A death panel by any name
Question: Will EVERYONE be covered for EVERY condition in EVERY circumstance under Obama's proposed health plan? Answer: NO. So somewhere, someone, is going to decide who is eligible for treatment, and what treatments are allowed. There will be some criteria to decide how to spend the money, on what, on whom. What are the criteria? Will age be considered? Obama himself hinted at this when he said it might not make sense to give pacemakers to old people, to just give them pain medication. So there is your death panel, it's time to stop pretending that it doesn't exist because the people see through that lie. You can argue that insurance companies do that now, but I can choose to change my insurance anytime, i have to wait 4 years to change the government.
Advertisement
When you go to change your insurance, let me know how that goes. rofl
August 14, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Bulldog, I thought we were getting somewhere and you are back to quoting mistaken interpretations of common sense reforms to the health care system.
All this provision does is take the decision making process out of the corporate backrooms and brings it into the light if public discourse. More grandmas are being killed by Aetna than by Medicare due to rationing, so you are continuing to be intellectually dishonest when discussing the issue. Here is a blog to get you started on what is really in the main House measure, which is not at all "ultra liberal" in focus or intent and is quite fiscally conservative to boot.
More so than the liberal base would prefer.
The industry panels in HR 3200 are designed to come to a consensus on best practices of care in order to lower costs and will be composed of private and public advisers alike. It will include pharma companies and private insurers and health care providers and educators and policy makers. This medical best practices board will act in a similar fashion to boards in other public-private hybrids like the Netherlands and Germany.
Let's talk facts instead of spin.
August 14, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just pointing out that it is a lie to attack Palin for not knowing what she is talking about, that there will in fact be decisions made that will deny people treatment and they will die as a result. And this decisions will be made for a number of reasons, some political. By that I mean some groups will get more treatment and more money than others for reasons other than medical.
August 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is wrong. These medical best practices boards have nothing to do with the government.
They will be an cross-functional industry panel making decisions in a way that is actually accountable to the public instead of the boardroom decisions to kill people that are made today independent of any objective outside review.
I would rather work on reforming the existing system in order to provide better outcomes than to give a second of press to hyperbolic rants that have zero to do with the actual solutions being offered.
August 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think of it this way: the rating panels looking for best practices are a bit like the coaches and reporters rating teams -- not everybody agrees with the ratings but a lot of attention is paid to what the highly rated teams are doing right.
Findging out what is the most effective way to help a patient is a far cry from saying that the old and sick should be killed. That was the lie that Palin told.
Some things like back surgery were previously believed to help but have since been shown to cause more trouble than they save -- should they be paid for?
It may be that some chemotherapies kill more people than they save -- if you can't yet tell which patient that chemo will save and which it will kill -- is it wrong to deny that drug to all even though it would have save some people because if you give that drug you will kill more people?
August 14, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And considering the vast amount spent in the UK, the sky high income taxes, VAT, and gasoline taxes, they should have a system superior to ours. Instead they admit that hospitals are overcrowded, un clean, and a typical wait is 4 months for treatment. In the US I can get an MRI in a few hours, can get angioplasty in less than a day. Nothing requires a 4 month wait other than an organ transplant. I don't want to switch to a system that might let me die waiting for treatment.
August 14, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your anecdotal references to a system that is totally unlike ours aside, the vast majority of citizens in the UK like the NHS. They don't mind the taxes they pay to cover its operating expenses and get twice the returns for half the cost of the US system.
We are not talking about a UK type system with the reforms being discussed, so this objection still makes no sense.
If your private insurance company kicks you off its rolls, your wait for a procedure becomes a death sentence rather than a matter of urgency. This happens everyday here. People declare bankruptcy everyday in America because they had health insurance that was inadequate to their needs despite being promised the complete opposite.
The medical best practices board will help keep everyone honest.
August 14, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're certainly luckier in the speed department than some are. You also must have used different UK facilities than I did. In Banbury and London the doctor's surgery was just fine. So was the hospital. And I didn't need to bill my insurance company in the U.S. for reimbursement. I paid just what the Brits would pay for emergency treatment: nothing.
You must live where there's a drive up MRI machine available on every other corner. Countering anectodal evidence with other anectdotal evidence here's another American's experience. http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/
And for that matter, here's a comparison of costs.
August 14, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your continuing arguments just sound so clueless, you are dragging me in like a troll, I really must pipe up.
Nothing will change on that front.
You are basically talking about access for paying out of pocket, you are not talking about getting health services under a health insurance plan, which by its very nature "rations," or triages, health care.
You will still be able to pay out of pocket for any test you like. You can pay for the plane ticket to go to the closest city that has too many MRI machines for its population now, and you will be able to do that in the future. You will still be able to grab your wallet and go for it.
What the bill and the suggested panels are about is trying to standardize what is offered by a standard health insurance plan, so they are all competing on an even playing field. Is not about limiting what is offered if you want to pay the moon for something or get something one doctor thinks you need and ten other doctors think you don't need.
Worse case scenario: your chances of being limited in what your insurance covers will be the same after the bill is enacted as it is now. Hopefully, it will do a bit better than that, but that's your worse case scenario.
Before it was decided by your individual insurance company looking at things like what other insurance companies do and the Medicare standards, or too often, just looking at their bottom line. Now there will be a new set of standards. What is the dif? You can't predict what disease you will have and what treatments you will want or need for it. Chances are pretty even, then, at you being denied now, or you being denied after standards are changed.
You also have always been free to not have insurance and pay out of pocket, and to go for Dr. Gomez's Special Peachstone Cancer Treatment. But be forewarned: the insured and their insurance companies hog good resources.
The one thing that will change in favor of what someone like you wants is that currently you are not free now to change your insurance after you have a pre-existing condition if your insurance denies your treatment. Right now you are then screwed, no one else will take you. After the bill is passed, your chances of being able to switch to another company that might be more reasonable about your treatment will be greatly increased.
BTW, a current wait for a mammogram in any hospital in New York City, paying for it out of pocket @$400+, is 4 months. I know, I tried, I don't have health insurance, I called 5 different hospitals with a prescription from a OBGYN to get a baseline mammogram, none of them could give me anything closer than 4 months away. I finally got it done quicker, and totally free, through a special American Cancer Society program, which got me into a hospital within a week. I could have gone to Joe Schmo's mammography shop in Westchester and got a quicker appointment for a worthless reading and intrepretation at $800, that I could have done.
Appointments are triaged now at quality providers, and they will continue to be triaged after a bill is enacted. The reason I had to wait without an "in" is that when an oncologoist or health insurance company wants a mammogram done, they go first.
And I happen to know from a friend that the waiting time for a new primary care doctor exam with HIP, one of the biggest insurers in New York, is also 4 months. But you can find a doctor that will see you on Park Avenue tomorrow for a checkup if you are willing to pay for it. That's because they are seeing the patients that are sick first, and it seems, fewer and fewer doctors want to be in primary care.
You can also fly to Mayo Clinic in Rochester and pay for whatever you want. You will still be able to do that after the bill passes. I bet now, before a bill passes, and later, after a bill passes, you would however have to wait a while to get an appointment for an MRI at the Mayo Clinic paying out of pocket, no matter how much money you offer them. If you want to go to Dr. Joe Schmo's MRI in Poughkeepsie tomorrow, on the other hand, I bet he is just waiting for your call.
If a lot of docs don't like the bill, they will opt of insurance all together, like they are already doing with the current messed up system, then you will really have more of what want you want, you have many more choices of being able to pay for your health care on demand tomorrow on your own, I do hope you are very very rich, though.
Summary: you obviously don't have a lot of experience trying to get health care in this country. Your reasoning shows no understanding of the "rationing" or whatever you want to call it, of current system we are living under, nor of what changes the proposed reforms will make to that.
August 14, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that the reason that your health care is so prompt is that the those who can't afford health care aren't in line with you?
August 15, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just put your name on the list and show up when you're called. My vote is already in.
August 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right health insurance companies do it now and yes you can change carriers. However since they all ration to a greater or lesser degree eventually you run out of choices.
Finally rather than just saying no I'd like to hear what you propose.
Now this assumes you believe we need to reform healthcare. If you don't, just say so. However, if you don't you will need to address how as an economy we will deal with healthcare eating up 17% of our GDP and only gong up. Also tell me how the US, as part of the world economy do we compete with those nations where healthcare cost are 9-11% of GDP. You will also need to address how you are going to handle your health insurance premiums doubling over the next decade.
I seriously would like to hear your ideas. I am tired of the right screaming it sucks just because it's a Democrat/liberal plan and I am equally tired of those of us on the left telling the right to just shut the fuck up. Neither solves or accomplishes anything. As we have seen it breeds hate and mistrust.
August 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would address some of the fundamental causes of the high cost now. I would increase the supply of doctors by forcing med schools to increase enrollment, and allowing foreign doctors to immigrate easier. I would severely limit malpractice awards, preferring instead to suspend/retrain/revoke doctors who make mistakes. I would shield drug companies from lawsuits if they followed all FDA procedures, and set up greater incentives for R&D -maybe making new drugs tax exempt for the first year.
On insurance, I would require portability and coverage for pre existing conditions for someone changing coverage. If you had insurance and lost your job, I would require coverage be available at the same rate as offered to others of a similar age. I would prohibit coverage being dropped because someone gets sick, that's part of the risk insurance companies are expected to take.
And I would require everyone to have at least major medical coverage, and would allow ER's to bar treatment of non emergencies to prevent people from gaming the system by using the ER as their doctor.
I think that addresses most of the problems - lowers cost, fixes insurance problems, and puts everyone into the system so costs are lower for all.
August 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
...cleverBullDog about your plan, you forgot "cover EVERYONE for EVERY condition in EVERY circumstance", which might have some negative impact on your goal to 'lower costs'.
August 14, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words you want government more involved. Because all your proposals and I do not have issue with them, requires the government to pass laws and create regulations.
Next, last time I checked pretty much all your proposals are being discussed. The only one I haven't read about and I like it, is medical schools and foreign doctors. The latter would seem to be fairly simple as long as they met our standards. This could be accomplished by putting them back through a form of internship. The former I'm not sure how you force medical schools to accept more students. There is only so much space in any given school. Might we say instead we create more high quality medical and nursing schools. Certainly not a quick fix.
Might I also suggest that some commission sit down and develop one insurance form, one set of billing codes and one set of coverage guidelines that everybody must use. Granted it will wipe out a large chunk of an industry that does nothing but medical billing and insurance paperwork.
Next, what would your problem be with a not for profit public option that must adhere to the same guidelines you suggest as the private sector.
Finally, I know the whole tort reform is a big bogey man for some, but in reality malapractice adds less than 1% to healthcare costs. This is not say 1% is not a lot of money, but it is not the panacea that many seem to think. Besides this has also been proposed in this current round.
August 14, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think malpractice adds more than you think, considering the amount of defensive medicine that is practiced solely to defend against possible lawsuits, in addition to the costs of malpractice insurance which is passed on to everyone too.
I like standardizing forms and paperwork. But why do we need the non profit public option? As an aside, why under the current proposals is medicare still a separate program? If you want a universal program, shouldn't that be incorporated into it?
August 14, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think malpractice adds more than you think," Read the article I linked.
"As an aside, why under the current proposals is medicare still a separate program? If you want a universal program, shouldn't that be incorporated into it?"
Abso-fucking-lutely! Many have been saying we should just drop age 65 from the Medicare rules and be done with it. Now we till have the question of funding, but through efficiency and raising the cap those might be taken care of.
However to answer your question as to why not, I think the hard right sees this as the real step toward single payer. The ultimate bogey man.
August 14, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it is because no democratic politician thought to offer Medicare as the public option as a way of making the numbers work.
August 14, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not going to argue with you I think it's a lot of both. However, what I find stunning, take the silly labels like "Death Panel" out of the discussion, ask some serious questions and stop the name calling and lo and behold Clever and at least I are closer to agreement than I would have ever thought. While we may disagree about the public option, sort of, because the Medicare idea of his is probably the right one. We are not at each others throat about it. He's not calling me a liar and I'm not calling him an idiot. Now are things he and I will never agree on? Absolutely and he knows that as well as I do, such is life.
August 14, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but it's a start. I'll be happy if we can build on that trend rather than backslide as we normally do.
August 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
They originally reported on that University of Connecticut Study in the New Haven Advocate.
The problem wasn't too much medical malpractice, the problem was that there wasn't enough.
That's a meme that's old, tired, and illogical on it's face.
August 14, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe making new drugs tax exempt for the first year.
The industry creates "new" drugs all the time that are one bit different so they can market it again as better. There are new anit-depressants that went through all the FDA scrutinies but are no better then placeboes, information obtained through the FOIA and published recently, IN EUROPE!!! The FDA requires these tests be done but it is not required to make the results public. Besides, there mandate is to ensure it is not dangerous, not that it is necessarily better or "new and improved."
August 15, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah you're right someone IS going to have to make those decisions .... THE FUCKING DOCTOR. What changes is that the people who do it now, the insurance companies, are prohibited from overriding the doctor based on economic concerns. Any public option will also be held to those constraints.
Try reading the fucking bill, asshole (do it BEFORE spouting off about cost-sharing and clinical appropriateness to save us all some asshattery). And also try listening to your fellow moronic wingnuts - the death panel meme started out as a bitchfest about "end of life advice". At least keep your wignuttery consistent for chrissake.
Also, you can change your insurance ANY TIME YOU WANT under the plan. You can buy gilded insurance at maximum price. There are no limits on what the market can sell, only a minimum standard. I guess it's easier to pull shit out of your ass - like Palin does - than just spend a few hours to be informed (the thing is in HUGE type with 4" margins and 24 lines per page ... hardly too much to read).
August 14, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which bill, idiot? Last I checked there were about 5 different ones, and nothing finalized. So tell me how you are so sure you support something that is not even written yet?
August 14, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How are you so against something that hasn't been written yet?
August 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Education and Labor(BIG .pdf) one that I prefer, of course.
The existence of multiple versions doesn't change the fact that you have read NONE of them and are arguing from a clear position of talking out of your ass. Read what the progressives have offered, all and all it's pretty damn good and answers the specious bullshit that seems to be flowing from the critics. ALL versions are reasonably similar and they can ONLY be merged now, not added to; so in this case, it doesn't really matter which version you are talking about. If you want to assert similar protections are absent from one of the other versions, read 'em and then come back and argue from a position of knowing what the hell you are talking about. If one of the less progressive bills DOESN'T answer the concern voiced in your post here, maybe you should join us and start advocating for this version. Because if that's the only thing bothering you; we've got ya covered ;-)
Compare this version to the one from Energy and Commerce(BIG .pdf) and you'll have an idea of the range of possibilities after it's merged - the house bill will likely be the progressive high end when the thing goes into reconciliation with the senate; a process where dems dominate. View the two bills as the toolbox dems will use to keep the base from primarying every one of Rham's blue dogs (they already hoovered up all the special interest money in committee). Whatever comes out in the merged house bill they can stop fighting over in the Senate (within reason) and grant concessions to get the stuff missing from the House bill in the merged Senate one.(in some ways, it's better to have the Senate fight still open until the House is set in stone).
So, I'd say it's reasonably safe to argue within the broad boundaries set by the completed House bills; the Senate still has to merge with their HELP committee bill so their progressive bar is pretty decent no matter what Baucus does - there is quite a bit of wheeling-dealing space.
There. Even gave a little lesson on how to use your reading to better understand the process. Now ... go MAN, educate yourself.
August 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You stepped in your own poop with that comment, bulldog.
August 14, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling folks "idiots" says a lot about you. Rude.
August 15, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got me laughing but you are sooooo right. And probably more like the Hosp Administrator with a death panel en force.
August 14, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment makes Jesus weep and toads chuckle.
August 14, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious, (Sarcastically) "How dare you call it a Death panel"
This discussion is nothing more than disingenuous semantic mind games, for Democratic talking points?
If you were to just call it a panel, would the Democrats agree to this truism?
To the Democrats: Would it be true to call it, a “Panel to Sustain life”? until some panel decides to pull the plug, then we call it a panel to end life?
Which is it, Life panel or Death panel? Life or Death there is no in between.
Some have no problem with making the decision to hire kervorkian when they're ready. Except the Rightous "do we sustain life panel" reserves the right and power to decide.
August 14, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this panel of which you speak? That's what I can't figure out ... every government body created by this bill has a name - neither "Death panel" nor "Panel to sustain life" exists in any version. Focus here. By NAME, what proposed government panel performs the function you describe?
August 14, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there will be limits. There's limits with all insurance. The point is that everyone gets good basic coverage--which is far better than many people have now.
If you choose to get private insurance on top of that, well then that's your choice. The point is to get a floor so that those without health insurance now have choices. Right now, if you are dropped from your coverage or just unable to afford healthcare because of a pre-existing condition or you are your own employer, then there are few choices.
But to say "death panels" is to equate nominal limits in an insurance plan to a sentencing of a criminal after being found guilty of capital murder. It's completely misleading and a bullshit term.
August 14, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
though kgb's comment above is priceless.
August 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best medical practices were not considered when my mother became ill. She was 91, almost 92, when she developed a hole in her stomach that caused sepsis. There was no way for her to recover from the sepsis, but the surgeons offered her the possibility of surgery to repair the hole. I don't think anyone counseled her on the odds of success. She asked me what I thought she should do and I said have the surgery. And she was in excellent condition mentally and physically except for this freakish problem.
So the last 4 days of her life were spent in the ICU with her hands tied to the bed rail and with a respirator down per throat. She was unable to talk or move. They finally took the respirator out a few hours before she died. I don't know what she would have done if someone had been truthful with her. It's very hard to say no if someone offers you hope, however slim.
She should never have had the surgery and they should never have suggested it, especially without telling her what her prognosis was. This is an example of a case when best practices was needed badly. My parents were life-long republicans. Both of them had advance directives. I'm sure they would be thoroughly disgusted by today's mob rhetoric.
August 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
CleverBullDog - have you had your brain checked for Bushoid Tissue? Did you have a Limbaughtomy? Do you ever read what you write in your own posts?
Since your plan, doesn't include: "cover EVERYONE for EVERY condition in EVERY circumstance", your plan by your own definition is a DEATH PANEL BY ANY NAME!! NITWIT!
August 14, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you asking because you are concerned about yourself or are you concerned about a family member?
Because right now, families face these exact dilemmas and make decisions about them based on restrictive parameters every single day.
August 14, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The death panel claims are admittedly over the top. But senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about about what President Obama is proposing - once healthcare is nationalized (or mostly nationalized) rationing care is inevitable.
Once healthcare is a free good, demand will soar and government costs will soar. And when the public finally reaches its taxing limit, something will have to give on the care and spending side.
The Democrats response is that private insurance already rations. However, there is a huge difference between coverage made under millions of private contracts and rationing under government.
Yes the US rations by ability to pay, but this is true of every good and service. The problem is that the government rations through brute force, either explicitly restricting the use of medicine or lowering payments below market rates. Both methods lead to longer waiting lines, lower quality of care or less innovation by the drug companies.
The political and fiscal pressure to further ration Medicare would increase exponentially if government is paying for almost everyone's care. The better way to slow the growth of medicare is to give seniors more control over their own healthcare and the incentives to spend wisely, by offering competitive insurance plans.
August 14, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once healthcare is a free good, demand will soar and government costs will soar.
Actually, if it gets easier for people to get something they tend to ignore it. Europe and other countries with public healthcare do not see more usage. Why would we be any different? I woud agree we will have an initial run on the clinics, but that will subside. People need healthcare not health insurance. No one needs those middle men.
August 15, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demand won't soar. This is just a ridiculous talking point. Everyone in this country already uses health care, there is no additional demand to drive.
Many people don't actually pay the costs because they can't be insured for whatever reason and that gets added to all of our bills. The uninsured use emergency rooms as the measure of last resort, which is the most expensive care to get.
This is not a debatable issue. The jury is in and the facts are clear: Universal Health Coverage lowers demand by making people healthier through preventative care and nutritional consultation. If we could adjust our food policies as well, we could lower demand even further for some our most expensive diseases to manage and treat. Maybe they can get to that one next year.
Nothing in any of the existing proposals (even the most "liberal" one in the House) suggests extending Medicare to every American. Do you even read this shit before you post it? Better yet, how about you read the actual bills under consideration before posting.
That might help inform your opinion with some actual facts.
August 15, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not everyone. Millions forgo health care for years because they can't pay for it. Period.
August 15, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my point is that everyone uses it at some point. In the case of your example, by the time they do use it, we end up paying ten times as much as a visit to the doctor once a year would have cost us.
August 16, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demand may soar. Just because everyone uses it already doesn't mean that people won't use it more often.
One company I used to work for had a health plan with a real deminimus co-pay (I think it was $5 or $10) When they raised it to $50, it caused the number of employee healthcare visits to drop sharply.
The opposite can happen if people perceive that their out-of-pocket costs fall.
August 16, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think perception of cost will be immaterial. No one is talking about free health care except for a very small number of people, who most likely go straight to an emergency room for the sniffles.
It is the hard-working blue collar guy who works two jobs and forgoes health care because of a lack of insurance. Doesn't even think of sponging off the system. Give him affordable access and he won't be abusing the system.
Universal access to health care may create an initial demand spike, but the curve will almost immediately turn to a prolonged easing of the actual burden on the medical system. Even if per capita use of the system rises, over the long-term the costs will still go down because people will be overall more healthy.
This isn't the final step, but a strong public option that gives people who can't get group coverage for whatever reason, as well as for the poor and disabled and our seniors, is just a sensible addition to any effective reform package. Add in regulations for insurers, the medical best practices panels and a new IT infrastructure and we have a shot at making a real dent in the problem.
August 16, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bulldog has been thoroughly squelched by now, so I won't repeat those points. The only thing I would add is that the CBO has looked at the malpractic/tort reform issue and concluded that even if one includes "defensive medicine" in the analysis, the costs of malpractice awards and malpractice insurance are ressponsible for only a very minor fraction of total healthcare costs. In fact, several states have already enacted the types of tort reform advocated by healthcare reform opponents, and have seen little change in healthcare expenses. That issue is basically a non-starter.
August 14, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here ya go, Bulldog. Argue with AARP. They say you're wrong. I think you should tell them differently. Based on your credentials and all ...
Myth: Health care reform is socialized medicine.
Fact: Health care reform will preserve the employer-based health care system, meaning an estimated 200 million Americans will continue to get their coverage through their employers.
Fact: For people buying coverage for themselves, there would be a range of private health plans to choose from. Also, the so-called "public plan" option would seek to give American consumers another choice if they can't find affordable, quality coverage in the private insurance market. The goal of the "public plan" is to give consumers the best value for their money and force greater competition among insurance plans for our business.
Fact: Every proposal that Congress is considering would allow people to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
Bottom Line: Health care reform isn't about a government takeover. It's about guaranteeing all Americans a choice of health care plans they can afford.
Myth: Health care reform means rationed care.
Fact: None of the health reform proposals being considered would stand between individuals and their doctors or prevent any American from choosing the best possible care.
Fact: Health care reform will NOT give the government the power to make life or death decisions for anyone regardless of their age. Those decisions will be made by an individual, their doctor and their family.
Fact: Health care reform will help ensure doctors are paid fairly so they will continue to treat Medicare patients.
Bottom Line: Health reform isn't about rationing; it's about giving people the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to keep their doctors and that they will always have a choice of affordable health plans.
Myth: Health care reform will hurt Medicare.
Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.
Fact: Health care reform will lower prescription drug costs for people in the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole" so they can get better afford the drugs they need.
Fact: Health care reform will protect seniors' access to their doctors and reduce the cost of preventive services so patients stay healthier.
Fact: Health care reform will reduce costly, preventable hospital readmissions, saving patients and Medicare money.
Fact: Rather than weaken Medicare, health care reform will strengthen the financial status of the Medicare program.
Bottom Line: For people in Medicare, health care reform is about lowering prescription drug costs for people in the "doughnut hole", keeping the doctor of your choice, improving the quality of care, and eliminating billions in waste that is causing poor care and medical errors.
Myth: Health care reform is too expensive – we can't afford it.
Fact: The President and Congress have committed to producing legislation that will be paid for so it won't saddle our children and grandchildren with debt.
Fact: If we do nothing to fix health care, families with Medicare or employer-based health coverage will likely see their premiums nearly double again in the next seven years.
Fact: If we do nothing to fix health care, the share of your income spent on health care will nearly double in the next seven years.
Bottom Line: When one in three Americans say someone in their family skipped pills, postponed or cut back on needed medical care due to the cost; when countless bankruptcies are related to medical expenses; when the number of uninsured approaches 50 million; when government spending on health programs rises so rapidly that it jeopardizes other priorities; and when employers struggle to pay for the costs of health care, the fact is, we can't afford not to fix health care.
Myth: Health care reform means the government can make life-and-death decisions for you.
Fact: Health care reform will NOT give the government the power to make life-and-death decisions for anyone regardless of their age. Those decisions will be made by individuals, their doctor and their family.
Fact: No one, including the government or your insurance company, will be given power to make life-and-death decisions for you.
Bottom Line: Health care reform isn't about putting the government in charge of difficult end of life decisions. It's about giving individuals and families the option to talk with their doctors in advance about difficult choices every family faces when loved ones near the end of their lives.
August 15, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink