National Healthcare for the USA

by sammielee24 348 Replies latest jw friends

  • LDH
    LDH

    Hey Juni!!!!

    Sammie's wife, sorry but you are full of chicken shit. Stop trying to scare people by bringing terrorism into the picture.

    The September 11th Fund, created by The New York Community Trust and United Way of New York City, has completed its mission and dissolved as of December 2004. Unprecedented in many ways -- from the enormity of the attack to the tremendous volume of donations from people across the globe -- the Fund collected $534 million from more than two million donors. It addressed the broadest range of victims with the widest range of needs. Hundreds of experts helped design its programs which were implemented through 559 grants totaling $528 million.

    http://september11fund.org/ healthcare was just one of the things that this fund covered.

    If you are going to be raising support though fear mongering, try to at least use an accurate example.

    Lisa

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Is there a similar Health care fund for 8/29/2005? What about for responders to 8/29 and 9/11 and all the many other disasters we have and will encounter?

    Face it Lisa, healthcare is too important to the wellbeing of our nation and the happiness of our people to be left in the grubby hands of insurance executives.

  • LDH
    LDH



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137317,00.html


    discusses the Dr. shortage.

    LittleToe, pardon my being elitist for calling a $60K salary meager. I should have said "Relatively meager" . I make more than this. I did not have to finance 12 years of University Education to do this, and I am not at danger for getting sued off my ass if I make a mistake at work, either. Yes, Little Toe, $60K is meager for the investment (time and financial) required to become a dr.

    You can't convert the current system without addressing

    • how we train and fund future generations of health care professionals
    • entitlement program mentality
    • how we finance research, development and marketing of pharmaceuticals
    • lawsuit structures for medical malpractice and malpractice insurance

    In Six's and Little Toe's world, the Collective would pay for the Individual to have as many children as that one wants. Then, the Collective would pay for said Individual's children. If someone doesn't want to be part of the collective, that person is Evil and Greedy. Go figure.

    As for SB840 and Shiela Kuehl, if you want to read the text, here it is.

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_840_bill_20060807_amended_asm.pdf

    I'm well familiar with this piece of legislation. Here is a snapshot of other "Governmental entities" the bill would create.

    The bill would create a health insurance policy board to establish

    policy on medical issues and various other matters relating to the

    health care system. The bill would create the Of

    fi ce of Consumer

    Patient Advocacy within the agency to represent the interests of health

    care consumers relative to the health care system. The bill would

    create within the agency the Of fi ce of Health Planning to plan for the

    health care needs of the population, and the Of

    fi ce of Health Care

    Quality, headed by the chief medical of

    fi cer, to support the delivery of

    high quality care and promote provider and patient satisfaction. The

    bill would create the Of

    fi ce of Inspector General for the California

    Health Insurance System within the Attorney General

    ’ s of fi ce, which

    would have various oversight powers. The bill would prohibit health

    care service plan contracts or health insurance policies from being

    issued for services covered by the California Health Insurance System.

    The bill would create the Health Insurance Fund and the Payments

    Board to administer the

    fi nances of the California Health Insurance

    93

    SB 840

    — 2 —

    System.

    The bill would create the California Health Insurance

    Premium Commission (Premium Commission) to determine the cost of

    the California Health Insurance System and to develop a premium

    structure for the system that complies with speci

    fi ed standards.

    At the core of the problem is the disdain the average American has for MORE governmental departments.

    Determine an appropriate level of, and provide support

    during the transition for training and job placement for persons

    who are displaced from employment as a result of the initiation

    of the new California Health Insurance System.

    LOL maybe I should wait to go back to school, looks like the Collective will be paying for that, too.

    Somebody, anybody, tell me where in this document we can find a guarantee or even a PLAN that says Drs and Nurses can make a GOOD enough wage not to flee the state of California.

    Lisa

  • LDH
    LDH


    oh here it is, silly little me.

    I guess I don't have to worry about it. Shiela promises that it will be "fair". And also that the payment schedules will be in place for 3 years. ha ha.

    It's one thing to spout off about a piece of legislation, it's another to have actively read and critiqued it. LOL.

    (6) Providers electing to be compensated by the California

    Health Insurance System shall enter into a contract with the

    health insurance system pursuant to provisions of this section.

    (7) Providers electing to be compensated by persons to whom

    they provide services, instead of by the California Health

    Insurance System

    , may establish charges for their services.

    Providers may choose to be reimbursed either by a patient or

    by the health insurance system for services rendered to a patient.

    93

    SB 840

    — 46 —

    123456789

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    39

    Providers may not be reimbursed by a patient and by the health

    insurance system for the same service.

    (8) Health care providers who accept any payment under this

    division shall not bill a patient for any covered service.

    (e) Health care providers licensed or accredited to provide

    services in California, who choose to be compensated by the

    health insurance system instead of by patients to whom they

    provide services, may choose how they wish to be compensated

    under this division, as fee-for-service providers or as salaried

    providers in health care systems that provide comprehensive,

    coordinated services.

    (f) Notwithstanding provisions of the Business and

    Professions Code, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and

    others who under California law must be supervised by a

    physician, an osteopathic physician, a dentist, or a podiatrist, may

    choose fee-for-service compensation while under lawfully

    required supervision. However, nothing in this section shall

    interfere with the right of a supervising provider to enter into a

    contractual arrangement that provides for salaried compensation

    for employees who must be supervised under the law by a

    physician, an osteopathic physician, a dentist, or a podiatrist.

    (g) The compensation plan shall include all of the following:

    (1) Actuarially sound payments that include a just and fair

    return for providers in the fee-for-service sector and for providers

    working in health systems where comprehensive and coordinated

    services are provided, including the actuarial basis for the

    payment.

    (2) Payment schedules which shall be in effect for three years.

    (3) Bonus and incentive payments, including, but not limited

    to, all the following:

    (A) Bonus payments for providers and upper level managers

    who, in providing services and managing facilities, practices and

    integrated health systems, pursuant to this division, meet

    performance standards and outcome goals established by the

    California Health Insurance System.

    (B) Incentive payments for providers and upper level

    managers who provide services to the California Health

    Insurance System in areas identi

    fi ed by the Of fi ce of Health

    Planning as medically underserved.

    93

    47 — SB 840

    123456789

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    39

    40

    (C) Incentive payments required to achieve the ratio of

    generalist to specialist providers needed in order to meet the

    standards of care and health needs of the population.

    (D) Incentive payments required to recruit and retain nurse

    practitioners and physician assistants in order to provide primary

    and preventive care to the population.

    (E) No bonus or incentive payment may be made in excess of

    the total allocation for provider and manager incentive and bonus

    reimbursement established by the commissioner in the health

    insurance system budget.

    (F) No incentive may adversely affect the care a patient

    receives or the care a health provider recommends.

    (h) Providers shall be paid for all services provided pursuant to

    this division, including care provided to persons who are

    subsequently determined to be ineligible for the California

    Health Insurance System.

    (i) Licensed providers who deliver services not covered under

    the California Health Insurance System may establish rates for,

    and charge patients for those services.

    (j) Reimbursement to providers and managers may not exceed

    the amount allocated by the commissioner to provider and

    manager annual budgets.

    140209. (a) Fee-for-service providers shall choose

    representatives of their specialties to negotiate reimbursement

    rates with the Payments Board on their behalf.

    (b) The Payments Board shall establish a uniform system of

    payments for all services provided pursuant to this division.

    (c) Payment schedules shall be available to providers in

    printed and in electronic documents.

    (d) Payment schedules shall be in effect for three years, at

    which time payment schedules may be renegotiated. Payment

    adjustments may be made at the discretion of the pay board to

    meet the goals of the health insurance system.

    (e) In establishing a uniform system of payments the Payments

    Board shall collaborate with regional health directors and

    providers and shall take into consideration regional differences in

    the cost of living and the need to recruit and retain skilled

    providers in the region.

    Six,

    If you can address any of my bullet point concerns rather than saying, Face it Lisa, we have to do this, I would be more prone to agree with you.

    If the Collective is paying for your diabetes health care, can the Collective also regularly receive reports detailing that you're controlling your blood sugar? If the Collective is paying, isn't the collective entitled to know?

    Lisa

    Privacy Concerns Class

  • LDH
    LDH

    Executive Summary

    Last year, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB-840, the California Health

    Insurance Reliability Act, which the State Senate has passed and now awaits debate in the Assembly,

    having passed the Assembly Health Committee in summer 2005. SB-840 imposes a Canadianstyle

    government healthcare monopoly in California. This briefing paper demonstrates the negative

    consequences of such a system, and advances consumer-directed health care as an alternative.

    SB-840 is supported analytically by a report from the Lewin Group, a consulting firm in Virginia.

    The Lewin Group’s report claims that SB-840 will result in monetary savings, but avoids other

    costs that government monopoly imposes on health care. Remarkably, less than five years ago,

    the same Lewin Group wrote a critical analysis of single payer health care in Canada that warns

    Americans against adopting such a system, because “the cost savings could be associated with a

    decline in quality of care and an upsurge in negative public opinion.”

    Californians will pay too great a price to realize the small monetary benefits of SB-840 – about 4

    percent of current health spending. In June 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court recognized that

    government monopoly health care is a violation of basic human rights, based on the fact that it is

    harmful to patients’ health. If California had already implemented a government monopoly, Californians

    would be suffering the following consequences:

    • The number of physicians would be about 23,000 less than it is today, dropping from

    approximately 94,000 to 71,000.

    • Californians would suffer lengthy waiting times for medical treatment – time worth about $1

    billion annually.

    • About $9 billion dollars of “free” health care would have been wasted by people who did not

    need it.

    If SB-840 is imposed by the government, the long-run consequences will be dire:

    • There will be a decline in the availability of medical technology.

    • Hospital stays for senior citizens will lengthen from an average of four or five days (depending

    on the procedure) to about 14 days – about three times what they are now.

    • The number of middle-aged women receiving mammograms at least once every two or three

    years will drop by about 330,000 in 2010, and more in subsequent years.

    • Life spans will shorten by about two months if the government imposes restrictions on the

    prescription medicines available, as the Department of Veterans Affairs has.

    • The number of heart attack victims prescribed Beta-blockers, a standard treatment to avoid a

    second heart attack, will drop by just under 20,000 in 2010, and more in subsequent years.

    • The number of cardiovascular patients receiving angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafts

    will drop by about 60,000 in 2010, and more in subsequent years. But Californians at risk

    of coronary artery bypass operations will need them four years earlier than they do now: 64

    versus 68.

    There will also be more general economic consequences:

    • Hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in small businesses, will be lost due to increased

    taxes.

    • Large businesses which can self-insure for health will migrate out of the state.

    • California’s biomedical and medical device industries, both world leaders, will risk collapse.

    Nor does SB-840 save very much money: the monetary savings are less than half what the state

    could enjoy by implementing a system of consumer-directed health care and reducing the regulatory

    burden on private health insurance.

    Though harshly critical of SB-840, this briefing paper does

    not

    claim that all is well in Californian

    health care. Although it does not price out the alternative—a health care system that is controlled

    by Californians, by giving them the resources currently held by the government and insurance

    companies—it suggests throughout that many of the shortcomings addressed by SB-840 would be

    better solved by reducing, not increasing, the role of the state in health care.

    Always two sides to every story. Here is the link for this report, which disputed that SB840 is the right move for California.

    http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/health/2006/Single_Payer.pdf

    Lisa

    Vested Interest as a Californian Class

  • LDH
    LDH

    oh, I can't wait until we pass this bill and every uninsured and ill person in the country moves to California. Guess what we'll be doing? Moving out of state. Along with everyone else who can.

    I want a clause that says we don't cover new residents of California for two years if we pass this bill.

    Lisa

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Sammy:Those figures might be great in an ideal world, but reality is such that it's a lot more wasteful., I speak from experience on that one

    Lisa:First slippery slope fallacies, now straw men. Noone is suggesting that the government should become the monopoly holder of healthcare.

    Further, why haven't you got those offices in place already, to protect the health of your citizens? Not a wonder Donkey eschews the legal implications of the health system if you leave it all to the judiciary to pick up the pieces after-the-fact. What's wrong with being proactive about public interests?

    What's the difference between providing healthcare from mass public charity, after catastrophes, and being more organised about it? Further, was it totally efficiently handled in the emergency situation faced after 9/11? More so than if the systems had been in place and well worked?

    I want a clause that says we don't cover new residents of California for two years if we pass this bill.

    Seems it's all about what you want, sitting pretty in your ivory tower

    Oh, and btw, this wasn't called for:

    Sammie's wife, sorry but you are full of chicken shit. Stop trying to scare people by bringing terrorism into the picture.

    Geting your feathers in a ruffle? The argument used was reasonable. You just didn't have anything reasonable to counter it with...

  • LDH
    LDH

    Little Toe,

    If you use scare tactics to prove your point because you can't point to credible documentation, in fact that is CHICKEN SHIT.

    First slippery slope fallacies, now straw men. Noone is suggesting that the government should become the monopoly holder of healthcare.

    Further, why haven't you got those offices in place already, to protect the health of your citizens? Not a wonder Donkey eschews the legal implications of the health system if you leave it all to the judiciary to pick up the pieces after-the-fact. What's wrong with being proactive about public interests?

    What's the difference between providing healthcare from mass public charity, after catastrophes, and being more organised about it? Further, was it totally efficiently handled in the emergency situation faced after 9/11? More so than if the systems had been in place and well worked?

    Of course you are suggesting that the government become the monopoly on healthcare. In case you didn't know it, there are two different models of NHS. The model being advocated is a PURE MONOPOLY, not the type of NHS you have in your own country. DUH!.

    Why don't we have those offices in place, huh? In fact, WE DO HAVE THEM IN PLACE. In California alone there are 4 different State avenues a consumer may take to complain of discrimination of healthcare or healthcare insurance. That does not include Federal level oversight if you are insured under an ERISA plan.

    Seems it's all about what you want, sitting pretty in your ivory tower

    Bullshit. How about this scenario. We in California adopt state healthcare for all citizens. Where do you think the sick and unisured population of the United States will be moving to? Don't be stupid. So we will get a ton more of untalented, uninsured, SICK minimum wage workers to drain off the system that they are barely paying into. Somehow, you have again turned a financial statement of fact into a "you think you're better than everyone" statement. Again. Surprise.

    The fact is, I have raised legimate issues, and provided credible documentation while the rest of you have said, "oh it wouldn't be that way."

    I call a red herring argument chicken shit, and you feel compelled to tell me it wasn't called for. Neither is referring to a medical procedure of a woman's vagina as a 'scrape.' But that's ok, huh?

    Lisa

  • LDH
    LDH
    The argument used was reasonable. You just didn't have anything reasonable to counter it with...

    To be clear: The argument was, after 09/11 poor people didn't get taken care of. I proved it wrong by citing a CREDIBLE SOURCE. Something that appears to be in short supply on these types of threads.

    Which is of course, why my rebuttal didn't pass the test of "reasonable" for you.

  • juni
    juni

    Towanda girl.

    And also CA has the huge issue of immigrants and health care.

    Juni

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit