Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

[dianaiad]

Some of you know that I have a problem; I haven't been all that shy. Frankly, it makes me mad as all get out.

Oh, not because I HAVE this condition, though frankly, I feel like I would have had better chances of winning the lottery.

I have Multiple Myeloma, stage II, 'high risk.'
It's an odd duck; cancer of the bone marrow. What makes it 'high risk,' is a chromosomal abnormality that doesn't mean good news for survival.

Now I'm actually blessed with great insurance, paid by my husband's retirement; Kaiser Permanente. Because of that, I had a doctor who saw that I was slightly anemic and sent me for some 'further tests.' Those 'further tests' ended up being a LOT of tests (including a bone marrow biopsy, which I recommend to the Spanish Inquisition, or the CIA...perhaps especially the CIA, since nobody could object to the government 'taking care of the prisoner's health') The verdict was, yup, I got this thing; 75% of my bone marrow was cancerous plasma cells.

The REALLY odd thing is that most people who have this don't find out until they have broken bones, kidney failure, dementia, liver failure....it's a nasty disease. Me? My bones are fine and so are my kidneys and liver.

No cracks about my mental capacity, please.

I'm in GREAT health...except for the dying of cancer part.

This Friday I'm going in for a bone marrow transplant. I'll be in the City of Hope for two to three weeks, while they destroy my immune system and then 'reset' it, in hopes that this will put me into a good, long term remission. There's a really good chance that it will work, despite the 'high risk' thing, because they caught it before it did any damage to my bones and organs. It has been borne upon me that this is EXTREMELY rare, that someone with as an aggressive form of this condition as mine is gets caught this early. OK, I'll take that.

After all, this disease mostly affects African American men over 65. I am about as lily white a redheaded blue eyed female as you can find. Why in the world would they even LOOK for something like this?

Now, why this longwinded introduction, she asks?
I'll tell you.

In the normal course of events (pre-Obamacare) I would get the transplant, have the rest of the stem cells (that were collected from me last week) frozen and kept in reserve for another one...which I'm almost guaranteed to need, and if that doesn't work, I'd do a third, using donor cells from one of my sisters. I hope. Neither my age nor my life condition would affect this, because, well, I have Kaiser and I would transfer that to a 'Senior Advantage' Kaiser membership next August. All done. Good thing, because I'm going to be taking extremely expensive medication (as in, $2000 per pill) for the rest of my life.

If I had NOT had good insurance, the City of Hope and the pharmaceutical companies that make the novel drugs for this have all sorts of programs: once you have Multiple Myeloma, you get the care. All you have to do is get to a facility that specializes in it.


I have been told, however, and I have since confirmed this, that if Obamacare gets through as written, this will no longer be true. For one thing, there will be no possibility of a donor transplant, (which is the only hope for an outright cure) the most effective medication won't be available , and it's highly possible that I won't be offered even the second transplant using my OWN stem cells. My prognosis, thanks to Obamacare, will go from a possible ten to fifteen years down to two or three....because the decisions for my health care won't be mine or my doctor's. They will be made by committees according to guidelines, which will include the idea that no matter what, people over 70 won't get that sort of treatment.

It doesn't matter what my doctor says, or what my insurance company now pays for; the government will regulate this.

I'm OK now. Things are getting paid for.

But what about next year, when Obamacare takes me over?

Now me, I'm an example, and of course this is hitting home hard for me....but I'm hardly unique. I have been talking to a great many MM patients from all over the world, and the ones from 'universal health care' nations, like Canada, Australia and Great Britain do not do well. They are sicker and die sooner, and many of them don't even know that there are novel agents that can treat them; because THEIR healthcare won't provide them.

Those of you who know me know that I don't LIKE Obamacare. Now you know why.

So.....here's the topic for debate (and I'll participate for the next three days...). If you wanted to fix health care in this nation, how would YOU do it? Obviously Obamacare isn't going to work.

Remember: the object is to make certain that:
1. Those who need health care GET it...the best available, not just the least expensive.
2. The decisions regarding health care should be made by the patient and the doctor, not by some faceless bureaucrat looking at cost/benefit charts.
3. Nobody has to go bankrupt because of health care expenses.
4. Healthcare is delivered efficiently, with no long waiting times.
5. Health professionals get paid enough to justify the student loans, and have autonomy.
6. So do patients, in their ability to choose who provides them health care.


Obamacare does NONE of the above, btw.

Go.

[bluethread]

I am generally okay with the Affordable Care Act. If it is dismantled, I would suggest a new system that would get rid of private insurance companies altogether.

This does nothing to solve the limited supply/unlimited demand problem. Even if the treatments that dianaiad uses were to miraculously become available on an unlimited over the counter basis, a new procedure or product will be developed and everyone would then want that one. Who gets to decide who gets the limited procedure and on what basis does that person or those persons make that decision?

And that is the larger (and real) point. What happens when the average individual earns a million dollars over a lifetime and requires two million dollars in healthcare?

Neither side is addressing the elephant in the room.

I will. That individual suffers and dies, as does the child who earns nothing and the billionaire whose treatment requires trillions. From each according to his willingness and ability to contribute, to each according to his willingness and ability to earn. This promotes both charity and personal accountability.

[dianaiad]

I am generally okay with the Affordable Care Act. If it is dismantled, I would suggest a new system that would get rid of private insurance companies altogether.

This does nothing to solve the limited supply/unlimited demand problem. Even if the treatments that dianaiad uses were to miraculously become available on an unlimited over the counter basis, a new procedure or product will be developed and everyone would then want that one. Who gets to decide who gets the limited procedure and on what basis does that person or those persons make that decision?

And that is the larger (and real) point. What happens when the average individual earns a million dollars over a lifetime and requires two million dollars in healthcare?

Neither side is addressing the elephant in the room.

I will. That individual suffers and dies, as does the child who earns nothing and the billionaire whose treatment requires trillions. From each according to his willingness and ability to contribute, to each according to his willingness and ability to earn. This promotes both charity and personal accountability.

The Democrat attitude is summed up in what Harry Reid said, in answer to the question of why he wouldn't help a child with cancer: 'Why would we do that? there are 1100 people at Nellis AFB sitting at home with problems of their own."

..............all this about the Republican's willingness to pass spending bills to fund those programs that provide cancer treatment and immediate, life saving, care.

NOW whose fault is all this?

There is a cartoon up, where the Capitol building is portrayed, with a couple of speech bubbles above it: one says "Are you speaking Republican?" The other says "Are you speaking Democrat? I don't understand Democrat!" The caption under the whole thing is 'the new Tower of Babel."

............and it's right. I don't understand "Democrat.' OR 'Progressive."

I don't understand the attitude that would hold children with cancer hostage for the passage of a HEALTH CARE BILL. I don't understand the attitude that individuals are somehow irrelevant--that only groups count.

The thing is: all groups are made up of individuals. If you use the argument that you can sacrifice one individual for the group, you have just indicated that you will sacrifice all individuals for the group. If you do that, there's no group left to sacrifice FOR.

Sacrifice the kids who need cancer treatment for the employees at Nellis? Er, well....

Sacrifice people with expensive health care needs for the 'good' of the majority?

What happens when members of that majority, because they HAVE health care, find out that they actually have a condition that's going to COST MONEY?

Why..........individuals must give way to the good of the group.

It's insane.

Insurance is a gamble. Literally. Those who pay the premiums are betting that they WILL get sick (or die) and thus 'win' the care they need. The insurance companies are betting that the premium payers will NOT get sick, or die, and so they can keep the money. It's Vegas.

Insurance DEPENDS upon a great many healthy people losing their bet; they stay healthy and don't die. This enables the insurance companies to pay their losses to the folks who do get sick and/or die.

Obamacare? Did you read about the one guy who actually got insurance on the online exchanges? Fine, healthy 30 year old law student (who already had insurance and was paying about $40 per month for it, through his school) went online, and though he ran into a couple of glitches, finally got through and signed up for insurance.

Which turned out to be medicaid. No premiums at all for him.

.................and this is supposed to be a success? Now, true, once he starts practicing law, he may have to pay premiums, but for now?

I don't think that's what is supposed to happen, do you?

Now here in California, it's quite possible to get the insurance, and medical is fairly easy to get. As one woman noted: getting the insurance is easy. Getting the CARE isn't. Fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are accepting Medical and Medicare.

[nursebenjamin]

The Democrat attitude is summed up in what Harry Reid said, in answer to the question of why he wouldn't help a child with cancer: 'Why would we do that? there are 1100 people at Nellis AFB sitting at home with problems of their own."

..............all this about the Republican's willingness to pass spending bills to fund those programs that provide cancer treatment and immediate, life saving, care. ...

Cherry-picking/Quote mining

DANA BASH (CNN): You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that -- (off mic) -- given what you said, would you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games as Republicans are?

SEN. REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here, and he did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. And it's this. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow.

What this is all about is "Obamacare." They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this "Obamacare" thing. As has been pointed on the floor the last few days, they did the same thing on Social Security. They did the same thing on Medicare. Now they're doing it on this.

It's working now, and it'll continue to work, and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

HARRY REID: Listen (INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they -- why -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- they have a few problems of their own.



Later, in an interview with The Bill Press Show, Reid elaborated on the exchange.

"The whole answer is this -- why would we want to have the House of Representatives, John Boehner, cherry pick what stays open and what should be closed?" he said. "Listen, I gave a speech on the floor talking about the babies, 30 babies, little kids who are not going to have clinical trials. Of course I care about that. I have 16 of my own grandchildren and five of my own children."

I don't understand the attitude that would hold children with cancer hostage for the passage of a HEALTH CARE BILL.

Woah oh oh. The Health Care Bill has already passed. The vote was a few years ago. Remember?

Tea Bagger Republicans don't have the votes to pass an anti-HEALTH CARE BILL. What right do they have to subvert the democratic process and hold the nation hostage?

[bluethread]

The thing is: all groups are made up of individuals. If you use the argument that you can sacrifice one individual for the group, you have just indicated that you will sacrifice all individuals for the group. If you do that, there's no group left to sacrifice FOR.

Sacrifice the kids who need cancer treatment for the employees at Nellis? Er, well....

Sacrifice people with expensive health care needs for the 'good' of the majority?

What happens when members of that majority, because they HAVE health care, find out that they actually have a condition that's going to COST MONEY?

Why..........individuals must give way to the good of the group.

It's insane.

Let me make some observations here, if I may.

In this case, that sacrifice is the person who is sacrificed because they can not provide for themselves do to their earnings being taken and given to someone else. That is indeed blood sacrifice.

The government not funding the NIH, for the children, is not an act of sacrifice, but a withholding of benevolence. Money must be allocated from funds taken from the citizenry, that is involuntary benevolence.

Also, those with expensive health care needs are not being sacrificed unless we are talking about euthanasia. No one has an inherent right to expensive health care. If such health care is denied based on a contractual agreement, there is merely the withholding of services that are not contractually required.

When people who have health care realize that all contracts have limitations, they are then faced with the same challenges as those without contractual arrangements face on a regular basis.

There are only two cases that I can think of where the individual must give way to the good of the group. That is when they have contractually agreed to that or they are forced to by government authority.

Insurance is a gamble. Literally. Those who pay the premiums are betting that they WILL get sick (or die) and thus 'win' the care they need. The insurance companies are betting that the premium payers will NOT get sick, or die, and so they can keep the money. It's Vegas.

Insurance DEPENDS upon a great many healthy people losing their bet; they stay healthy and don't die. This enables the insurance companies to pay their losses to the folks who do get sick and/or die.

This is a correct view of the situation. The person who needs the lottery jackpot is not being sacrificed for the sake of the winner, if he does not win.

Now here in California, it's quite possible to get the insurance, and medical is fairly easy to get. As one woman noted: getting the insurance is easy. Getting the CARE isn't. Fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are accepting Medical and Medicare.

This is also a correct view of the difference between medical insurance and medical care, and the practical effects of the laws of supply and demand.

[nursebenjamin]

... Those with expensive health care needs are not being sacrificed unless we are talking about euthanasia. No one has an inherent right to expensive health care. If such health care is denied based on a contractual agreement, there is merely the withholding of services that are not contractually required.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I’m wrong. You are in favor of Death Panels. You believe that it is ok for someone or a group of someones to decide who receives medical care and who doesn’t. (Call this decision a contract, if you wish.) In this example, the decision is base on one’s wealth and/or earning.

[johnmarc]

... Those with expensive health care needs are not being sacrificed unless we are talking about euthanasia. No one has an inherent right to expensive health care. If such health care is denied based on a contractual agreement, there is merely the withholding of services that are not contractually required.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I’m wrong. You are in favor of Death Panels. You believe that it is ok for someone or a group of someones to decide who receives medical care and who doesn’t. (Call this decision a contract, if you wish.) In this example, the decision is base on one’s wealth and/or earning.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I am wrong. You are in favor of government bankruptcy should the ever increasing spiral of medical advancements and cost finally reach the point that each of us costs more than we contribute---not an unrealistic prediction.

None of us want to pull the plug on grandma who is wasting away for years in a nursing home completely oblivious to her surroundings. But her costs (collectively) are going to bankrupt us. But some form of rationing of healthcare is inevitable. Either we address it now, or we address as we emerge from the tangle of national bankruptcy.

This should be the conservative position but they are too timid to address it.

[dianaiad]

The Democrat attitude is summed up in what Harry Reid said, in answer to the question of why he wouldn't help a child with cancer: 'Why would we do that? there are 1100 people at Nellis AFB sitting at home with problems of their own."

..............all this about the Republican's willingness to pass spending bills to fund those programs that provide cancer treatment and immediate, life saving, care. ...

Cherry-picking/Quote mining

DANA BASH (CNN): You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that -- (off mic) -- given what you said, would you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games as Republicans are?

SEN. REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here, and he did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. And it's this. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow.

What this is all about is "Obamacare." They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this "Obamacare" thing. As has been pointed on the floor the last few days, they did the same thing on Social Security. They did the same thing on Medicare. Now they're doing it on this.

It's working now, and it'll continue to work, and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

HARRY REID: Listen (INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they -- why -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- they have a few problems of their own.



Later, in an interview with The Bill Press Show, Reid elaborated on the exchange.

"The whole answer is this -- why would we want to have the House of Representatives, John Boehner, cherry pick what stays open and what should be closed?" he said. "Listen, I gave a speech on the floor talking about the babies, 30 babies, little kids who are not going to have clinical trials. Of course I care about that. I have 16 of my own grandchildren and five of my own children."

I don't understand the attitude that would hold children with cancer hostage for the passage of a HEALTH CARE BILL.

Woah oh oh. The Health Care Bill has already passed. The vote was a few years ago. Remember?

Tea Bagger Republicans don't have the votes to pass an anti-HEALTH CARE BILL. What right do they have to subvert the democratic process and hold the nation hostage?

You talk about cherry picking and blame the Republicans. The REPUBLICANS are willing to fund these life saving programs. The Democrats are not.

You talk about the Republicans 'cherry picking.' They are not.

Obama, however, is. HE'S the one, going outside his authority to do so, btw, who delayed the employer mandate by a year. He's the one who has allowed waivers to the businesses that support him and the big labor unions that support him. He and his party are the ones that, while allowing everybody ELSE (including those kids who need cancer treatment) to hang, made very certain that THEIR salaries are paid.

So don't go talking about 'quote mining' and 'cherry picking' with me. From where I sit, the Republicans have tried very hard to see to it that the cherry picking is stopped, and that the programs like this cancer treatment continue. It is the Democrats who will not move. It is they who will not budge, or talk...

And if this is what the Republicans have to do in order to FINALLY force the Democrats to allow them into the conversation, then I guess that's what is going to have to happen, because.............as I have mentioned and nobody has denied.......they were not given any sort of seat or input into the process of forming or enacting Obamacare.

Now the Republicans are not willing to hold ill children hostage.
But Obama is.
Reid is.

and there is absolutely no question about this part.

[dianaiad]

... Those with expensive health care needs are not being sacrificed unless we are talking about euthanasia. No one has an inherent right to expensive health care. If such health care is denied based on a contractual agreement, there is merely the withholding of services that are not contractually required.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I’m wrong. You are in favor of Death Panels. You believe that it is ok for someone or a group of someones to decide who receives medical care and who doesn’t. (Call this decision a contract, if you wish.) In this example, the decision is base on one’s wealth and/or earning.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I am wrong. You are in favor of government bankruptcy should the ever increasing spiral of medical advancements and cost finally reach the point that each of us costs more than we contribute---not an unrealistic prediction.

None of us want to pull the plug on grandma who is wasting away for years in a nursing home completely oblivious to her surroundings. But her costs (collectively) are going to bankrupt us. But some form of rationing of healthcare is inevitable. Either we address it now, or we address as we emerge from the tangle of national bankruptcy.

This should be the conservative position but they are too timid to address it.

We aren't talking about 'pulling the plug on Grandma' here, Jonmarc.

I know that I'm being criticized for posting my very personal story here as an example of what WILL happen, but the fact is...I'm not grandma languishing away in a nursing home on life support.

The only thing I have against me is that I'm in the wrong groups: old, female and needing cutting edge treatment.

That's not me being discriminated against because I'm a selfish individual; none of the guidelines that will deny me the lifesaving medication and procedures I may well need are aimed at me, individually.

They are aimed at the groups I belong to: a group everybody is eventually going to belong to.

Are we going to become the society of that mythical Eskimo tribe that puts their old people on ice floes? In fiction, descriptions of societies that put limits on healthcare offered to the elderly, or on the years of life allowed, are considered DYSTOPIAS.

And Obamacare is setting us up for one hell of a dystopia.

Now I'm not so valuable as to be worth more than the 30 million Americans who don't have insurance right now, but I guarantee that denying me treatments and medication that I need is NOT GOING TO GET THEM INSURANCE.

Believe me, taking the Velcade away from me is not going to get vaccinations for school kids. Taking the possibility of a second bone marrow transplant isn't going to insure more appendectomies for 20 year-olds.

But ALLOWING it will, quite possibly, help save the lives of other people who have blood related cancers.

Your problem is that you are using 'grandma' in your analogy as some faceless puppet that you can put in a wheelchair and accuse some Republican of pushing over a cliff, when 'grandma' is both a real person, with children, grandchildren and friends---AND a representative of a group that, when you mistreat one, you justify the mistreatment of all.

Does the health care system need revising? Sure. But Obamacare isn't it. It's already not working: Obama himself has broken a few laws in order to delay and mess with it. It's a colossal boondoggle. It will result in FEWER people getting insurance and care, not more....and if you think insurance premiums are too high now, wait until they go up 120%, the way they are projected to do in California.

So now we have health insurance that nobody is going to be able to afford, that has higher co-pays, fewer benefits......and if you can't afford it any more then than you can now, you get to pay $2000 per year as a penalty and you STILL don't get the insurance or healthcare you need.

Would you kindly tell me how that is getting ANYBODY better insurance? OR healthcare?

[bluethread]

... Those with expensive health care needs are not being sacrificed unless we are talking about euthanasia. No one has an inherent right to expensive health care. If such health care is denied based on a contractual agreement, there is merely the withholding of services that are not contractually required.

Let me get this straight; correct me if I’m wrong. You are in favor of Death Panels. You believe that it is ok for someone or a group of someones to decide who receives medical care and who doesn’t. (Call this decision a contract, if you wish.) In this example, the decision is base on one’s wealth and/or earning.

No, I believe in quite the opposite. I believe in a relatively free market where the sellers of goods and services are either required to sell those goods and services to everyone on a first come first served basis for a given price, or provide those goods and services pro bono as the seller sees fit. Death Panels only occur when discrimination is introduced into the system and that discrimination is based on subjective judgment and not objective standards. A discriminatory system with objective standards is merely impersonal bureaucracy. In short, triage is a routine death panel that is currently convened in every medical facility every day.

[dianaiad]

Tea Bagger Republicans don't have the votes to pass an anti-HEALTH CARE BILL. What right do they have to subvert the democratic process and hold the nation hostage?

The right of the majority they hold in the house of Congress in charge of the money, a majority they hold because the American people were so pissed off at the Democrats for what they did without Republican input that they insured a Republican majority in the House.

Or, as the Democrats love to point out when they WIN elections, 'elections have consequences.'

The thing here is, the election that put Obama back in office was anything BUT a 'mandate of the people.' It was a very divided, close election that might well have gone the other way, had certain voting problems not happened, tipping Obama's way rather than Romney's....some of which should have gone Romney's way.

Obama's election simply wasn't the success y'all are crowing about; a squeeker at best. Perhaps Obama and the Democrats should start thinking about the other half of the nation? The half that DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM?

Because they haven't been. They've been running rough shod over the Republicans for years. Now they are seeing what happens when political power is given, BY THE PEOPLE, to folks who don't agree with them, and who had no other recourse or input to what was done previously.

Again: the Republicans were given NO space at the table. No input, no seat in the committees, nothing. If they want to get somewhere NOW, they'd better start listening, and start negotiating, and start compromising, because if they do not, they will find themselves in the place they put the Republicans in.

With nobody to blame but themselves, not that they won't try to blame everybody BUT themselves.