Is this a 'healthy' conversation?

I, like the rest of America, got a chance to look at the much anticipated health-care reform platform that has been offered by the President Obama. The proposal is in the form of a 700 page bill presented to the Washington law makers.
The primary impetus for the program has been claimed to be to slow the disastrous rise in health-care spending. Additionally it calms to be make insurance available to citizens in that portion of the country who are presently uninsured.

In an effort to educate myself on this topic, I have watched numerous programs and read countless articles. At the end of the day, this is a very complicated issue to get your arms around. This is confused by the fact that the differing news sources have their own agendas.

As you read through the various articles you will find the following program topics debated:

1. Will there be heavily subsidized premiums?
2. Will tax increases bear mainly on the middle class?
3. Will this impose rich standard packages, with low deductibles?
4. Will there be burdensome regulations?
5. Can the private providers compete against government back plans?
6. Can the government provide such a program without adding to the national deficit?
7. How soon can it be implemented if such a health –care plan has not been included in the 2010 budget?
8. What are community ratings?
9. What is a state “exchange”?
10. Will demand for services as a result of the influx users cause a deterioration services.
11. Will the costs outweigh the intended benefit?

Those are the national questions, but are there local questions?

With many local providers dropping their services to Medicare patients, could a government promoted be viewed in the same light and thus limiting working with those providers? I think it would be beneficial to have local perspective. The opinion of those in the health care industry could help people determine whether they should support such a program. As always, it is important to know if this program is good for the country, but it is in some ways more important to know how it will affect us locally.

Some of the questions I would love to investigate might be as follows:

1. How will such a program affect the local physicians and how they are reimbursed?
2. Will a physician or health provider be able distinguish between providing services to those with private insurance and public insurance?
3. How will this affect local insurance agents that provide private insurance policies?
4. Is such a program viewed as a move in the positive direction by the regional hospitals?
5. Can a government program sponsor a local little league team?
6. How will it affect patient transportation policies?
7. Will there be health care lines locally?

Comments

[Justa Guy]

I see the potential for much abuse of such a system. Currently, those who are covered thru gov't programs, tend to "over-use" their benefits. Sometimes this is due to a physician's insistence that such-and-such procedure, visit, or medication is necessary- which sometimes simply is not the case. Many things are done only because they are billable, and the average patient has no real idea of the absolute necessity or lack thereof. Unfortunately, the physician must sometimes be a salesman also. Even moreso, is the abuse in the form of repeated visits to clinics and emergency rooms for very small or non-issues which take place simply because the person in question has no out-of-pocket expense. It seems now-a-days, that most every child with medicaid is diagnosed with asthma, ADD, or depression- requiring [questionably] routine visits for management of medicines which are probably not in the child's best interest. On top of this, the child's parent is likely to be covered in similar fashion, with a medicine list as long as your arm- presumably needed to manage the stress and pain of having a child with such disorders. A pill for everything, you know.
Should medicine go "social" you are likely to see one of two things:
Either these abuses will be trimmed, possibly even to the point where legitimate cases fail to receive proper care.
Or, these abuses will multiply, thus increasing the financial burden on the taxpayer in tremendous increment.
The first scenario applies mostly to medicare recipients, the latter is mostly medicaid recipients. Those who have private insurance, with co-pays and deductibles, tend to spend the healthcare dollar much more 'thriftily'.
When you actually talk to someone who works in healthcare, depending on the day or the mood, you will likely hear that too many important issues are not addressed sufficiently, or that too many un-important issues are over addressed. Seldom will you hear of the common sense middle- of the road- everything is ok situation[s]. There just aren't enough days or occasions where this is the case.
Sorry, but I have no easy answers to this. At least, none that folks will find socially acceptable.

[Very concerned]

They system as a whole is broken....the comment of doctors being salesman is so true today in medicine. Todays medicine is not about helping sick patients it is about sell drugs, using equipment and pleasing insurance companies. Until our politicians stop releying on money from medical/insurance lobbies nothing will be done to solve the problem. Health care is a far bigger issue than just being able to be treated. Campiagn finance needs to be reformed so our officials are not jaded by the money given to them by the lobbies. Until that is changed there will be no real reform to health care. Another thing I don't understand how "christian" people claim to be but don't want their fellow neighbor to have the same medical rights as they do.....Just a little food for thought!