By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
President Barack Obama speech to the American Medical Association Monday hit the right spots.
U.S. health care is too bureaucratic, too expensive and too ineffective.
He listed the usual suspects, such as doctors who feel they have to order unneeded tests to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits.
But Obama highlighted an aspect of health care that's finally getting more coverage: It's time for Americans to take more responsibility for our own health.
The money quotes from Obama's speech Monday:
"The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.
"It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That's a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that's a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs."
Delicious
Digg
According to the latest
According to the latest reports from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, less than 50% of Americans who are over the age of 50 have had a screening of the colon done.
Many people with Medicare have not had this screening done, not even those with Medicare as well as private insurance.
More of this here: http://medicarenewsline.com/colonoscopy-what%E2%80%99s-the-need/medicare-benefits/
People are taking their health for granted.
Canada is starting to change...
One province, I think it's either Ontario or BC, has repealed the laws that make it illegal to provide or obtain medical care in Canada that is NOT part of the public system. Those prohibitions are the scariest part of Canada's medical system, and are one of the reasons so many Canadians come to the US for medical care. The remaining provinces do not allow a physician or other medical practioner to work outside the government system, and also do not allow people to obtain any type of medical care outside the government system. England already allows for private insurance and medical care for those who can afford it, I do not know if this is a recent occurrance, or if England has always allowed that for the general population.
What about health care for the fly Obama killed - video
This is shocking - in his own words, our Supreme Leader says 'I got the sucker' when he killed a large, persistent fly during a CNBC interview (no, it wasn't the suck-up interviewer). Where is PETA? Where is the ACLU?? Where is the humanity???
Relive the Moment Here!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1154919821&play=1
p.s. a CNBC reporter called it a 'Make My Day' moment - you may now take a moment to throw your dinner up.
Killing a fly shouldn't be
Killing a fly shouldn't be considered news. We all do it all day long as these creatures suck our blood and annoy us.
__________________
Samuel Stanislas, part of the Traduceri medicale team.
Do I Detect a Math Flaw?
If the uninsured rate for noncitizens is 45 percent, wouldn’t that mean 45 percent of the noncitizens? If there are, oh say 20 million noncitizens in the US wouldn't that be about 9 million uninsured?
I don’t think that necessarily undermines your point, it just changes the scale a little.
I'm wondering too...
"Among the foreignborn population, the uninsured rate for naturalized citizens was statistically unchanged at 16.4 percent, while the uninsured rate for noncitizens increased from 43.1 percent to 45.0 percent.35 The proportion of the foreign-born population without health insurance in 2006 was about two and a half times that of the native-born population in 2006."
From the report linked below.
That means that 45% of the 46 million uninsured are not citizens of the U.S. This could be anyone from visting here on visa, work, or illegal? Just curious.
I Was Just Wondering.
Here and elsewhere I read all these stories about the horrors of the Canadian and British healthcare systems and it made me wonder; why haven’t Canada and Britten repealed their laws and gone back to a private system? They are, after all, democracies. Has any country in the world ever abandoned a tax supported healthcare system once it was established? Are Americans that much smarter than everyone else? Or do we spend so much more on healthcare than anyone else in the world just to stimulate the economy? Why haven’t the elderly lobbied to shut down Medicare so they can get some private insurance? They’re real good lobbyists and they vote.
I was just wondering.
kenm: You have raised some
kenm: You have raised some good points, but a little more information might be helpful. First, while persons rotate in and out of insurance, this is not necessarily a short term problem as you suggest. Studies indicate that lower income workers and workers in certain industries have recurrent bouts of being off insurance. Second, a troubling phenomenon is the rate of underinsurance which is not even counted in the uninsured numbers. This has been steadily growing as copayments and deductibles have risen. So, the number of uninsured statistic represents several real problems not solved within our current health care system.
statistics
The source of the number is a census bureau report:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
And I find it interesting that discussions about our healthcare system always seem to bring up the immigrant bogeyman.
Bogeyman?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
And I find it interesting that discussions about our healthcare system always seem to bring up the immigrant bogeyman.
The "immigrant bogeyman"? Or do you mean the ILLEGAL immigrant bogeyman?
Taxpayers deserve to know..
How many are illegal aliens - who should be deported ASAP
How many have coverage available at work but have to pay a modest fee so don't purchase it even though they can easily afford it, or who have enough money to pay for insurance on their own, but choose to use the money elsewhere.
How many are eligible for existing programs, but are too lazy to sign up.
How many are people who have money and prefer to self insure.
How many are counted as not having health insurance for the year because they changed jobs and were counted because their insurance from their old job stopped on Friday and the insurance from their new job didn't start until Monday.
We as taxpayers deserve to know these answers BEFORE ANYTHING IS DONE. This is a serious subject and should not be rushed into before all the facts are known, just because Obama is afraid that he won't get his socialized medicine program. That is what is going on here, pass it as fast as possible before the taxpayers figure out that this plan is bad for everyone.
Valid Points
BigSteve, these guys have valid points about illegal aliens (who DO need to be on a bus back home) and people who voluntarily choose to go without health insurance (like young single guys who think they are 10 feet tall and bulletproof, and for whom beer money is more important). We've all heard the stories about the poor hardworking single mother who cannot afford to take her babies to the doctor. I'm sure there are some like that, but before we go into this thing lock, stock, and barrel, I think we need a lot more information about exactly how many of these people there really are and why they can't afford health care insurance. Nothing is more irritating than seeing people getting Government benefits like food stamps due to their supposed need, then you see them buying lottery tickets and beer in the supermarket. It may be a lot easier to just provide Medicaid in the short run without jumping into a whole new system.
The big problem here is costs. If they can't bring the costs down, you can have the best health care plan in the world and it won't do any good. I don't really see how expanding availability of insurance is going to cut costs any. There are incremental things that can be done first -- like reducing the Medicare payments and letting Medicare negotiate for drugs -- that aren't so politically charged and will have a positive effect.
rationing
We have rationing now -- 46 millions Americans have no healthcare coverage at all.
CDC Stats
Your statement has nothing to do with rationing.
The CDC has some good data on this:
If you are below poverty all children are covered under S-CHIP yet 9% of children are uninsured. Whose fault would that be.
The vast majority of uninsured are between 18-25 years of age. This makes sense, many are just starting out in life, have begun or are beginning careers, they are young and healthy and see no reason to divert money from their paychecks for something many dont feel they need.
Married couples are far mor likely to have insurance. Hispanics make up the largest group of uninsured with high school dropouts and low wage earners making up the greatest percentage of uninsured.
What the CDS study really shows though is uninsured health care is usually a short term problem. Less than 8% of those without healthcare had not had healthcare for more than a year. Most of the uninsured were uninsured for a short period of time and my guess would be it has to do with job losses or job changes.
True?
I've heard that number many times but never have heard the source. Or a break down. How many of them are illegal aliens who shouldn't even be in the country? How many of them could pay for insurance but just don't for whatever reason. How exactly do they count that number? And the statement that they have no insurance taken to mean they have NO HEALTHCARE is a pile of dung.
Big Steve...
Of this 46 million, how many voluntarily don't have coverage, how many qualify for coverage but are, I guess, too stupid to use it, and how many are illegal aliens, who, IMO, SHOULD NOT GET COVERAGE, and should not be treated. Put them on a bus back home!!!
You are willing to give healthcare to govt. based on this bogus number????
How Can This Possibly Be...
I guess all you libs will be moaning about this now, just as you did with Cheney!!!! I doubt it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/
And it is from YOUR cable channel...
I guess this is another case of "change you can believe it".
mercenaries
That's a great army recruitment tool -- we pay foreign mercenaries (who operate outside all of our laws and without any accountability as Blackwater has shown) many times more than our actual soldiers. So much for supporting the troops.
Medicare
Medicare is working a lot better than the program for providing healthcare to older Americans that preceded it.
Is it?
Define "a lot better" please. And then tell us the current date the CBO says Medicare will run out of money. Then ask the doctors, nurses, and hospitals what they think of Medicare. How many doctors in the past 10 years have stopped taking Medicare patients (and not because Medicare is "a lot better")? Then tell us once the system fails what the people who have paid into the system to get nothing out of it say.
No, I reject your unfounded statement of "a lot better".
Medicare Big Steve...
As a Medicare recipient, I will have to say that I have no problem with the program. BUT, this is a program that I pay to use, and I have no choice.
To pattern our entire healthcare system on a Medicare approach with cause many doctors to simply fold-up shop and result in worse choices and care IMO. I have lived both in England and Australia, and total government run healthcare is a disaster in both countries. You people that champion it need to admit that rationing will be a fact of life and MANY needless early deaths will occur. Insuring illegal aliens is not worth ruining our healthcare system IMO...
Kcgrh
Which is the fallacy of Medicare. Many people with private insurance, offering better services and care lose that option when they become 67 and have to sign up for Medicare.
On Saturday, BO proposed to cut Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements by an additional $313 billion over ten years, on top of the $309 billion in cuts he proposed in his 2010 budget plan.
These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments are nothing more than reimbursement reductions with no empirical or economic basis to justify them. They will not bend the cost curve; instead, they will shift even more costs onto consumers as doctors and hospitals fleeced by the feds look to make up the difference elsewhere.
You dont think the care you receive will decline because of these cuts do you?
kenm...
I have no doubt that the Medicare quality will decline due to the big 0's program, IF ENACTED. I would prefer to pay more to keep M since as you say, I have no private option anymore...
Healthcare reform is just another big 0 income redistribution program and people are either blind or too stupid to realize it... I really fear the coming decline in the quality of our healthcare...
healthcare
rik asks: "Now tell us all again why it is a good idea to have the government run healthcare."
Because private health insurance companies have botched the job so thoroughly?
So that's why government should get invoved?
Because private health insurance companies have botched the job so thoroughly?
So that's why government should get invoved? As I and many others have pointed out the government seems to do a WORSE job. So I guess you want WORSE healthcare instead of BAD healthcare? Not exactly what I'd like.
Oh, and get this:
US hires mercenaries for Iraq role
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078464637030.html
The US is hiring mercenaries in Chile to replace its soldiers on security duty in Iraq.
A Pentagon contractor has begun recruiting former commandos, other soldiers and seamen, paying them up to $US4000 ($A5300) a month to guard oil wells against attack by insurgents.
Government Healthcare
Because private health insurance companies have botched the job so thoroughly?
How is Medicare and the VA health systems working out? Which system is broke and providing worse care government health care or private health care?
VA Health Care and Privatized Military Housing
How is Medicare and the VA health systems working out? Which system is broke and providing worse care government health care or private health care?
Dunno about Medicare, but the VA health care system works extremely well for what it is. It's a system designed to process through a heckuva lot of old veterans on a shoestring budget, and overall they do a very good job. My old man was a WWII vet and got all his health care there by choice even though he had health insurance that would have paid for private health care. Part of VA's success is that VA is allowed to negotiate with drug companies and pays a fraction of what Medicare gets charged for the same drugs -- the Bush administration refused to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices (repeal of that particular provision was one of the planks in Obama's campaign). Whatever else comes out Obama's health care reforms, I hope at least they give Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices, because the current law is outrageous.
Oh, and about all that housing privatization in the military, that is being NOT being done because it's better, it's being done for fiscal law reasons. The military felt Congress wasn't giving them enough money each year to renovate the Government base housing to the standards to which they wanted to become accustomed (not that there was anything wrong with it as it was). So, they simply GAVE the housing to private companies upon their agreement to fix all the housing immediately. This allowed the military to get "like new" quarters without getting appropriations from Congress. The price to be paid is that the troops have to pay the private companies cash as if they are renting off-post and the military guarantees 100% occupancy. At least, now that the private companies own the housing on base, the quarters are beautiful but nobody knows what will happen when the current renovations wear out. Can't spend military funds to re-renovate them, since they're now private property, and the private companies have no incentive to do it again themselves since they are guaranteed 100% occupancy regardless. It's a sweet deal -- for the private companies. It's one of the all-time stupid ideas the military has ever had.
Faceless
Dunno about Medicare, but the VA health care system works extremely well for what it is. It's a system designed to process through a heckuva lot of old veterans on a shoestring budget, and overall they do a very good job.
My experience with the VA was not as pleasant. THis is not to say it was horrible, but the waits were long, two years for a shoulder injury, 3 months for an MRI, and other examples of along these lines. The VA is just not resourced to deal with the numbers of vets and all the issues they have to deal with. I would second your opinion on the pharmacy plan, it is great and would be a model that could be exported to the general populace.
Seriously? A n00b named
Seriously? A n00b named Interfarce? This has to be some sort of 'farce.' lol
Interfarce - I agree with you 100%
Darroby85 - what a big dummy. That's big big dummy + idiot + right-wing parrot. Did I mention you were a dummy? Dummy dummy dummy!
darroby85!!!
Darroby 85 wrote:
Is a necessary function of government, provided for in the constitution.
What? What are you talking about? You're so dumb! God you're dumb. You must have a lot of people tell you how dumb you really are! You're a big stupid dummy!
flop....
are you over your hissy fit yet???? You libs are soooooooooooooooo funny...
Grunt
Hissy fit? All I did was point out that darroby tends to parrot right-wing talking points, and contribute nothing of substance. It's hard to take anyone seriously who feels the need to use "porkulus" repeatedly. ;-)
That's Right flop...
I forgot, you call it stimulous, don't you. Of course, the big 0's projection that with the PORKULOUS bill unemployment would not go past 8%, has been proven wrong, as the PORKULOUS bill will also...
Facts are nasty, aren't they???
ANYTHING
But darroby, you said "Seriously, the government cannot run *anything* well." So why do we let the government do anything? We obviously disagree on what the government should do. You may hate Medicare, but it's an extremely popular gov't program, especially for those who depend on it and would not receive healthcare otherwise.
The "gov't is the problem" mantra is simply a tactic for those who want to undermine specific programs they oppose for ideological reasons.
The Military
Is a necessary function of government, provided for in the constitution. When it comes to the financials for the Military there is a lot that could be improved. Health insurance is, and should remain private. After all, the government does SOOOO well with Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. And then there was that TARP thing - that went real well don't you think - 857 BILLION and nobody has any idea where any of that went, and the porkulus where 99.99% is just progressives dream "spend on every ridiclous wasteful giveaway you ever thought of bill". The Obama administration and the current congress are the most financially irresponsible administration in the history of the country. They have already trashed the constitution and our laws in ways most never thought possible. There is no way I would trust them with $5 to run to wally world to get bandaids, much less let them get involved in any way in my medical care.
get the sense that
our buddy "darroby" is just parroting the right-wing talking points?
Me, too.
Interface
you must listen to a lot of "right-wing" talking points, because you've heard stuff that I haven't. Why is it when someone posts a conservative opinion they are always "parroting"?
Obama and Medical Malpractice
While Obama's willingness to take on health care reform is admirable, he shouldn't use the rights of those injured by preventable medical errors as "bargaining chips" to broaden the appeal of his message. http://tinyurl.com/l3l8n6 The Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a right to trial by jury is not something to be tampered with for political purposes.
privatization
darroby sez: "Seriously, the government cannot run anything well...."
Does this mean we should contract war out altogether and turn the whole thing over to mercenaries? Policing at home handled entirely by vigilantes? Who's going to run the CDC? Should we leave food inspection up to the food producers?
The military is constituional
Does this mean we should contract war out altogether and turn the whole thing over to mercenaries? Policing at home handled entirely by vigilantes? Who's going to run the CDC? Should we leave food inspection up to the food producers?
Does the U.S. government do a good job running the military or fighting a war?
Army privatizes transient lodging at posts, including two in Kansas
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1254664.html
Transient lodging at 10 Army installations across the country is being privatized to improve quality of life for soldiers and families. (What? The government couldn’t do it as well if not better than private enterprise?)
Panel details waste, inefficiency in war spending
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/politics/20090610_ap_paneldetailswasteinefficiencyinwarspending.html
The sign outside a $30 million construction project under way at a U.S. military base in Iraq says it all: "Camp Delta Dinning Facility."
The spelling error seems appropriate for a project that critics say should not have been started and now is too far along to stop, a symbol of the waste and inefficiency that has dogged U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And this doesn’t even cover how much of the war in Iran is done by private contractors (can you say Blackwater?) And now we want the government to run our car companies, financial institutions, and HEALTHCARE? At least the military IS constitutional. But remember that President (5-Star General) Eisenhower told us to keep our eyes on the military industrial complex. We ALL know it can and should be run better.
But in answer to BigSteve, if we wanted to ... YES, instead of just part of it we could contract out the entire war. There is nothing in the constitution preventing that. We DO have private security personal in the United States, ones that do have Police powers. We COULD contract out the CDC ... the government does with other things. Why not food inspection? Heck, the Senate and House BOTH have private cafeterias (Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765_pf.html - This was JUST LAST YEAR! They can't even run their own cafeteria!!!) And can we ever forget the bank scandal? (Congress comes down from the hill to bank with the rest of us - http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/chk/20000222.asp?prodtype=bank)
Now tell us all again why it is a good idea to have the government run healthcare.
Medicare
Why not have BO give us a trial run and first fix Medicare. Medicare is run by the government, is going broke, and with millions more boomers moving into the program daily this would be a good first step toward overall health care reform.
The president keeps saying it's impperative to control health care spending, but the trouble is what he is promoting will not suppress spending and will probably do the opposite unless the plan is to ration care.
If we cant fix medicare then how will another government run program that is just as bureaucratic, expensive and ineffective provide us better and less expensive healthcare.
"U.S. health care is too
"U.S. health care is too bureaucratic, too expensive and too ineffective."
This was the ONLY part that stuck out to me as funny. And the government wants to take it over and run it? Libs and Cons alike shuld be abel to sit back and giggle together on that one, right?
Who put all that bureaucratic garbage out there to start with?
The GOVERNMENT. Preventative care is only useful if the person WANTS to do it. There is a portion of the population that DON'T WANT to have cancer screenings or other routine diagnostic tests, even though they currently have insurance that will pay for 100% of the cost. There are also people who CHOOSE to not have medical insurance, they have something else they prefer to spend their money on. That is their CHOICE. As a taxpayer I do not want to be forced to pay for someone elses insurance when they are perfectly able to afford it, but CHOOSE not to. The progressives are really big on choice, except when it comes to insurance - then they want us to only have ONE choice, the plan that they control.
Is part of their plan to FORCE people to have medical tests that they do not want? Are we all going to have a camera in our TV's that automatically come on at a certain time to make sure we are doing the government required exercise routine? Are we going to see people forced to take medications and undergo medical procedures they do not want? Are they planning to arm school lunchroom monitors with automatic weapons so they can ensure all the children eat their government prescribed vegetables?
Is this 1984?
BO had best watch himself too. That sneaking out for a smoke is going to have to stop, as are the trips out for hamburgers, the date nights with drinks and dessert, and the $100 a pound beef. NO WEDNESDAY NIGHT COCKTAILS FOR YOU!!!
Are we looking at the Soup Nazi on steroids?
Seriously, the government cannot run anything well, certainly not health care. A 'government run option' is just the progressives way of trying to force the idea of just one government controlled option on people who know it's a bad idea and don't want it. That's why they are trying to push it through as quickly as possible. The more ordinary people who know what is happening the less likely they will get away with trying to force this on the country. Do some reforms need to be made? Yes, but this isn't the way to do it. I have employer provided insurance that I like, and I have a Dr. that I very much want to keep. I know that if Obamacare gets voted in by progressive idiots in the house and senate that I won't be able to have anywhere near the level of care I have now.
tort is not a liberal
tort is not a liberal issue... it is a conservative one, therefore I serisouly doubt he would ever mention it even though the costs of malpractice cases drive up (malpractice) insurance and, therefore, doctors costs, resulting in higher charges.
Our medical system is screwed up as it is... yet it is still one of the best in the country because of our schools. Why else do thousands come to US Institutions each year to train as doctors?
Malpractice Insurance
I listened, but failed to hear Obama's solution to tort reform as it relates to insurance and health care costs.
This approach doesn't cost less.....
True, we live longer if we aren't obese and don't smoke, but unfortunately it doesn't save money. Since smokers and obese people die younger, they actually have lower lifetime health costs. This is from a national news story as reportered in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune...
Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds
Last update: February 4, 2008
Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense: If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
---
The issue that is bleeding Medicare and lifetime health benefits plans like GM's pension plan is not that those covered are living unhealthy. It's that they are living decades longer than what life expectancy was when the benefits were established. With living long comes more medical issues and health care costs.
It may sound good to say we need to live better and healthier lifestyles. But that's not going to save the country money, especially since the government foots the vast majority of the expense in caring for the elderly (who are on Medicare, not private insurance).