Obama on healthcare bill

[BgMc31]

I thought I would chime in on this one, since I'm probably the biggest Obama supporter on this forum.

Anyway, I'm not thrilled about this bill, but, IMO, the opposition to this bill wasn't because it was a bad bill, but mainly just a ploy by the opposition party to block Obama's main campaign intiative. If Obama didn't get this passed, in any form, he couldn't put any teeth into any other proposals. No one came up with any alternatives and just continued to say that we should start over. Well we've waisted enough time on this, let's get something done.

Now with that said, this bill is far from perfect. But what bill is? I can't stand all the dealing to get this done, but I'm glad something is being done. The question remains, though, is this going to bankrupt up faster that the current system? Because we know, the current system isn't sustainable.

How many people, truly know the details of this bill, because as studied as I am in politics, I'm not completely sure either? I've already read stuff from people on this thread, that isn't correct (government controlled healthcare), so until we get the details about this bill, there will be fear and anxiety and people are using misinformation to intensify the rhetoric against this bill. Most people are against this bill because of that misinformation, BUT, the vast majority of people want healthcare reform. But I don't think anyone will be happy with the final outcome, regardless of what it is.

[Kratos]

The question remains, though, is this going to bankrupt up faster that the current system? Because we know, the current system isn't sustainable.
.

There are no cost cutting measures as far as the total cost of health care spent in this country aside from the medicare cuts.

So, yes adding people to the system costs money.

....
and no preventative care doesn't save you money

[JDawg1536]

There are no cost cutting measures as far as the total cost of health care spent in this country aside from the medicare cuts.

So, yes adding people to the system costs money.

....
and no preventative care doesn't save you money

According to whom?

[lovbyts]

According to whom?

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

Ill bet anyone that in 10 years the one trillion will be 2+ trillion. Like I said/asked; when in the history of the US has the government, congress, state ever kept on budget? Whey have they ever said something will cost XXX $ and it has come in at that price or lower? It has always been 2x or more.

[JDawg1536]

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

Huh?

[lovbyts]

Huh?

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

[thegodfather]

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

This is outright false bro. Health care providers are forced to give these people pills in order to lower cholesterol, or other ailments, because the patients are unwilling to change their lifestyle.

You will not meet one doctor who will just indiscriminately hand out Lipitor or Crestor to a patient, without first telling them... Look Lovbyts, your cholesterol is very high, you need to make major changes to your diet, you need to stop smoking, you need to cut down or eliminate sodium from your diet, and you need to start an exercise program. How many patients listen to this advice? None. Doctors will offer to refer these patients to a dietitian/nutritionist, and 90% of the time the patients do not give a flying shit.

So while you may find these drugs unfavorable, they are a necessary evil and offer people a chance at a longer life who otherwise would not have it. The doctor has 15-30 minutes with the patient to evaluate his/her condition, and make a recommendation, prescribe a medication, or make a referral. It is up to the patient with the other 23 hours and 30 minutes of that day, and the rest of their lives, to make the changes necessary to fix their high cholesterol. Many of the most prevalent diseases with the highest mortality rates are related to LIFESTYLE choices. These drugs are not needed for the people who make the right choices, and decide to modify their poor lifestyles. However, there is a reason that the United States is one of the most obese countries in the world, people are lazy, they eat fast food, and they treat their bodies like shit. I really don't have much sympathy for those people, but these medications DO help them.

You state that they don't "cure" anything. Well, there really isn't a cure for laziness and not caring about your body. The doctor does the BEST they can with what they have. So if the patient insists on going down their road of poor lifestyle choices, then Crestor or Lipitor offers them a good shot at reducing their risk of CHF.

[JDawg1536]

What dont you get? Most doctors in the US do not really try to prevent you from being sick or if you are sick dont really try to find a cure. They give you prescriptions that mask the problems instead of looking for the underlying cause.

Examples
You have high cholesterol. Take a pill. You have high blood pressure, take a pill. You have erectile problems, take a blue pill. All these pills lead to other problems most of the time (side effects).

They rarely do real blood work on people or check for hormonal problems or give real diet/life style change advise.

I don't get how you can say something so ridiculous.

Hell, I had blood work done and received diet/lifestyle advice from a doctor at the "socialist" VA hospital.

[thegodfather]

What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.

On one hand I agree with this statement. However, you are not a doctor so you are not aware of the considerations that go into these decisions. Many elderly patients use Viagra, and many of them have lipid profiles which are already compromised, many are already hypertensive, and they are at a much higher risk for an enlarged prostate or prostate cancer. This makes them very poor candidates for Testosterone therapy, which can negatively effect their HDL/LDL, increase their blood pressure, which if they are ALREADY hypertensive could increase their risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiac related incidences. The increased level of DHT in their systems can increase their PSA astronomically, putting them at a much higher risk of prostate cancer. So you see there are very complex decisions that go into these things that the average person wouldn't think about. This is one case where a band-aid really does fix the problem.

It's also kind of contradictory to say that these doctors are just pushing drugs because they hand out Viagra, but in the same sentence recommend that the patient be put on TRT. So, hand out one drug instead of another? How does that make them any less of a drug pusher?


Ill bet anyone that in 10 years the one trillion will be 2+ trillion. Like I said/asked; when in the history of the US has the government, congress, state ever kept on budget? Whey have they ever said something will cost XXX $ and it has come in at that price or lower? It has always been 2x or more.

This is absolutely true. They are trying to use the 'non partisan' CBO figures to say that this plan is going to save X amount of dollars. The government is notorious for under-estimating the cost of things. Furthermore, bills get amended several times before they get passed, and pork always finds its way into the bill. We have 70 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements by the year 2050, from Medicare/Medicaid alone. That means 70 trillion dollars and we have no idea where the money is even going to come from. And that is not including the new numbers of people who are going to be covered under this 'public option'.

Replied in bold...

[lovbyts]

Replied in bold...

I agree with your statements in bold. Im saying though before a lot of those OLDER patients got to that point they could have probably been helped maybe not only with Test but many other things and the proper test.

[Kratos]

According to whom?

Well, Massachusetts for 1, who has seen their health care costs go up 46 percent, exceeding the national average substantially. Despite the fact they are pushing hospitals into bankruptcy in lower income areas. The way it works is if you don't pay hospitals well through medicare, they have to make it up on the people who have comercial insurance. Except these populations are not always in the same geographic area.

where you're going wrong here...If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

but you're more concerned with who says....
hmmm
well, there have been over 600 studies on the subject.

a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.
So to be clear, it's not that all preventative medicine is bad, or more expensive. Some things pay off. Most do not, and the net effect is higher costs.

the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

In fact when it comes to preventative testing, America spends a boat load. The number of people who get mamograms, rectal exams ect is way higher. Now we're finding out a lot of those mamograms were a waste and changing the criteria for when you should get one. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

it was noted by insurancenet.com that Ohio, in 2005 had 250 MRI's as opposed to Canada with 151. And no there aren't more people in Ohio then Canada, not even close to as many.

If anything we overtest in the US because of the legal climate. Real preventative care would involve diet and exercise. Ask any doctor how effective it is to stress diet and exercise to their patients. Better yet ask one who's told a women they need to loose weight for their health. LMFAO, they want to try to live through the exam.