nationalized heathcare and dentistry

[teeth63a]

Just wondering if anyone wanted to respond to post #220. SCroll back to get the rest...I'll cut it down to the nitty gritty:

Ultimately, I think that you [the left] really fear the truth of the matter:

*You can't accept the fact that redistributing wealth from the top to everyone else in society is in fact socialism.
*the Democrats/left/liberals have engaged in a disingenuous argument as to how much this will cost (which is my primary concern)...the CBO and other critics says its going to cost more, and I believe them more than I believe the people pushing it. And when cost is the criticism, you revert to "Oh well , what about Bush!" Bush is over. Get over it.
*if Democrats are so concerned about cost, why is there no tort reform as part of the bill? Simple explanation is that they are protecting the trial lawyers who profit from these lawsuits (ie John Edwards).
*I don't think America would unanimously be happy about abortions and euthanasia funded by taxpayer dollars.
*the proponents for this upheaval here for the most part are dental students. You have no idea what it is like to run a small business...making payroll, managing employees. You as the dentist are the last to get paid, after you've paid your taxes, overhead, and employees. When you see where the money goes, you'll be just as defensive against taxes as the rest of us practicing dentists are.

When was the last time you worked for a poor person? Or someone on welfare? Never I'm sure. Poor people do not create jobs. Poor people do not create wealth. The middle and upper class create jobs therefore wealth through small business. 70% of people in this country are employed by small busniesses. Obama should be propping up small business, not companies like GM. The $64 billion bailout could have been 64,000 small business loans of $1 million each. Propping up big business, then trying to extend social services to the poor leaves out the people that matter the most- the middle class business owners (most of us dentists).

I've said it before and I'll say it again...if the bill goes through in its current form or similar, count on middle class and small business taxes going up. But it seems Obama and the Democrats have totally mismanaged the debate, so I think the whole bill will ultimately crash and burn.

Here's the icing on the cake...are there really 40-50 million uninsured? This report exposes inconsistencies with Obama's claim:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18125

According to some experts there are truly only between 8-14 million. A public option for 14 million at half the cost is a hell of a lot more palatable than the current plan.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Taurus]

Current health-care reform plans require dental coverage for children but not adults: Health Care Fact Check
by Diane Suchetka/Plain Dealer Reporter
Thursday August 27, 2009, 5:22 PM

Q: Does the health-care overhaul require insurance companies to provide dental care?

A: Yes and no. That's the quick answer.

A more complete response needs a little background.

The proposals -- coming from both the House and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee -- require all of us to have health insurance, even if we're out of work or our employer doesn't provide it. (If we don't have it, we'll pay a penalty. If we can't afford it, there will be financial aid to help us buy it.) And both proposals set up groups of qualified insurers from which individuals and employers can buy that insurance.

Those insurers, in both proposals, must provide certain essential benefits, such as prescription drug coverage. Dental care -- for children only -- is considered an essential benefit in both proposals, according to the American Dental Association.

The House proposal defines children as those under the age of 21.

The Senate proposal does not yet define the age to qualify as a child.

Exactly which dental services for children will be covered will be worked out by advisory committees.

Also know this: That's the minimum coverage required. Insurers could choose to provide more.

Adult coverage is another story. Neither plan considers it an essential benefit.

So anyone who already has dental coverage through an employer should not see that change, at least not because of health-care reform. And those who don't have dental coverage would be able to buy it in the same way they can now, by paying extra for it.

In addition, both proposals, if approved, would provide grants to schools to train more dentists and other dental health providers, says Susan Ridgely, senior policy analyst at the RAND Corp., a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent research institute.

The Senate HELP proposal also provides money to begin a demonstration project that would expand nontraditional dental care in rural and underserved areas. It does not explain what that nontraditional dental care would be.

It also establishes a dental health education campaign, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that would focus on children and pregnant women.​

 

[jay47]

Thank you for a spot on post directly regarding the healthcare debate instead of useless flaming amongst SDN members.

Certain things are already established, well before SDN was ever around:

Fox is conservative.
CNBC, CNN, and (most) others are liberal.
They all have their political agendas, and I don't care what you say.

However, let us not digress to petty deliberation of "they said" or "they supported", but engage in a concerted effort to really find out what the new healthcare proposal...really proposes (and I am not advocating either side as I am too ignorant of the actual issues in the bill to take a side yet).

 

[OceanDMD]

Thank you for a spot on post directly regarding the healthcare debate instead of useless flaming amongst SDN members.

Certain things are already established, well before SDN was ever around:

Fox is conservative.
CNBC, CNN, and (most) others are liberal.
They all have their political agendas, and I don't care what you say.

However, let us not digress to petty deliberation of "they said" or "they supported", but engage in a concerted effort to really find out what the new healthcare proposal...really proposes (and I am not advocating either side as I am too ignorant of the actual issues in the bill to take a side yet).

So, what does it "really propose"? Excuse me for being petty, but last I heard they(liberals/Obama) wanted this thing passed by the end of August. Im sure once the next session starts it will be pushed to be passed by the end of the year. So in this "ignorant bliss" a bill may be passed that will affect Americans more than ANY BILL EVER. There is a reason why there is such debate at these town halls. There is a reason why so many practicing doctors have such a problem. And now there is talk of the nuclear option/reconciliation. Which, before you know it, a healthcare bill that will burry this country will be passed. And you say, "let us not digress in petty deliberation". Let me know what is deliberation that you can validate, and hopefully it occurs before the bill passes.

 

[OceanDMD]

current health-care reform plans require dental coverage for children but not adults: Health care fact check
by diane suchetka/plain dealer reporter
thursday august 27, 2009, 5:22 pm

q: Does the health-care overhaul require insurance companies to provide dental care?

A: yes and no. That's the quick answer.

this sums up how the government plans things out.



a more complete response needs a little background.

The proposals -- coming from both the house and the senate health, education, labor and pensions (help) committee -- require all of us to have health insurance, even if we're out of work or our employer doesn't provide it. (if we don't have it, we'll pay a penalty. If we can't afford it, there will be financial aid to help us buy it.) and both proposals set up groups of qualified insurers from which individuals and employers can buy that insurance.

Those insurers, in both proposals, must provide certain essential benefits, such as prescription drug coverage. dental care -- for children only -- is considered an essential benefit in both proposals, according to the american dental association.

ok, i agree, i never turn away a child in my pracice regardless if they have insurance or can't afford it. I dont need the government telling me this. This is a recommendation from the ada anyway, not the senate/house healthcare plan
the house proposal defines children as those under the age of 21.

The senate proposal does not yet define the age to qualify as a child.


Surprise surprise

exactly which dental services for children will be covered will be worked out by advisory committees.


I wonder who will be in charge of this committee. Im guessing the same type of person who looks over the claims i send to delta dental or guardian



also know this: That's the minimum coverage required. Insurers could choose to provide more.

Adult coverage is another story. Neither plan considers it an essential benefit.

So anyone who already has dental coverage through an employer should not see that change, at least not because of health-care reform. And those who don't have dental coverage would be able to buy it in the same way they can now, by paying extra for it.


Last i heard we were addressing health coverage, not dental coverage. So thanks for making that clear. The libs will come for us later.



In addition, both proposals, if approved, would provide grants to schools to train more dentists and other dental health providers, says susan ridgely, senior policy analyst at the rand corp., a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent research institute.


????????? Ok. Aren't we opening new schools? What, are we going to just send anyone to dental school? Why not just get rid of the dat? And who in the hell is "rand corp"

the senate help proposal also provides money to begin a demonstration project that would expand nontraditional dental care in rural and underserved areas. It does not explain what that nontraditional dental care would be.


typical. Senate will provide money for something they have no clue about. Lets just print money baby. And what the hell is nontraditional care? Scaling and root planing?

It also establishes a dental health education campaign, through the centers for disease control and prevention, that would focus on children and pregnant women.​

WOW. I really didn't get much out of this. But Im sure it makes everything OK to ram this thing through for Teddy.

 

[jay47]

WOW. I really didn't get much out of this. But Im sure it makes everything OK to ram this thing through for Teddy.

I think that your reply to this quote exemplifies what I said earlier, a spot on assesment of how the bill will affect dentists! You answered each part with your opinion, and without digressing from the topic at hand.

If you will read my post carefully (and I know you did, you were just angry at Oracle or whoever it was, no problem) you will see I did not take a side on the bill. On the contrary, I expressed ignorance. However, I completely agree with every single point you made, especially the fact that they are trying to push the bill through the house (much like you said, ignorantly) and senate like it's not that important. It is VERY important, and quite frankly, I don't support HOW they (and, in general this refers to democrats) have pursued the enactment of the billl. However, there seems to be a lack of moderate media around to really take a nonbiased eye at the whole picture....

I know, not think, that Obama has completely failed on his proposal to change , "business as usual" in Washington. I suppose that he has relied too much on his liberal friends to influence him, because have been unable to find even the slightest bit of give on the topics that matter...

And what the hell is up with the number everyone keeps throwing around, $46 million? Why not hone the bill to help healthcare for a much more realistic number of Americans, the ones who are,

A. Legal Citizens
B. Don't make over $75,000 (aka, can already afford it)
C. Are not in a temporary 4 month transistion to get new healthcare

 

[jay47]

Oh, and as far as I am concerned, I think dental care, moreso than healthcare in general, is a privelage, not a right. Why do I reason this?
Because of one fact: almost ALL (not all, but almost) dental problems are preventable with proper care and reasonable diet. If people would just brush 3 times daily, and floss once (hell, maybe even every other day) they could eliminate 90% of the problems that you encounter on a daily basis.

In essence, you SNOOZE on dental care, you LOSE on dental care.

 

[teeth63a]

Because it's worth mentioning Bold type is my emphasis. What a shock, Canadians realized private sector in the health care marketplace may be a good thing!

Original article

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – Aug 15, 2009
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.
He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.
Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.
"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."
A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.
Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.
"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."
"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "
Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.
"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

 

[UCSFAlumni]

I am fully aware of the Court's history and politics. I have relatives who are legal scholars who blather on incessantly about such things at every possible moment. So far there has been only minor retrenchment against earlier pragmatist interpretations of the law by the Court as far as I can see. That is the point I am making. Moreover, Scalia is already 72 or 73, so who knows how long he will be around. Also if this Health Bill is somehow to be a test case for the elimination of Medicare and Social Security by originalistic literalism, then you will see a public clamor for Obama to pack the Court to keep those programs alive. Despite the intimidating rancor of the opposing PR, these social programs are still very popular. Subject to Congressional approval, adding more justices is possible, as there is no set limit. And who owns Congress now? That is why the Health Bill is on the fast track, because as Obama said recently, "the stars are aligned".

(Re: winter lily's posts)

Your claim is legally vague. There is no court case that yet successfully challenged the fundamental right of the existence of programs such as Medicare or Social Security. There have been specific challenges on parts of these programs but none on their fundamental basis yet. Simply saying people are looking for an angle of attack doesn't mean it will happen.

And as of the SCOTUS ruling today, my viewpoint is vindicated. As I mentioned previously, the net effect of the bill was essentially a convoluted tax to fund health care, and the court even used that notion to establish a constitutional workaround to any concern about using the Commerce Clause for a personal mandate. The health bill was upheld.