|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 29, 2009 17:38:01 GMT -8
William, I'm still not seeing any response to your supposed basis for this thread, which was your wife needing knee surgery that she might not be able to get under health care reform. I think a half dozen people have asked you why she isn't getting it now or have advised her getting it now and you have yet to respond to that.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 29, 2009 21:42:32 GMT -8
William, I'm still not seeing any response to your supposed basis for this thread, which was your wife needing knee surgery that she might not be able to get under health care reform. I think a half dozen people have asked you why she isn't getting it now or have advised her getting it now and you have yet to respond to that. =Bob Oh, yes, a response was requested. Sorry, I got distracted by a few things. Well, my wife has been mulling this over for some time. It's quite a step, not one taken lightly. One thing that has stood in the way is that she talked to someone who had the procedure (it may have been a "partial" knee replacement) and was not totally satisfied. On the other hand, we have been getting other reports which are much more positive. As for what Congress is up to, you are right in saying that right now we don't know exactly what might be turned into law. And that's part of the problem; namely that we really are not being kept informed so that we, the public, are likely to have no chance to let our elected representatives know how we feel about the whole thing. As I understand it, there are provisions in the bill being debated (behind the closed doors of the Democratic caucus, by the way, and not on the floor of the Congress) that would give an unelected federal body the power to set protocols on what is and isn't efficient use of taxpayer money in the health field. That body might very well set guidelines that would permit a 55 year-old to get a knee replacement but not a 74 year-old. There are other things leaking out that also worry me. I refer to such things as a provision that would outlaw high-deductible private insurance plans. Another makes it illegal for an individual now not covered from buying his own private insurance. Private companies would clearly be forced out of business eventually since they would not be able to sign up new customers. Their customer base would shrink and shrink and, you guessed it, the governmental plan would eventually sign up more and more people until it reached the point of including virtually all Americans. Presto! Single payer comes to the U.S.A.! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 30, 2009 18:31:40 GMT -8
William, I'm still not seeing any response to your supposed basis for this thread, which was your wife needing knee surgery that she might not be able to get under health care reform. I think a half dozen people have asked you why she isn't getting it now or have advised her getting it now and you have yet to respond to that. =Bob Oh, yes, a response was requested. Sorry, I got distracted by a few things. Well, my wife has been mulling this over for some time. It's quite a step, not one taken lightly. One thing that has stood in the way is that she talked to someone who had the procedure (it may have been a "partial" knee replacement) and was not totally satisfied. On the other hand, we have been getting other reports which are much more positive. AzWm Will, I can understand the hesitation. As Bill Walton once said, "minor surgery" is surgery that other people have. Knee replacement is so common these days that it's not really worth worrying about unless there is some sort of concern about undergoing surgery (which I can also understand given that my mother had a minor post-operative stroke when she had her hip replaced). But if she is in so much pain that she's debilitated and she has no underlying health conditions, she shouldn't be shopping for opinions among those who've had the procedure; she should get it done. And yeah, I do understand how difficult it is to convince someone that they should have a surgery that you don't need. But it's too damn easy to just live with the pain because one person had a problem and that just makes the pain worse. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 26, 2009 12:45:42 GMT -8
I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems to me that I have heard/read more than once that Medicare in fact does refuse to authorize treatment in many cases. If Medicare does not authorize a treatment recommended by a physicians, that, my friends, IS rationing.
(What worries me almost as much, maybe more, is the possibility that the Democrats for some idiotic reason . . . "fairness?" . . . will pass a law making it illegal for a private citizen to contract individually with a health care provider for treatment. One would hope that the Supreme Court would find such a law unconstitutional, but with the Dems naming SCOTUS justices, one can never be sure. Were such a law to be passed and upheld, it would be impossible for anyone to use his or her own money to treat a relative after the govt. has refused to pay. Scary thought!
Oh, wait a minute. That last conclusion is wrong. Obviously, the very wealthy will use that wealth to bribe or game the system so that their relatives get the treatment while others do not.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 26, 2009 14:38:39 GMT -8
I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems to me that I have heard/read more than once that Medicare in fact does refuse to authorize treatment in many cases. If Medicare does not authorize a treatment recommended by a physicians, that, my friends, IS rationing. (What worries me almost as much, maybe more, is the possibility that the Democrats for some idiotic reason . . . "fairness?" . . . will pass a law making it illegal for a private citizen to contract individually with a health care provider for treatment. One would hope that the Supreme Court would find such a law unconstitutional, but with the Dems naming SCOTUS justices, one can never be sure. Were such a law to be passed and upheld, it would be impossible for anyone to use his or her own money to treat a relative after the govt. has refused to pay. Scary thought! Oh, wait a minute. That last conclusion is wrong. Obviously, the very wealthy will use that wealth to bribe or game the system so that their relatives get the treatment while others do not.) AzWm William, If Canadians are coming across the border to get treatment, that is rationed in Canada in what could be called the equivalent of a "black market", can the emergence of a domestic real Black Market be avoided here when serious rationing under the current proposal(s) gets put in place? Put another way, will the "supply" of Doctors be artificially constrained by Doctors choosing to practice Black Market" medicine rather than operate under the ObamaKare system? Will this result in increased demand outside the system and further increase cost? I hope that our elected representatives will really act in what is the best interest of the country and not for political reasons. What is the chance of that?  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 26, 2009 15:33:56 GMT -8
Politicians such as Barney Frank are no doubt sincerely in favor of govt. controlled health care. I would love to sit down with Barney and corner him with some of the critical points that are never brought up by the Dems. I'm not holding my breath.
AzWm
|
|
