug 16, 2009 (In his annual National Day Speech at the University Cultural Centre last night, PM Lee Hsien Loong talked about healthcare at great length and the following is an extract of his speech: Ramping up step-down care By Judith Tan THE government will ramp up resources to develop an integrated, step-down care system to prepare for a rapidly ageing population. This was the main thrust of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's address on healthcare, one of four key issues in his National Day Rally speech at the University Cultural Centre on Sunday night. As part of this effort, new hospitals such as Khoo Teck Puat in Yishun and Jurong General in the West, will be built in old Housing Board towns. Home care will also be upgraded, with training provided for care givers and maids. More nurses will also visit homes to check on the elderly patient's condition. 'Suitably organised, they can provide competent, appropriate care for most elderly patients,' said PM Lee, urging doctors and VWOs to give their full support and work together to deliver good healthcare to patients. 'Doctors and patients must think about it as a whole system, providing the right treatment, at the right place to patients with different needs.' Mr Lee said the government will raise its health budget and strengthen the 3Ms - Medisave, Medishield and Medifund - for an older population. But he warned that 'more' by itself would not be the solution. He said as an aging Singapore puts more demand on healthcare, the type of care that is needed will also be different. A step-down care system provides 'slow medicine' to older patients who need a longer period to recover. A key step is to link acute hospitals and community hospitals to provide 'the best of both worlds'. 'This way patients get more appropriate care, save money and we also free up beds for more acute cases,' he said. To see this for himself, the Prime Minister visited Ren Ci Hospital, located next to acute hospital Tan Tock Seng. 'Tan Tock Seng will guide the medical care of patients at RenCi and the two hospitals will soon be connected by a bridge so patients can be wheeled between them without needing an ambulance,' he said. 'The Tan Tock Seng-Ren Ci model is a good one. Changi General is already partnering St Andrew's Community Hospital in the east. We will build similar 'sister' community hospitals next to Khoo Teck Puat,' he added. But PM Lee said patients should not stay indefinitely at community hospitals and should be discharged home - where it is more comfortable, happier and cheaper. But he noted that families need help and support, and the Health Ministry is working on upgrading home care. (A step-down care system provides 'slow medicine' to older patients who need a longer period to recover. A key step is to link acute hospitals and community hospitals to provide 'the best of both worlds'.) -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA
Singapore Government may act against unfilial children The Straits Times August 17, 2009 Govt may act against children who dump their elderly parents CHILDREN who dump their elderly parents in hospitals or nursing homes could be taken to task and forced to help pay for their parents' care. The Government will study how best to use the Maintenance of Parents Act to get such children to do their filial duty, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last night during his National Day Rally speech in Mandarin. This came about after he met several nursing home managers who told him of old folk abandoned by their families. The children of these old folk had said they would not care even if the homes decided to kick their parents out, he recounted. Some even changed the addresses on their identity cards so that they could not be located. This will not do, said PM Lee, who also dismissed the line taken by some who say 'there is no filial son for long-term illness'. The Maintenance of Parents Act, which has been around since 1996, allows parents to go to the Family Court and sue their children for financial maintenance. Last year, 67 parents did so. Last month, The Straits Times reported that some Singaporeans were using the recession as an excuse to avoid paying their parents' nursing home bills - even though they looked like they could afford to, said the operators of these homes. To deal with such recalcitrant families, one home has hired debt collectors. The Act now allows only parents to take their children to court. But Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng said recently that the law may be changed to allow a third party to take unfilial children to task, should the parents themselves not be able to do so. If that comes about, nursing homes would be able to do so on behalf of their patients. PM Lee yesterday said stories of children lacking filial piety caused him great discomfort. The Government has a duty to look after the elderly, he said, but it cannot replace the love and warmth of a family. SALMA KHALIK
Simple way to cut medical bills The Straits Times Aug 17, 2009 IT IS a simple strategy. You know it or have heard it a thousand times. But the trick is to get people to do it and to stick with it. Yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave it another shot when he explained that the best prescription for keeping health-care costs down is a good diet and regular exercise. Campaign after campaign, the message has been made clear - eat more fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, do not smoke and keep your weight down. 'It's easy to say but very hard to do...a change in attitude and lifestyle changes require discipline and perseverance,' said PM Lee yesterday. Instead of lectures and speeches, the best way is to sign up with a group with similar interests and stick to good habits, he said. This is especially so as obesity levels are rising here, just like in China and the United States, a point which he elaborated on in his Mandarin speech. Latest statistics from the Health Ministry's national health surveillance survey in 2007 showed that obesity rates here increased to 5.7 per cent from 4.3 per cent in 2001 for residents aged 18 to 69. It is far worse in the US, where two in three Americans are obese. Similarly in China, the slimming industry is booming because more people are suffering from diseases of affluence, with higher levels of blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol being seen in the city areas. The weight loss industry in China has come up with innovative offers. PM Lee highlighted one in Shanghai which lets patrons pay according to the weight shed: the more kilograms you lose, the more fees you pay. Singapore has not reached this stage, said Mr Lee, but more must be done. 'We have to work doubly hard to prevent obesity and these three diseases, otherwise when we get sick, it'll bring about a burden to ourselves and society,' he said. Father of three Hallmi Hamdi, 42, knows this all too well. The IT consultant, who stands at 169cm, weighed 80kg two years ago. This gave him a body mass index (BMI) of 28, which meant he was overweight. He engaged a personal trainer and started to jog regularly. Slowly he upped his exercise routine, running 5km at least four times a week and changed his diet as well. He now weighs about 70kg. For older folk who prefer a less punishing routine, PM Lee highlighted a wellness programme initiative by Mr Lim Boon Heng, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. It has all the basics - medical check-ups, regular exercise and social networking. The scheme will soon be rolled out to the rest of the island, from the 12 constituencies currently, said the PM. Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of the Council for the Third Age, an independent body that promotes active ageing, said activities like brisk walking have been gaining popularity. 'They are both a form of exercise and good for social networking...to pull Singaporeans out of a sedentary lifestyle.' JESSICA JAGANATHAN Mr Hallmi, seen here with his daughters, shed about 10kg in two years through exercise and a change in diet. -- PHOTO: HALLMI HAMDI
The high/rising insurance costs as the main reason for the proposed healthcare bill.. One of the main points of contention in this current debate of the proposed healthcare overhaul/bill/reform is the rising cost of healthcare, to an extent the role of insurance companies. As we all know, the Dems/left/those who support the new healthcare bill, they've been pointing to this as one of if not the main reason for the proposed healthcare bill. But one of the factors which drives the healthcare rate is actually the legislations enacted by the state. For example, in California alone, the Democratic-controlled state Assembly had passed legislations which control how insurance companies can make/benefit. In a way, the legislations restrict competition by not allowing insurance companies to compete for rates. So how do we lower the rate/cost? I thought the idea of allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines is a good idea. It'll allow more competition. Which means, lower insurance rates would be affordable. (these 2 points are taken from the WSJ article above): • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable. • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying. So, my question to master silentheart is, since he knows the workings ins and outs and ups and downs of an insurance company, i'd like to know what's the reason(s) for the state legislators not allowing health insurance coverage to compete across state lines? Also, i heard the WH and Dems are willing to back out of the proposed government option plan. Is that compromise really going to work? Are you fine with that idea, master silentheart? Or that's all "surface" talks from the WH and the Dems?
Dear Master c, I still don't know the left and right of the insurance company. I do in and out, up and down depend on what position you are talking about. The reason is in the US Constitution. It give the state the power to regulate commerce. For example, every state has it Department of Insurance or DOI (may be under department of business and commerce) The DOI can regulate any insurance company doing business in that state no matter where the company domicile. The main purpose of DOI is to protect consumers and policy holders from the big bad insurance companies (That is what Prez BO call us). Because of that, every state DOI has different set rules and regulations for the insurance company. The worse state is MA. It has rules and rates so stupid that it is easier just not write business in MA. For example, All major P&C insurance companies do not write auto and home owner in MA. So for point #1 in WSJ article, It will take an act of god to amend some part of US Constitution for state to regulate insurance companies. If there is a true single payer public option, it will run into constitution issue. Regarding point #2, isn't that what Prez BO want? he want to mandate health insurance companies to have a set of min coverages (he never say what that is and that is the big confusion comes from). So, for example, does it cover knee replacement surgeries when you are 85 yr old? Define what is preventive medicine. Is playing badminton and keep a health life style a preventive medicine? Or just for fun? Yes, I agree there are places in US health care system need to reform. However, by painting insurance companies the bad guy while nothing being done to Med Mal Practice lawyers, that is wrong. A lot of people can see problems. However, Obama is not the person who can solve the problem. I will back the idea of Co-Op health insurance if it comes with Tort reform. Other wise, you can not fix the problem of medical waste. Dr. has to run additional test to make sure he/she did not over look the minor possible issue to avoid Mal Practice suit. BO say we can eliminate waste and save money. Then start with Tort reform. Electronic recordc will not save any money. In fact, it will cost more. Currently, if you see Dr A and you want second opinion, you can take your current record from Dr A with $20~$50 to make a duplicate record to take it to Dr B if they are not in the same network. To digitize all these record, does he know the cost? Most of the hospital is already running on non for profit already, where is the money going to come from? If there is a true major saving, won't the insurance company force all hospital do it already? Also, Howard Dean already reject the idea of Co-Op already. Eddie (I did not accident kill that woman in my car) Kennedy would jump out of his death bad to vote no on that. In any other time, I would prefer to have current bill to pass and see the Dam-A-Crap fall so hard on their face. However, I will kick and scream here because we can not afford to make wrong decision and change it later on. I will not go quietly into the night, I will not go down without a fight.
So.. ..i'll just focus on this part and no more comments on whether there is a left or right or circular direction in an insurance company.. So, if the Dems/left/liberals are against big bad private insurance groups & complaining abt the rising healthcare cost because of the high rates charged by the private insurance companies, won't that sound like they are blaming the constitution & their own point of contention that power given to a state is the main cause? Somehow it sounds a bit contradictory. The Dems in Congress actually want the state (themselves) to actually control competition but at the same time, we know more govt./state control means it's going to hinder any lower cost (just like we are facing right now, with the state's DOI). In fact, more competition between private insurance groups means likely lower cost for HC. Now, if it's because of the state regulations that are causing the high cost of HC insurance, imagine once the federal government takes over the re-writes the legislations..
Here is an echo to your well done post. http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...g-insurance-and-taxes-the-young.html?PageNr=2 Guess what, insurance company is not in for charity business. They are in it to make money. So either way, ins company will break even or make money. Guess who pays? Young people like you and I. Once the experiment is Done and fail, No one get their money back and we are in even deeper hole. Just look at MA system. Now in red and cutting benefits.
^^Okay..^^ ..so, i see now the big picture, sort of. Basically the idea of the current proposal of HC reform/bill/overhaul is that the government wants intervention in equally setting policies and rates for insurance companies. By "forcing" certain rates for all insurance companies to offer to the public, the WH and the Dems Congress believe it will solve the healthcare problem (which is actually abt 15% of the total population, 40+ million out of 300+ million people). With that minimal amt of percentage, i'm sure a small sort of reform is all that's required. But not a total transformation or overhaul. If the total number of uninsured people is more than 50% of the total population, then i would think some sort of a big overhaul is needed. I think the WH and the Congress should think realistically and try to minimize the total number of uninsured people little by little. Say by abt 5% in 10-15 yrs. Not dream of insuring the entire 100% of population, **all at once**. Hmm, also, if the Dems in Congress really believe their proposal would work, i think they should apply or test it in 1 state for say 5 yrs, first, before trying to nationalize it to the entire country. How about testing it in Illinois?? Prez BO's home state? Or to Kansas, the home state of Mrs. Sebelius? Or to Vermont, the homestate of Howard Dean? Let's see if their plan will work. If it works, then they have the right to argue their proposal. I don't see any significance of trying to pass this HC plan in a rush.. Anyway, last question of the night to master silentheart, before you go & spend time w/your SO the rest of the evening: I know this sounds a bit of a "communist" style, but would you be open to the idea of govt. setting policies and price rates of health care insurance to all private insurance companies equally? So no one company will charge less or more? All the same and will be determined by the govt.? For example, if they say, i want Allstate, BlueCross, Pacificare insurances to have plan A:$30/month, plan B:$40/month etc. with specific requirements. If not, what is/are the reason(s)?..thanks.
That's a great Dylan Thomas quote. Here's another, from that same Welsh whiskey-sponge, that could be applied to the healthcare debate: "Great is the hand that holds dominion over man by a scribbled name." The quote means a king (?Obama), but it could very well apply to a doctor or even an insurance adjudicator. Best DT quote: "An alcoholic is someone you don't like, who drinks as much as you do"
