"Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House"

[sixpence]

uh oh. i'm somewhat curious as to what's going to happen...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/he...BWtzZE9WDusPSg

[BenUstudent]

Don't know? Sit back and enjoy the ride.

[aggiedoc2010]

By 5 votes. What a statement to the popularity of a bill. 49% of congressmen and women don't agree with the bill and 60-70% of the American people disagree with it. Congrats Pelosi and Obama you sure stuck it to the American people today.

Maybe the Senate can save us from this monstrosity.

[CoolWhipp]

It's like the first few meteors to strike before the big daddy comes and kills 70% of all life on earth-- which ended the cretacious period. Just kidding.

[JaggerPlate]

Wow. Not good ... not good at all. It kind of boggles my mind to read through threads in these board, obsessing about MD vs DO, a 3.8 vs a 3.9, and singular points on the MCAT, when this profession we are all trying to hard to obtain could rot into something completely different by the time we get there. Makes me feel legitimately sick.

[Xcited392]

Oh who cares, the world is going to end in 2012 anyways...j/k

Seriously though, this is just the first step towards a single-payer system. It might not happen in the next 5 years, but it could happen in a few decades.

Question: If a public option passes and becomes a permanent fixture in the health industry, what theoretical mechanisms could be amended to prevent this from becoming a take-over?

[stevo111]

hopefully the senate can kill it

[LittleRichard]

I really hope it dies in the senate too. The American people don't want this.

[chahn85]

Pretty much everyone on sdn seems to hate Obama's healthcare reform. Does that mean that everyone is satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the U.S. and think that nothing should be done to change it? Or is there an alternative which will provide care for the 50 million uninsured people?

[aggiedoc2010]

Originally Posted by chahn85

Pretty much everyone on sdn seems to hate Obama's healthcare reform. Does that mean that everyone is satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the U.S. and think that nothing should be done to change it? Or is there an alternative which will provide care for the 50 million uninsured people?

Clearly anyone with a brain agrees something needs to be done. This and pretty much any other plan currently out there will not answer the current problem.

[Physio Doc 2 Be]

Originally Posted by stevo111

hopefully the senate can kill it

x3.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by chahn85

Pretty much everyone on sdn seems to hate Obama's healthcare reform. Does that mean that everyone is satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the U.S. and think that nothing should be done to change it? Or is there an alternative which will provide care for the 50 million uninsured people?

It's not that people are satisfied, it's just that a public option that has the potential to turn into government run healthcare is not a solution. It's a way to turn a once smart, now bloated and tired system, into one that has failed, horribly in places like Canada, Spain etc. I don't think anyone out there will say that our system is perfect or that the number of uninsured is fine or something to deal with. I'm curious to see how many of these people will give a crap and even accept the public option with it on the table. My guess is that they are the same people who would blow 100 bucks a month on cigarettes, but not a 100 bucks a month on cheapie insurance. I just hope the senate kills it, or molds it into something reasonable. I mean, a trillion dollars over the next ten years??? Really? I don't even think the most bleeding heart Obama guy out there thinks thats a good move right now.

[stevo111]

honestly after spending the last few weeks reading up on the whole situation, i seriously considered withdrawing all of my apps and just be done with it all. ive been wanting to be a physician since i was young, and to be in this point where the profession will go to crap is unreal...

[Xcited392]

Originally Posted by chahn85

Pretty much everyone on sdn seems to hate Obama's healthcare reform. Does that mean that everyone is satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the U.S. and think that nothing should be done to change it? Or is there an alternative which will provide care for the 50 million uninsured people?

I am satisfied with my health care. Even when I moved away from home to attend college, I could still choose my doctors out-of-state. Of course I think there is something wrong with the uninsured. And the 50 million number is not really accurate. Any kind of health care reform should not include illegal immigrants (my parents were immigrants, btw, and no, I'm not a Repub). Poor children are already covered by SCHIP and Medicaid and poor adults are covered by Medicaid. So the remaining uninsured are people who don't want insurance AND those whose employer does not offer employer-based insurance. For the latter, they have a choice to join non-employer based insurance (though, the premiums are much higher). I think Washington D.C., should focus on how to make non-employer based insurance more affordable--not revamp an entire industry.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by stevo111

honestly after spending the last few weeks reading up on the whole situation, i seriously considered withdrawing all of my apps and just be done with it all. ive been wanting to be a physician since i was young, and to be in this point where the profession will go to crap is unreal...

Same. I told my mom a few weeks ago that this whole crapfest was making me doubt becoming a physician for the first time in my entire life. It really made me super unhappy for a few days to think that my mind went there. Even during difficult classes, MCAT, people telling me not to go into it etc, I never doubted it ... not until then.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by Xcited392

I am satisfied with my health care. Even when I moved away from home to attend college, I could still choose my doctors out-of-state. Of course I think there is something wrong with the uninsured. And the 50 million number is not really accurate. Any kind of health care reform should not include immigrants (my parents were immigrants, btw, and no, I'm not a Repub). Poor children are already covered by SCHIP and Medicaid and poor adults are covered by Medicaid. So the remaining uninsured are people who don't want insurance AND those whose employer does not offer employer-based insurance. For the latter, they have a choice to join non-employer based insurance (though, the premiums are much higher). I think Washington D.C., should focus on how to make non-employer based insurance more affordable--not revamp an entire industry.

God, great post.

[stevo111]

Originally Posted by JaggerPlate

God, great post.

[LittleRichard]

All the doctors in America should just go on strike.

But that might not go over so well with the general population...

[Xcited392]

Originally Posted by LittleRichard

All the doctors in America should just go on strike.

But that might not go over so well with the general population...

They can just go to Canada and stand in line... lol

[snurpy]

To clarify a few points: This healthcare bill does not support illegal immigrants. The remaining uninsured are the middle class who do not have employer-based insurance. It is not that they don't want insurance, but the insurance options are often (overpriced) CRAP. For example, some HMOs will not cover emergency room visits, in-patient stay, etc, and it seems to me that those are the most expensive types of medical care out there.

There are many anecdotes coming out from a deeper look about the medical insurance industry that are also very disturbing. The idea of denying someone medical care b/c of pre-existing conditions, and what they define as pre-existing conditions, is bewildering. I agree an overhaul might be drastic, but there needs to be something done to place at the very least, some controls on the private insurers. If that's in the form of competition from the government's public option, so be it. It's an OPTION. I'm not sure why people are making it sound like it's being forced on them and their illegal immigrants.

Plus the AMA supports this bill, along with another bill that would not cut down on reimbursement from Medicare. People need expanded coverage. Simply letting things run at status quo is not the answer. It results in more cost as untreated patients develop worse, complicated conditions.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by snurpy

To clarify a few points: This healthcare bill does not support illegal immigrants. The remaining uninsured are the middle class who do not have employer-based insurance. It is not that they don't want insurance, but the insurance options are often (overpriced) CRAP. For example, some HMOs will not cover emergency room visits, in-patient stay, etc, and it seems to me that those are the most expensive types of medical care out there.

There are many anecdotes coming out from a deeper look about the medical insurance industry that are also very disturbing. The idea of denying someone medical care b/c of pre-existing conditions, and what they define as pre-existing conditions, is bewildering. I agree an overhaul might be drastic, but there needs to be something done to place at the very least, some controls on the private insurers. If that's in the form of competition from the government's public option, so be it. It's an OPTION. I'm not sure why people are making it sound like it's being forced on them and their illegal immigrants.

Plus the AMA supports this bill, along with another bill that would not cut down on reimbursement from Medicare. People need expanded coverage. Simply letting things run at status quo is not the answer. It results in more cost as untreated patients develop worse, complicated conditions.

From what I can gather, the bill doesn't offer the option to illegal immigrants, but it was purposely written with language that makes it impossible to regulate if illegals use the option. Also, the AMA supporting it really means nothing. Especially considering the fact that only 17% of docs belong to the AMA.

[stevo111]

Originally Posted by snurpy

Plus the AMA supports this bill, along with another bill that would not cut down on reimbursement from Medicare. People need expanded coverage. Simply letting things run at status quo is not the answer. It results in more cost as untreated patients develop worse, complicated conditions.

Yah fine but not a complete overhaul of an entire industry, at a cost that will EXCEED the price of the current endeavors such as the conflicts in the Middle East. Every sector of the government already can't afford what is going on.

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by JaggerPlate

From what I can gather, the bill doesn't offer the option to illegal immigrants, but it was purposely written with language that makes it impossible to regulate if illegals use the option. Also, the AMA supporting it really means nothing. Especially considering the fact that only 17% of docs belong to the AMA.

"Illegals" already use the system. It's called charity care in hospitals. And ignoring hospital bills. I didn't say this was the best cure to American healthcare, but I think it's definitely a much better step than what we have now.

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by stevo111

Yah fine but not a complete overhaul of an entire industry, at a cost that will EXCEED the price of the current endeavors such as the conflicts in the Middle East. Every sector of the government already can't afford what is going on.

So it's okay to kill in the Middle East and not save Americans at home?

[stevo111]

Originally Posted by snurpy

So it's okay to kill in the Middle East and not save Americans at home?

ok bad example, im just saying the govt is already spreading itself too thin moneywise.

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by stevo111

ok bad example, im just saying the govt is already spreading itself too thin moneywise.

It costs more in the long run to treat complications of untreated disease.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by snurpy

It costs more in the long run to treat complications of untreated disease.

I bet you it doesn't cost a trillion dollars.

[aggiedoc2010]

Originally Posted by snurpy

It costs more in the long run to treat complications of untreated disease.

It also costs 10x more whenever the government involved too.

[aggiedoc2010]

What is 1.2 trillion divided by even the high estimation of 50 million?

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by JaggerPlate

I bet you it doesn't cost a trillion dollars.

Right, people usually just die before they can cause significant deficit to the hospital treasury.

[MexicanDr]

I know many people are hoping this to be killed by the senate, but to be honest, I think this is going to go through...

[BerlinDude]

Obviously, we should have single-payer insurance - but this bill will do for now...

PS - to all the Republicans, quit your yapping. Obama ain't yo momma and Congress ain't yo momma's house!

[chahn85]

Everyone on sdn talk about Canada's case to argue against government-run healthcare, but there are many other developed countries that have efficient, government-run system which provides healthcare for everyone while keeping the qualities decent. I spent more than 10 years of my life in South Korea receiving excellent healthcare. They have a government-run universal healthcare system plus some private insurances that offer more advanced coverage for diseases like cancer. It's like, you have the government-run police force providing general security and protection to everyone and those with money can hire private body guards to get further protection. Physicians there certainly make less than American physicians do, but still enough to lead a respectable upper-middle class life. I find it ridiculous that people here are thinking about quitting their pursuit of medicine just because of this healthcare bill, which is nowhere even close to a government takeover.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by snurpy

Right, people usually just die before they can cause significant deficit to the hospital treasury.

So a crappy government option where these people wait 6 months for treatment from a burned out doc is going to fix this???

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by chahn85

Everyone on sdn talk about Canada's case to argue against government-run healthcare, but there are many other developed countries that have efficient, government-run system which provides healthcare for everyone while keeping the qualities decent. I spent more than 10 years of my life in South Korea receiving excellent healthcare. They have a government-run universal healthcare system plus some private insurances that offer more advanced coverage for diseases like cancer. It's like, you have the government-run police force providing general security and protection to everyone and those with money can hire private body guards to get further protection. Physicians there certainly make less than American physicians do, but still enough to lead a respectable upper-middle class life. I find it ridiculous that people here are thinking about quitting their pursuit of medicine just because of this healthcare bill, which is nowhere even close to a government takeover.

Sweet. I'm glad you feel that way.

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by JaggerPlate

So a crappy government option where these people wait 6 months for treatment from a burned out doc is going to fix this???

This doesn't make sense to me. Where are you getting 6 months from? Private insurers already drop patients who are deemed "too expensive." Then they scramble a few months looking to find someone who will insure them with their "pre-existing condition." In the case of metastatic cancer, this can already be a death sentence. The public option is supposed to prevent this from happening and become a safety net for those who have been dropped from private insurers, and pressure them with competition. It's also unnecessary to qualify the idea that getting treatment from a govt-run plan would only get you the burned out docs.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by MexicanDr

I know many people are hoping this to be killed by the senate, but to be honest, I think this is going to go through...

I don't know the chances of it not passing altogether, I think the hope is to modify before it gets through the senate. How much, who knows?? I still think it should be nixed.

[BerlinDude]

Originally Posted by JaggerPlate

So a crappy government option where these people wait 6 months for treatment from a burned out doc is going to fix this???

WAA! WAA!
Did the mean Democrats give you a boo-boo?

[Xcited392]

Originally Posted by snurpy

There are many anecdotes coming out from a deeper look about the medical insurance industry that are also very disturbing. The idea of denying someone medical care b/c of pre-existing conditions, and what they define as pre-existing conditions, is bewildering. I agree an overhaul might be drastic, but there needs to be something done to place at the very least, some controls on the private insurers. If that's in the form of competition from the government's public option, so be it. It's an OPTION. I'm not sure why people are making it sound like it's being forced on them and their illegal immigrants.

Private, non-employer based insurance has a low number of enrollees, so they must raise the premiums to make up the difference. Whereas, in employer-based insurance, where you have a large group of workers at a particular workplace all enrolled in a group plan, their premiums are naturally lower. Now, if non-employer insurance has only a few people in the pool, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (the company and the enrollees) to use the money wisely, only when unpredictable events occur? Say your family has an emergency money fund. Would it be better if you use that money to take care of your constant credit card debt (assuming you are a habitual spender) or use it in case when a relative dies suddenly, and you need to take care of funeral expenses? That is why insurance companies have pre-existing conditions--to select less risky people to enter the consumer pool. Immoral, you could say so, but that is how it works unfortunately. But, I do agree that there are certain pre-existing conditions that shouldn't be one. Anyways, it's all about making people choose non-employer based insurance a lot easier. That's why the whole mandate thing came about. The reasoning is that a mandate (i.e. federal requirement) will allow more people to join non-employer based insurance, thus increasing the number of consumers in the pool, ultimately leading to lower premiums. But realistically, if you didn't have insurance and were required to, would you choose the one that initially cost more, or go with the more affordable gov't option? That's the reasoning behind the idea that this will end the private industry. It's a complicated issue that requires complicated solutions.

[LittleRichard]

Originally Posted by chahn85

Everyone on sdn talk about Canada's case to argue against government-run healthcare, but there are many other developed countries that have efficient, government-run system which provides healthcare for everyone while keeping the qualities decent. I spent more than 10 years of my life in South Korea receiving excellent healthcare. They have a government-run universal healthcare system plus some private insurances that offer more advanced coverage for diseases like cancer. It's like, you have the government-run police force providing general security and protection to everyone and those with money can hire private body guards to get further protection. Physicians there certainly make less than American physicians do, but still enough to lead a respectable upper-middle class life. I find it ridiculous that people here are thinking about quitting their pursuit of medicine just because of this healthcare bill, which is nowhere even close to a government takeover.

Your argument is weak. Of course nationalized health care can work in smaller countries. South Korea has less than 50 million people. America has over 300 million people.

[WashMe]

Barack Obama is the f***ing antichrist. I hope he burns in hell forever, stupid POS. If this bill passes, I'm leaving the US as soon as my education is completed. Socialist m***erf***er.

There I said it.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by snurpy

This doesn't make sense to me. Where are you getting 6 months from? Private insurers already drop patients who are deemed "too expensive." Then they scramble a few months looking to find someone who will insure them with their "pre-existing condition." In the case of metastatic cancer, this can already be a death sentence. The public option is supposed to prevent this from happening and become a safety net for those who have been dropped from private insurers, and pressure them with competition. It's also unnecessary to qualify the idea that getting treatment from a govt-run plan would only get you the burned out docs.

I'm getting it from the doctors I spoke to who practiced in Canada and said there can be 6 month long waiting lists for specialized procedures and testings. Also, cut the Obamacare commercial attitude with the government run safety net, being there to help those cut from the evil insurance companies. The government run plan will create a dive in competition, meaning that the lower it goes, the lower private companies are forced to go, meaning the lower reimbursement goes (burned out docs) and the lower care goes. I'd love to see the top notch facilities and docs that accept the government run option after these patients are saved by it. Probably the same ones who accept medi-cal. That is until the government takes the next step and fines doctors who don't accept the government plan, just as they intend to fine people who chose to not carry insurance (aka carry Obama's insurance).

[PetitAllegro]

Originally Posted by WashMe

Barack Obama is the f***ing antichrist. I hope he burns in hell forever, stupid POS. If this bill passes, I'm leaving the US as soon as my education is completed. Socialist m***erf***er.

There I said it.

One can only hope that this is a poor attempt at trolling.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by BerlinDude

WAA! WAA!
Did the mean Democrats give you a boo-boo?

That's cute dude. Are you still wearing your HOPE T-Shirt??? Yes we can!!! Sorry, the adults are having a conversation. Maybe you can go straighten out that Jim Morrison poster you have on you wall and talk about how the man is keeping you down.

[Jfz]

I love how people in here like JaggerPlate use things like 'oh it would never work, its failed horribly in canada'

coming from a Canadian
sorry bud, you can speculate on canadian health care but its pretty great

*not saying that this system would work for the US

[snurpy]

It's so ironic that the opposing side has accused Obama of implementing death panels, when it seems that they're in fact proponents of death panels themselves. Pre-existing conditions that private insurers have on basis of dropping coverage include things like pregnancy, breaking bones when you were 3, etc. Letting insurance companies get away with monopolizing health care and profiting by sentencing sick people to die and billing healthy people is... wrong. No other way to put it.

If reimbursements from private insurers go lower, doesn't that just mean less doctors will accept private insurance? Which will provide a bigger pool for the public option? I think private insurance companies will fight for competition and it is in their interest to provide competitive reimbursements.

Canada is not here. They also have a single payer system, not a public option.

[Xcited392]

I guess the part of this public option that is causing worries is that it does not address it's limit of expansion. Democrats haven't said that it won't lead to a take-over, and Republicans have already accused this as a take-over. Hopefully, this will be addressed in the Senate. How would you all feel about a public option with explicit amendments that would set a cap on the number of enrollees, restrict the types of services it covers, and restricts access to expensive high-quality care (save that for people who pay for their insurance)? Basically, a minimum-quality, restrictive public option.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by Jfz

I love how people in here like JaggerPlate use things like 'oh it would never work, its failed horribly in canada'

coming from a Canadian
sorry bud, you can speculate on canadian health care but its pretty great

*not saying that this system would work for the US

I like how people in here like Jfz give the 1 to 10 comment ratio I hear about and take it as fact. Have you ever had a chronic illness in Canada?? Ever had to get a specialized procedure done, or needed some sort of expensive therapy?? Or are you a healthy kid who see a PCP once a year???

[snurpy]

Originally Posted by Xcited392

I guess the part of this public option that is causing worries is that it does not address it's limit of expansion. Democrats haven't said that it won't lead to a take-over, and Republicans have already accused this as a take-over. Hopefully, this will be addressed in the Senate. How would you all feel about a public option with explicit amendments that would set a cap on the number of enrollees, restrict the types of services it covers, and restricts access to expensive high-quality care (save that for people who pay for their insurance)? Basically, a minimum-quality, restrictive public option.

I think that's what the previous poster alluded to with the S. Korea insurance, a bare-bones type of insurance that provides primary care, ob/gyn, some pharmaceuticals, but maybe not specialized treatments like chemo. I guess the question is then, is that better than the alternative of having completely uninsured Americans? Is it better to let them die faster b/c it's more cost-effective? Depends on your moral code I guess. I would think some insurance is better than no insurance.

[JaggerPlate]

Originally Posted by Xcited392

I guess the part of this public option that is causing worries is that it does not address it's limit of expansion. Democrats haven't said that it won't lead to a take-over, and Republicans have already accused this as a take-over. Hopefully, this will be addressed in the Senate. How would you all feel about a public option with explicit amendments that would set a cap on the number of enrollees, restrict the types of services it covers, and restricts access to expensive high-quality care (save that for people who pay for their insurance)? Basically, a minimum-quality, restrictive public option.

I think it's almost impossible to estimate its expansion without a cap. And because of that, you're going to have right wing nut jobs calling it the death of America and silver tongue liberals saying it won't mess with anybody who doesn't want it.