White House And Hospitals Are Reported To Be Near Deal

White House And Hospitals Are Reported To Be Near Deal

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and major hospital associations on Monday evening were nearing a deal for about $150 billion in cost savings to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health care system, with an announcement expected at the White House as early as Wednesday, officials said.

If an agreement is finalized, it would be the latest step in an on-going effort by the White House to win concessions from major health industry groups to help pay for legislation aimed at providing health insurance to all Americans. Democrats are hoping to keep the cost of the overhaul at abo

(visit the link for the full news article)

It will be good news if this really happens. A year ago I wouldn't have imagined that hospitals and Big Pharma would be cooperating in health care reform to this extent.

The cost of health care has to be brought down, otherwise people will no longer be able to pay for health insurance and companies will no longer be able to foot the bill for their employees.

It looks like the sanest and wisest in the medical field are agreeing that something needs to be done to continue to provide world-class health care for all Americans.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I am in the medical profession and I instinctively do not trust this.

Big Pharma is in this for the money so their concessions will be minimal in the big picture. In my opinion it is just a ploy to get on the good side of this administration.

Hospitals are about lowering the costs, not lowering their profit. Not having people in the hospital who are dying and increase their cost is a benefit.

I am older an currently without health insurance and I totally disagree with the proposed health care proposed policy

As always, I could be wrong and welcome different thoughts.

Registered nurse here that is bowing out of socialized medicine. No thank you.

I've had all the arguments with people who want free health care and, in the end, it will not give me any pleasure to say, "I told you so".

I'm just glad I got out before the bioterrorism attacks started rolling through the doors.

Yeah! Bring the cost down. It sounds good. My mom who is 79 years old will be having surgery tomorrow. Um.........she has good health care provisions and the money to pay the co-pays. Great for her! She believes a universal health care plan by the government will let her have these continuing surgeries for "free". I don't believe it. I actually believe she has outlived her usefulness for society. She has offered nothing for the last 40 years. I can't even say she provided guidance for her relatives. She has done nothing. And I think, for Pete's sake, she hasn't done anything for society or her family all this time. Yet, I have a 7 year old grandson who just might be something society could prosper from, yet he has no healthcare insurance, etc. The money spent on my mom is not warranted. Yeah, she is in this situation and so it is. Yeah, she earned it. but............come on socialists and Obamanians, should my old mom receive all these expensive operations to prolong her basically worthless life while a 7 year old can be denied basic care? I think the current state of affairs of healthcare in the U.S. will reward this old woman, while ignoring the 7 year old. So, what I am asking is, can both this old woman and young boy be given quality life extending healthcare? For "free"? I don't think so. I believe my mom will end up dying without life extending measures, even though this is want she wants. just because it is "free", and my grandson will receive care to help him survive, until such a time he is just too old to worry about. Maybe it's fair this way? I just don't know.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by kyred]

You are so right if the instituted national healthcare the government would decide whom gets treatment and whom doesn't. I kind of almost want these idiots to get what they desire so I can hear them scream in agony. There is nothing free and these pukes asking for it don't realize it because its the middle class whom work their asses off that will end up paying for it. What these fools don't realize is when You throw government money at something the price goes up and doesn't go down. I mean seriously look at medicade its bankrupted social security. Another point when You throw government money at a problem or to supply a service the quality of the service goes down. Now the doctors and nurses have to work hard for your dollar but when that dollar is already guaranteed it doesn't inspire hard work. I mean look at the VA is that what You want?

Reply to Whitewave,kyred and jkm1864:

Health care under Obama's plan won't be "free." It will be paid for by insurance. Those who can't afford insurance will get government subsidies, but the majority of people will have access to reasonably-priced insurance plans -- lower than the current rates.

Because everyone will have insurance, the insurance companies will have to compete for business and that will help keep your costs down.

The rising cost of medical care is the reason why fewer and fewer people can get insurance or decent health care. Something has to change.

And if you're a nurse or other medical worker your job won't change. Unless you get fired for some reason you'll work for the same doctor or hospital you already do.

And the idea of penalizing those who choose not to have insurance by imposing a massive fine? How is this an example of the government being as unintrusive in your life as possible?

If I don't want to pay for auto insurance, then legally I don't drive. But at least I have a right to make that choice and the law is okay with that. My alternatives are to ride with friends and take busses and such.

Not so for health care - if I'm not covered by my employer and I don't want to participate in the government health care program then the government will fine you more than $1,000.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.

Source: news.yahoo.com...

And guess what? That's not a one time fine, that PER YEAR. Like the AP article says - either way, you pay.

Obama's health care program has so many things wrong with it, but this idea of a fine for those who don't want the hand of government in their lives is just too much.

Originally posted by Sestias
Reply to Whitewave,kyred and jkm1864:

Health care under Obama's plan won't be "free." It will be paid for by insurance. Those who can't afford insurance will getgovernment subsidies, but the majority of people will have access to reasonably-priced insurance plans -- lower than the current rates.

Because everyone will have insurance, the insurance companies will have to compete for business and that will help keep your costs down.

The rising cost of medical care is the reason why fewer and fewer people can get insurance or decent health care. Something has to change.

And if you're a nurse or other medical worker your job won't change. Unless you get fired for some reason you'll work for the same doctor or hospital you already do.

We ARE "the government! WE THE OVERTAXED PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING THESE SUBSIDIES. A sizable portion of people are rapidly becoming unemployed and homeless. What employer will they have to offer them this utopian free bubble up and rainbow stew?

Mark my words, brother. I've been predicting this coming for over 25 years when DRG's were first introduced into healthcare (which btw, there WASN'T a "healthcare crisis back then). The solution to the "problem" of healthcare will be to LET THE PEOPLE DIE.

We're already seeing signs of it now. I'll have to go dig up the links (and there are a lot of them). Many hospitals are instituting an admittance criteria for those coming into the emergency departments. It's called the Glasgow coma scale. It's been around for a long time as an assessment tool but never as a admittance criteria tool. Other admittance criteria are being considered as well.

The nursing board stated several years ago that it was "OK for nurses to take care of ebola patients". I don't know about you but it most certainly is not ok. Just how many healthcare professionals do you think are stupid enough to deliberately expose themselves to ebola?

If I dig through my paperwork I can probably find a memo from one of the hospitals I worked stating that, contrary to our nursing oath, "nurses are not primarily patient advocates. The nurses role is to ensure corporate compliance in the delivery of care". Translated: if taking care of sick people is no longer profitable then we are relieved of our duty to continue taking care of them.

I can see myself getting worked up over this so I'm going to go reduce my blood pressure and bow out but I do ask that you do just a modicum of research on the subject of nationalized healthcare or socialized medicine.

Ask Russia how it worked for them. Ask Canada how it's working for them. See if California is having a problem with funding all those "subsidies". I'm not talking about all the anecdotal reports of people who are thrilled to get subsidized healthcare; I'm talking about the people who are having to balance the account books on it.

Btw, insurance companies are failing on a large scale. You'll wind up with a handful of companies that will assess your risk and charge you accordingly. On dialysis? Too expensive. Sorry we can't cover you. There are quite a few people right now that have trouble getting coverage. The elderly, those with pre-existing health issues, etc. How do you think they'll fare when having insurance becomes mandatory?

Originally posted by whitewave

We're already seeing signs of it now. I'll have to go dig up the links (and there are a lot of them). Many hospitals are instituting an admittance criteria for those coming into the emergency departments. It's called the Glasgow coma scale. It's been around for a long time as an assessment tool but never as a admittance criteria tool. Other admittance criteria are being considered as well.

Yes. hospitals are revising their admittance criteria because many patients are not considered profitable. These are usually the uninsured or homeless. With universal health insurance hospitals and doctors will be compensated for every patient. They may not receive the astronomical rates they receive now, but they will be adequately compensated. There would be no reason to turn anyone who needed treatment away.

The unemployed and homeless will have government-subsidized health insurance so they will still be insured even though they are broke.

If I dig through my paperwork I can probably find a memo from one of the hospitals I worked stating that, contrary to our nursing oath, "nurses are not primarily patient advocates. The nurses role is to ensure corporate compliance in the delivery of care". Translated: if taking care of sick people is no longer profitable then we are relieved of our duty to continue taking care of them.

That's what they do now because hospitals care more about the bottom line than they do about treating people who are sick. If patients don't pay they don't play. Universal health care, as I explain above, means it applies to everyone. No one can be turned away because they are too expensive.

Btw, insurance companies are failing on a large scale. You'll wind up with a handful of companies that will assess your risk and charge you accordingly. On dialysis? Too expensive. Sorry we can't cover you. There are quite a few people right now that have trouble getting coverage. The elderly, those with pre-existing health issues, etc. How do you think they'll fare when having insurance becomes mandatory?

With universal health insurance coverage, the private insurance companies will have to compete with the government for quality and price. The government insurance is, again, universal. The elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. will be covered if they choose it.

Yes, the big insurance companies may take some hits as far as their enormous profits are concerned. They will have to lower their prices and cover more people and more medical conditions in order to compete with the government insurance. That will keep them honest and less greedy.