Observer-Reporter forum

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

For every Miller, there are a hundred doctors who are as close or closer than he was when he was working (he's retired) who disagree with him; the medical community supported the public option strongly. The methods of savings were explained multiple times on the Senate floor, but watching C-SPAN is not mandatory, so that may be why you missed it.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

pap · Understudy Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 538

freethinker · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject:

Hey Brant, a couple months ago, a Dr. Landenwich (sic) from Ziegler's office in Claysville, wrote an excellent defense of HCR in your paper...
I can't find it, but it makes this Miller guy look like someone who never heard of Hippocrates...How could I find it and post it...? Thanks, man
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon.

freethinker · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:07 pm Post subject:

Shoot --that was supposed to be a private message...I am we Todd did
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon.

Brant · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject:

Fred is my doctor, and he's a damn good one. Here's the piece he wrote:

Health care by and for Americans

By Frederick Landenwitsch

Two articles that recently appeared on the same day on the editorial page of the Observer-Reporter highlight the helpful and the harmful in the debate over health care. The first, written by Gerard Weiss, points out that there are many groups involved in the health-care debate, they each have their own agenda, and it is not in the best interest of our country to have decisions made by only one powerful group such as the insurance industry. He also states that the government must be involved in this process because in a democratic society the government is us. This article is accurate and honest and does not overstep its bounds. The other editorial, written by Mona Charen, compares the Canadian single-payer health-care system to our current system in the United States and concludes that ours is the better. This article, while on the surface sounding reasonable, is a good example of the many misleading arguments that are muddying the waters of the health-care debate. Why so? Because it implies that the debate is over whether or not to have socialized medicine, which is an option that's not even on the table. The health-care debate is difficult enough without adding confusion over what we are debating.

When you cut through all the rhetoric, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether or not to provide health care to the 15 percent of Americans who do not currently have it. Now you can say yes or no to this question and make a good argument, but let's at least be clear that this is the issue.

So, who are these uninsured Americans? The easiest way to think about this is to first identify who has health insurance. In this country, there are three large groups and one small group of people who have heath insurance. The three large groups are those who are employed with private insurance benefits (usually supplied at least in part by the employer), those 65 years of age and older, and the poor. The small group of insured people are those wealthy enough to be able to afford insurance despite not being in one of the three large groups. Until the 1960s, two of the large groups did not exist. All we had were the wealthy who could pay for their own medical care and the employed with benefits. But then, we, as a country, decided to take the humane step of providing health-care coverage to the elderly and the poor. Thus, Medicare and Medicaid were created. These programs have been costly but, apparently, our country believes they are worth keeping because 50 years later I don't hear many people saying that they want to do away with Medicare. The question before us now is: Do we, as a country, want to provide a government-payer system to cover the 15 percent who do not have coverage?

It helps to know who the people are in this group who would benefit. These uninsured are people under 65, not disabled, earning too much income to qualify for Medicaid, and working for an employer that does not supply health insurance. Do you or I know anyone like this? Chances are we do. He may be the carpenter who remodeled your kitchen two years ago, the painter who painted the exterior of your home last year, the farmer who grows corn and raises cows down the road or any number of self-employed individuals. She may be your friend who was laid off after 20 years at her factory and has not yet found another job with benefits. She may be your aunt, the accountant, who owns her own business and could probably afford to pay a monthly insurance premium but has a history of cardiac problems and no company will insure her with this pre-existing condition. He may be your child who has graduated from college but has not yet found a full-time job and is still living under your roof. In short, they may be anyone of us. They may even be you.

The fact is that unless we are 65 or older, very poor, or very wealthy, we are all vulnerable to being without health-care coverage. This condition can wreck our credit, our financial futures, and even our health.

It is important to distinguish between "access" to health care and health-care "coverage." It is true that most everyone in this country has "access" to health care if by that we mean that anyone can at least walk into certain hospital emergency rooms and be seen without producing any cash up front. This does not, however, mean that the care is free, and it certainly is not the best or cheapest way to deliver care.

When a patient goes to a hospital or any medical provider and does not have insurance or cash in hand, one of three things happen: The patient agrees to make payments over time; the patient does not make payments and the provider turns them over to a collection agency; or the patient does not make payments and the provider decides to write off the expense. In none of these three scenarios is the care free. In the first two, the patient will pay the price either in payments or in damage to his credit. In the third, the system absorbs the cost and passes it on to those who have insurance or who can afford to pay. In this third scenario, the cost is hidden but still not free.

Do we want to attempt to cover those without insurance or are we satisfied with the status quo? There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides. There are many interested parties. As a doctor, I certainly have an interest. Any new government-sponsored program or "public option" would likely pay me far less than the amounts I am paid by private insurers. I base this on the fact that Medicare pays me less than most private insurers and Medicaid pays me only about 25 percent of the usual fee paid by private insurance companies for the same office visit. Furthermore, a new "public option" might introduce more competition into the marketplace, causing the private insurance companies to have to lower their premiums to compete. This would lead to cost-cutting measures by these companies that could then lower the fees they pay me. I am willing to accept a lower income in order to see our entire country with affordable health-care coverage, and I believe a majority of my colleagues would do the same. But there are many other groups besides physicians who will be affected.

Some people will probably see their taxes rise. Some shareholders of private insurance companies will probably see profits drop. The national debt could increase. A change of this magnitude will not be free. But is it worthwhile? That is what we must decide. We answered that question for the poor and elderly decades ago. What about for the rest of us now?

President Obama has demonstrated great courage in addressing this issue, but I think his plan is unclear enough to most Americans to invite a host of distortions from his opponents. Some of these opponents have legitimate concerns, while others are simply resorting to fear-mongering. For example, when it was noted that the Obama plan supported end of life counseling and advanced directives for patients, Sarah Palin accused him of wanting to create "death panels," a huge distortion. Any doctor worth his or her salt knows it is important to ask patients about their wishes regarding life support and other end-of-life issues.

I think we need to start back at the beginning with the basic question: Do we or do we not want to have health-care coverage for all? The president's plan has been made clear; his opponents should do the same.

Some may say no, the status quo is just fine. Some may say they would like to have it but it is too costly. Others may say they would like to have it but have other ideas about how to provide it. All of these are legitimate responses. What is not legitimate are statements and arguments that distract us from this basic question. Don't be distracted. Ask yourself whether or not you think it is important that all Americans have health-care coverage and at what cost to you. Make a decision and tell your representative what you think. You are the government.

I believe in the final analysis the collective wisdom of the American people will make the best choice. As Winston Churchill said, "Americans will always do the right thing – after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Frederick Landenwitsch, M.D., is a physician with Claysville Family Practice.
_________________

The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.

- Thomas Jefferson

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

pap · Understudy Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 538

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

So? One guy doesn't mention cost savings and that means they were never going to happen?
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

pap · Understudy Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 538

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

They were explained, repeatedly, and you were free to watch and listen. You chose not to. No one is surprised.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

Brant · Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:48 pm Post subject:

We understand your point, Pap/George. You don't want to cough up a single penny to help anyone else get health coverage, even if it could save all of us money in the long run by helping those now without coverage get preventative care that would be cheaper than dealing with them when they get a serious illness that is extremely expensive to treat. And history has proven time and time and time again that competition lowers costs, just as a single-payer or public option system had the potential to do.
_________________

The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.

- Thomas Jefferson

ellipses · Mod Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 9218 Location: WashPa!

Pap... 97% of climatologists agree that global warming is an observably occurring phenomenon AND that humans are responsible... why don't you give them the same clout as one doctor from Greene County?

A clear majority of health care professionals were in favor of the earlier health care bills (the ones with all the evil socialism in them)... are you that hung up on the underdog?

I'm surprised you aren't an atheist... we only have like 15% concurrence in the US
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

pap · Understudy Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 538

dick · Journeyman Joined: 28 Jan 2009 Posts: 3134

Pap, not with single payer. Everything you want to know is here. If you truly seek to be informed, read, read, read... comprehend.

http://mdcarroll.com/

If you're not into reading, watch the video for a quickie on how single payer (not the current bill) would cost the country (not necessarily you, depending on your situation) less.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/239370/july-21-2009/aaron-carroll
_________________

Proud Member NDA

Its okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings.

Puff. Puff. Give.

pap · Understudy Joined: 23 Nov 2009 Posts: 538

[quote="dick"]Pap, not with single payer. Everything you want to know is here. If you truly seek to be informed, read, read, read... comprehend.

http://mdcarroll.com/

If you're not into reading, watch the video for a quickie on how single payer (not the current bill) would cost the country (not necessarily you, depending on your situation) less.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/239370/july-21-2009/aaron-carroll[/quote
The country has to pay to insure the uninsured that they are not now paying for. Those without insurance are not on medicare or medicaid so I don't see where the country isn't paying anything for them now. I don't see a savings.