New Health Care Passed - Does it include hip resurfacing for the normal patient?

[resurface]

First, I would never have a procedure done in any of those countries - India, Greece, Russia, Peru... Please!  UK, Canada, and US - fine.  I have seen cases presented from all these countries, and they "are not so experienced."  Edited in case the kids find this site!

It is amazing that no one has issues with our military spending, except Steve.  Any ever read about the Osprey helicopter! The fact is we spent money beyond our national means - both democrats and republicans - and now we have to pay for it. CAGR of healthcare dollars cannot be sustained.

Steve, they are socking it to the rich!  A new tax of 3.8% on long-term investments including dividends. 

Someone else on the site said it best, we have great surgeons, great technology & innovation.... with an inefficient delivery system.  Just becasue you get a knee resurfaced on a few days notice does not mean anything.  Go to the right suregon and it will take longer ,but what does it matter.  Red herring.

The site below is awesome for information about healthcare expenduress for those interested.  The link is to a fact sheet by the US Health & Human Services Sept:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp#TopOfPage

Good to see reasonale conversation by all.  Have a healthy and great day....

[obxpelican]

Steve,

Nobody said that some changes to healthcare, for instance pre-existing conditions is not a good thing, it should be changed.

What many of us fear is OUR government running OUR healthcare that affects OUR lives.  Like I asked before, show me a US govt social program that is efficient and cost effective, you cannot find it and we all know that Obama and his gang are using this current healthcare bill as a pathway to socialist healthcare.

Many people come to America for our healthcare because it's great, just ask the Newfoundland Premier, Danny Williams.

Obama does not even have support of the majority of this country for what he just signed.


Chuck

[Clydascope]

"I sit at home working on the computer all day and listen to Fox News to pass the time."

Pat, over and over again you advise people on this forum to seek second opinions. 

Maybe you should too.

[dw]

Most of the latter arguments against health reform are pure crap.  I suppose you'll next say that national health care is socialistic and communist.  I congratulate President Obama and the Democratic party for passing national health care.  Better to spend dollars on our health than pork-barrel defense or paying severance bonuses to the private sector executive frauds at failied wall street firms.  Everybody deserves health care.  Let the rich with incomes over $200 k/yr help fund it through tax increases.  If you go to India or elsewhere overseas, try winning a malpractice suit in a foreign court if your Dr. or hospital screws up!

whoa - maybe not socialistic/communistic in their strict definition, but it's definitively redistribution of wealth - which has both communistic and socialistic ideals.

The "everybody deserves" argument is an entitlement argument. I do agree no one should be turned away from necessary medical care, I don't want the government to decide who gets what though.

The first step should have been abolishing the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies â€" allowing national pools and competition. This would lower rates.

What does malpractice have to do with anything in the reform? Tort reform is something totally different (I would suggest that the Canadian model for tort is pretty good)

[B.I.L.L.]

I'm changing my mind on this and am going to be more positive.
I think it's awesome that the govt wants me to work harder and pay more taxes so those that aren't as driven to succeed can have the same health care as me and I don't mind helping them pay for it. I guess I was greedy before thinking that all the money I make should go to me and my family, not sure what I was thinking.
 I see now how wrong I was and that yes, we should punish those people who have worked hard to become "Rich", they should absolutely pay a higher percentage to help carry the lazy. Just because someone is not motivated to work hard and better themselves they should not be punished with sub standard insurance.  
 I see now that while the concept of "Freedom" means you have the oppurtunity to do anything you want with your life, it also means that some will not succeed and won't be able to afford good health care or own a home etc. Thats not fair is it ?
I realize now that the governments real job is to make sure everyone who steps foot in this country legally or not should get the finest health care available, regardless of who pays for it, I need to start thinking more about my fellow man and stop being so self centered.
What a jerk I have been.  Well I won't bore you anymore I have to get to work, I see Juan and Juanita are expecting again....

[dw]

Thank you B.I.L.L. I have now seen the light! Even though I'm far from rich, I can see how paying additional taxes will help!


As an aside - I'm all for opening up competition and putting some specific regulations in place. But, in reality, when everything kicks in, there's nothing stopping health insurers from jacking up rates.

And, what is stopping someone from getting insurance only for a major medical issue, then dropping the insurance right after said procedure? Shoot, my hip cost about 50 grand. I could have had no insurance, bought insurance right before the operation, had them pay their part (about 80%), and then I could have just dropped it with the new regs.

[DonC]

The easiest way to control people is to make them afraid. Fear is running rampant on the airwaves. Fox news has people on the edge of their seats. After listening to Glen Beck for an hour I have to peak through my blinds to see if there are Nazis marching in the streets and terrorists behind every tree. Fear sells and the pundits are making millions.

All this talk of Socialism and there is little or no discussion of what socialism entails. The mere use of the word is enough said. If it's socialistic, it must be bad.

There comes a point where the government has to step in and say…”we are going to tax people in order to provide this service”. This ‘stepping in’ is what most people now define as socialism.

The military is the largest social program we have. We support over 2000 military bases worldwide. Talk about excessive government spending. There are many other socialist programs currently in America …   public schools, police department, social security, fire department or medicare/medicaid or the fee for 911 on your phone bill.

The NFL is a fantastically successful experiment in corporate socialism. The league’s business practices contradict the tenets of a free market. With its salary cap and salary floor that oblige all 32 franchises to spend the same amount on players each year, the NFL effectively prohibits any team from gaining an investment advantage over its competitors.

I hear no one screaming socialism towards these programs. I know, technically these government programs are called ‘Public Goods’ but lets face it… it runs just like a socialist program. We all pay for it and the government decides, usually without the consent of the taxpayer, what munitions will be manufactured where troops will be sent, and what operations will be carried out on his/her dollar. Not only that, but our troops receive all kinds of benefits we would deem “socialist” if they were provided to the population at large: medical care, housing, childcare, education assistance, pensions etc.

Secondly, the benefits that a given person derives from the provision of a ‘Public Good’ do not depend on that individual’s contribution to funding it. Everyone benefits, including those who pay little or no taxes.

Now, you may be quick to point out that maintaining a military is vital to securing the freedom and prosperity of our nation. I agree but that doesn’t negate the fact that the military is far too big and the financial burden is enormous.

No question that 9-11 was horrible terrorist attack that killed over 3000 people but 45,000 people die EACH YEAR due to the lack of health care. I see nothing  wrong with health care becoming a ‘Public Good’ just like the military if we redirect funds out of the military and reduce our debt.

[obxpelican]

The military is the largest social program we have. We support over 2000 military bases worldwide. Talk about excessive government spending. There are many other socialist programs currently in America …   public schools, police department, social security, fire department or medicare/medicaid or the fee for 911 on your phone bill.

You're attempting to re-define a social program, I am talking FEDERAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS.  But that's ok.

The military is one of the biggest examples of waste, you really don't want to talk about waste and inefficiency in regard to miltary spending now do you?  You can call it anything you like, either way the military wastes more money than most of our programs.   Schools?  Come on, look at our schools, compare us to Japan and look at the results.  In my school district I could send my daughter to college on what they pay per student.  Give me a break.

Police departments have waste also, keep in mind schools and police departments are run at more of a local level, they are not federal social programs, most of their money is derived from local taxes.  The federal government does not RUN our police departments, schools are run by school boards (although don't get me started about them).

Medicaid, medicare, social security, all bloated and great examples of true inefficient, government waste, money is wasted by the billions in those true FEDERAL social programs.

What surprises me are the people who are actually buying into this cradle to grave nonsense that somehow our government is going to be efficient and cost effective with OUR health care.

I'm sorry, be it either George Bush, Vice President Biden, Al Gore or any other government idiot, I do not trust them with my life, you should not either.   

Again, please someone, please show me one social program our government runs that is efficient and cost effective.


Chuck

[dw]

Again, please someone, please show me one social program our government runs that is efficient and cost effective.

no one can - because there aren't any. It seems like the government's responsibility (the way it's currently constructed) is to re-distribute wealth - at all levels.

[Bionic]

The US Patent & Trademark Office has been operating at a profit.  This is despite the fact that neither it, nor any other government agency or program, is designed to operate at a profit.  This is where the comparison to private industry falls short.

Private companies must consistently make profits or die.  They exist to make profits.  Corporations may be in a particular industry, like electronics or insurance, but the only measure of their success is their profits.  Corporations have a duty to do what's best for their shareholders--not their customers or their employees--and they have no other duties to anybody else, except to the extent that government regulation (what Republicans call "socialism") requires it by law.

This is why the goal of insurance companies is to collect maximum premiums while paying out as little as possible.  With all the talk about how health care reform was going to kill Grandma, nothing pleases insurance companies more than when old people die as soon as possible after becoming sick.  Remember the "I'm not dead yet" skit from Monty Python.  The insurance company is the guy carrying the old man out to the wagon.

Government programs, on the other hand, are not driven by the profit motive.  In fact, they are designed not to operate at a profit, since profit is considered a sign of poor budgeting and a waste.  In recent years, the USPTO's profits have been funneled into the military.

[Bionic]

no one can - because there aren't any. It seems like the government's responsibility (the way it's currently constructed) is to re-distribute wealth - at all levels.

Capitalism is wealth redistribution run amok.  Not that I'm complaining.  I've benefited and I know it.  But I still don't think it's right.  I know CEOs work hard and all, but should they really make 300 times what the average employee makes?

Capitalism is always based on exploiting something, whether it be natural resources, workers, or the environment.  The whole point of capitalism is to make profit, yet profit is essentially a measure of unfair advantage and waste.  If I buy can get something for $10 and sell it for $20, sure I make a $10 profit, but where did that come from?

Don't get me wrong.  I love capitalism.  I think it's the best system we have.  But people need to be realistic about its limitations and especially its necessity to exploit for profit, so that its harshest effects can be blunted and we can be sure it's really working for the common good.

It turns out the "invisible hand" really doesn't magically do the right thing.  Sometimes it picks your pocket and other times it just needs to be washed.

[obxpelican]

True capitalism would work for healthcare if it were not for some of the silly government controls, for instance, any insurace company should be able to sell policies anywhere they wish.  Let's start with true capitalism in healthcare and allow true competition.

All companies do live for profit, government lives so that it can perpetuate itself, that includes giving away money for the most insane reasons.

A long time ago I remember a statistic that showed for every dollar that was spent by the government on welfare twenty eight cents got to the actual welfare recipient, I would be willing to bet that insurance companies yield far more % of money spent on actual healthcare.

I am blown away by the people who actually think that our government is going to provide efficient and cost effective product called healthcare for us when EVERY other social program has been a wasteful bust.

We're heading towards the same system that failed when Russia was the USSR, look at them now, which direction are they heading towards?  Socialism or Captialism.  Is China heading to or away from capitalism.

Hopefully in November the Senate and House goes to the Republicans, I always feel safer when the power is split between the Executive Branch and Congress.  Maybe in December we'll get a Christmas present, a repeal of this asinine law that Obama just signed.


Chuck

The US Patent & Trademark Office has been operating at a profit.  This is despite the fact that neither it, nor any other government agency or program, is designed to operate at a profit.  This is where the comparison to private industry falls short.

Private companies must consistently make profits or die.  They exist to make profits.  Corporations may be in a particular industry, like electronics or insurance, but the only measure of their success is their profits.  Corporations have a duty to do what's best for their shareholders--not their customers or their employees--and they have no other duties to anybody else, except to the extent that government regulation (what Republicans call "socialism") requires it by law.

This is why the goal of insurance companies is to collect maximum premiums while paying out as little as possible.  With all the talk about how health care reform was going to kill Grandma, nothing pleases insurance companies more than when old people die as soon as possible after becoming sick.  Remember the "I'm not dead yet" skit from Monty Python.  The insurance company is the guy carrying the old man out to the wagon.

Government programs, on the other hand, are not driven by the profit motive.  In fact, they are designed not to operate at a profit, since profit is considered a sign of poor budgeting and a waste.  In recent years, the USPTO's profits have been funneled into the military.

[Bionic]

Once again, the government isn't running anything here.  Contrary to what people may hear from Fox News, this is not a government takeover of health care.  It's just some new rules of the road for insurance companies and individuals.  I'm not aware that there's even any new government agency or organization involved.

[obxpelican]

Bionic,

I totally agree with you, but, please read what a number of us said, this bill is a pathway to socialized medicine.  All during and before the healthcare debate politicians have been saying this is only step one.

I could live with some of what is in the current bill, forcing people at the end of a huge fine is wrong, forcing states to put more money into the kitty is too much, it's an unfunded mandate that should not be there.

Bionic, I really think you have the good of all in mind, so do I, but we have different ways of doing so. 

Chuck

[obxpelican]

I want to say this from the bottom of my heart, I want everyone to know what a great group we have here, we have discussed something that has torn this nation in two and nobody has gotten personal with one another on this forum.

I've always said this, we have the best group of people on this forum.

I love all you guys and girls.

Chuck

[Bionic]

Well, even if it's in somebody's playbook to fully socialize health care, I think the experience with this bill has shown that it could only happen in the US in tiny, baby steps and with a lot of opposition along the way.  I wouldn't be surprised if this bill is all the healthcare reform we get for the next decade.

It's quickly getting time to move on to climate change policy and financial reform.  Obama has a long to-do list, and health care has already taken way too much time.

[PaulUK]

You may be interested to hear that treatments in the British National Health Services have to be approved for cost-effectiveness. The organisation (NICE) that does the approval has come in for a lot of criticism for being too strict, and blocking treatments that some patients would like.

Nevertheless, their recommendation for hip resurfacing is that "MoM hip resurfacing is recommended as an option for people with advanced hip disease who would otherwise receive a conventional primary total hip replacement (THR) and are likely to live longer than the device is likely to last." See http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA44 for full details.

Hopefully, your new heathcare arrangements will take a similar line.

[dw]

Once again, the government isn't running anything here.  Contrary to what people may hear from Fox News, this is not a government takeover of health care.  It's just some new rules of the road for insurance companies and individuals.  I'm not aware that there's even any new government agency or organization involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't Medicaid expanding to cover more people? I'm glad there isn't *more* of a "government option" but it still is expanding I think.

It's way more than just "rules of the road" - if it were just rules, there wouldn't have to be a way to pay for the program. The billions additional this will cost is going somewhere!

I agree though with your previous take - capitalism can promote greed and extravagance at others expense, and CEO’s make way to much (the corporate boards are a joke).

But, I wonder how many people would be in "the public service" if lobbyists and the corresponding money flow weren't involved.

[Bionic]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't Medicaid expanding to cover more people? I'm glad there isn't *more* of a "government option" but it still is expanding I think.

I'm pretty sure the push to extend Medicare to younger patients was killed.  I'll try to find out.

It's way more than just "rules of the road" - if it were just rules, there wouldn't have to be a way to pay for the program. The billions additional this will cost is going somewhere!

That's where the rules for individuals come into play.  Health insurance will now be mandatory for everyone who can afford it, and the expectation is that 30 million new people will be signed up.  That's a boatload of new premiums flowing to the insurance companies, and that's what's expected to pay for the enhanced services.

Some people are saying it's unconstitutional to force individuals to buy health insurance.  They view this new requirement as a "tax."  However, there's a strong argument that this aspect of the new law is similar to helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and other laws that certainly constrain individual rights but also promote the public safety.  14 attorneys general from around the country have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision.  It will be interesting to see how far that gets.

[Dayton96]

I know I'm too late for this debate but I have found it fascinating.  I agree with Chuck that it was pretty darn impressive that there were actually a group of Americans (& at least one Brit) who could have a honest debate on healthcare without resorting to name calling. 

I have one minor contribution for those who might stumble across this thread the way I did.  While I am a card carrying Republican, I did want to have an honest discussion on the facts of the issue and I found myself frustrated trying to separate the facts from the name calling on Fox and MSNBC. 

I happened to come across a book on the different types of health care programs around the world, including Europe, Japan, the UK, and India.  It was called, "The Healing of America," by T.R Reid.  I was really surprised to read that there was no uniform health care programs in Europe, but different types of health care programs and in each country health care developed a little differently.  The French health care system for instance uses a system of private doctors who charge a fee for their services and everyone is required to take out health insurance.  In the UK you have everyone covered, they don't pay when they visit the doctor, and it is more in line with what Americans think of when the term "national health care" is brought up in the debates.  The truth is there are a lot of choices out there and for us to have a true national debate, perhaps we might profit by looking at what other countries have done and then come up with a system that is truly an American one and fits our needs.