What I meant was, what IF Congress does an about face and decides to make PEC's subject to a waiting period instead of immediate coverage as they promised?

That would be a death sentence for some, because there will be those who are terminally ill who will die in that 6 month waiting period, as they suffer from ineffective low cost alternative treatments while waiting for the coverage to kick in.

That would be an insidious and deliberate way to let people die out and save the administration and the insurance companies money as it's a given that there will be people who will die during that waiting period. That would be outright murder.

What I meant was, what IF Congress does an about face and decides to make PEC's subject to a waiting period instead of immediate coverage as they promised?

That would be a death sentence for some, because there will be those who are terminally ill who will die in that 6 month waiting period, as they suffer from ineffective low cost alternative treatments while waiting for the coverage to kick in.

That would be an insidious and deliberate way to let people die out and save the administration and the insurance companies money as it's a given that there will be people who will die during that waiting period. That would be outright murder.

And again, I hope that helps clear it up.

Thanks for replying. Honestly, thats a big if, i dont see why the would do something like that. You can bet that if this passes and there is something like waiting periods for dying folks you will see a sh** storm of protest.

Logged

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far~ ruminations

What I meant was, what IF Congress does an about face and decides to make PEC's subject to a waiting period instead of immediate coverage as they promised?

That would be a death sentence for some, because there will be those who are terminally ill who will die in that 6 month waiting period, as they suffer from ineffective low cost alternative treatments while waiting for the coverage to kick in.

That would be an insidious and deliberate way to let people die out and save the administration and the insurance companies money as it's a given that there will be people who will die during that waiting period. That would be outright murder.

And again, I hope that helps clear it up.

Thanks for replying. Honestly, thats a big if, i dont see why the would do something like that. You can bet that if this passes and there is something like waiting periods for dying folks you will see a sh** storm of protest.

Sounds about right to me mate.

Think also about the drugs-prostitution thing I mentioned. Suppose there is a huge spike in addiction and HIV-AIDS cases (and more crack addicted babies) Suppose the govt. decides to raise taxes on these things according to the amount of casualties needing treatment., to raise revenue for the costs of treatment. The taxpayers won't be happy about that either. There's some interesting twists in the road coming up with this stuff.

The one point that I think most people make too many assumptions on is what the level of care is/will be in a state-funded system. Of *economic* necessity, it must be minimal. Long wait lists, limited access to facilities, restricted hospital stays and a severely reduced list of approved/funded procedures. The starry-eyed seem to expect that everyone will be getting everything possible. Nope: Everyone will be entitled to a minimum of care, prioritized by the administration. TANSTAAFL.

I can assume it will be like it is in Canada and Europe. There's certainly some problems along these lines over there, but they're vastly, vastly preferable to the problems we have now in the current system. There are Canadians on this thread, I noticed. Do you guys have extremely long wait times and all the other stuff Newt says the US will be looking at under this plan?

I might add, from what I've read, Australia actually does have delays for pre-existing conditions when getting new people on some insurance plans. They have some sort of hybrid system, apparently. However, delays are better than not being able to get it at all. Just my opinion.

I can assume it will be like it is in Canada and Europe. There's certainly some problems along these lines over there, but they're vastly, vastly preferable to the problems we have now in the current system. There are Canadians on this thread, I noticed. Do you guys have extremely long wait times and all the other stuff Newt says the US will be looking at under this plan?

On the one hand, we do have some limitations. You pretty much take the family doctor who's available, and you require a GP's referral to see a specialist. That's where you usually get a long wait. It can take months to get in to see a specialist for something that doesn't require immediate treatment. But a good deal of that is due to the specialists limiting the new patients they see. Once you've had that first visit, it gets quicker. Family doctors can sometimes take a couple of weeks to see, but if you've got an immediate problem, they'll often fit you in. Or for something as simple as renewing a prescription or adjusting a dosage, they'll do it over the phone. And there are always emergency rooms and walk-in clinics.

A big part of the problem with a public system is that people do abuse it. Emergency rooms are full of people who don't belong there, and the wait is often long for anybody who isn't gushing blood.

Another problem is that GPs seem to be handing more cases over to specialists than in the past. Back when we were trying to have kids and getting checked out, I waited six months for a urologist to fondle my bag for five seconds and tell me there's no problem with the plumbing.

Of course, the doctors are overworked, but at the same time, they don't want anybody cutting in on their action. Perfectly qualified foreign-trained doctors keep running up against obstacles in trying to get licenced here. Nurse-practitioners, who could handle a lot of the routine stuff, still aren't being used in any great numbers. And when you ask why, it always comes around to the medical profession throwing up roadblocks.

Now, the other problem we have that might actually be alleviated by an American public system is the doctors who get trained and licenced here, then bugger off to the states for more money.

There is also the the fact that relatively few doctors will choose to practice in rural areas without some big financial incentives.

But these problems are not really with the public nature of the service. If the will was there, we could have immigrant doctors and nurse-practitioners filling in the gaps, and if we didn't have the American private system competing with our public one, that would go a long way right there. The other problem is how our medical schools select their students. My sister, who is a doctor, has mentioned before that the process seems to favour those who are in it for personal gain, and are more likely to head south, or take up a lucrative specialty or stay in large urban areas. There are people who would like nothing better than to be a family doctor in rural Canada, and the system could be weighted more in their favour.

When you get down to it, the only real problem with a public system is that everybody uses it, and many don't think twice about using it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does put a big strain on the system and it contributes to long waits.

On the other hand, more people are getting treatment, and getting it earlier than they would have even with the wait. It does make a difference. I see my doctor when I need to, which isn't often, but still more frequent than it would be if I had to pay directly. I have gone as much as eight years without seeing my dentist, who is not covered by the public system. Even with dental care through work, paying up front and submitting the insurance claim is enough of a pain in the ass to keep me away. The irony there is that I can put more time and money into my car without thinking twice.

Getting away from the pros and cons of healthcare reform, I was watching today where there is discussion of passing a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval against South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson. Now Wilson has apologized to the President and his outburst was wrong. However some people are taking things too far in trying to gain support. Namely Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson by claiming Wilson's outburst is and endourcement of racism.In an interview, (on CNN) Congressman Johnson makes comments about people thinking that Congressman Wilson's outburst is a green light for ever white supremacist to "don their white hoods" and how Congressman Wilson is the face of this. WTH? Do we really need to play a race card in this? While I disagree with the outburst, I don't see anything proving it as a sign that a racist lynch mob is being formed. It's garbage like this that makes people not want to care when a person actually is the victim of racism.If anything this is just a case when one Congressman should of kept his mouth shut when the President was addressing Congress and another who wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill by injecting race. Obama wasn't heckled because of his race, he was heckled because he's the President and a member of an oppsing political party to his heckler. Maybe Congressman Johnson needs to apologize as well and be given a a Congressional Resonlution of Disapporval for his comments.

Logged

Movie Trivia Fact : O.J. Simpson was considered for the title role in The Terminator, but producers feared he was \"too nice\" to be taken seriously as a cold-blooded killer.<br />Isn\'t hindsight great.<br />A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Agent Kay - Men in Black

People are hypothesizing about the race thing because no president in recent memory has gotten that kind of treatment in congress. They ask themselves, what changed? Well, the president is racially mixed now, and he just got massively disrespected in a very formal setting.

I suspect a lot of people don't think this is some sort of deliberately planned racism - that Joe Wilson thought to himself "a black man can't do this" and then yelled out. It's more like, they think many people subconsciously don't offer the same degree of respect to black people as they do to whites. I think they are right about that, though whether this is the case with Joe Wilson I am not so sure.

People are hypothesizing about the race thing because no president in recent memory has gotten that kind of treatment in congress. They ask themselves, what changed? Well, the president is racially mixed now, and he just got massively disrespected in a very formal setting.

I suspect a lot of people don't think this is some sort of deliberately planned racism - that Joe Wilson thought to himself "a black man can't do this" and then yelled out. It's more like, they think many people subconsciously don't offer the same degree of respect to black people as they do to whites. I think they are right about that, though whether this is the case with Joe Wilson I am not so sure.

Well it's not the first time that a president has had harsh treatment by congress. Bush was booed by democrats during his state of the union speeches(04 and 05 I think).

But since Wilson has apologized they should(as in congress) forget about it and focus on more important things.