Health Care Reform is a Deficit Reducer

*Spidey's mom* · Nov 20, 2009, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by HM2VikingRN

Man In Black did discuss his concerns about this issue.....The point he made was that reform brings reimbursement issues out of the corporate boardroom and into the open for collective discussion and decision making through political processes.

I wasn't commenting on Man In Black . .. .

steph

*Spidey's mom* · Nov 20, 2009, 11:58 AM

http://www.iwf.org/news/show/22362.html

"Proponents of the proposed healthcare reform reassure the public that the government won't be in the business of "rationing" care. It's one of the topics on the White House's "Reality Check" website; the headline insists: "Reform will stop rationing-not increase it."
Yet the public is getting a glimpse into how government rationing might work. This week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (that's a panel charged with reviewing evidence and making recommendations for preventive services) offered its opinion about best practices for screening women for breast cancer. Their recommendations were a significant change from what's common today: They suggest that women in their 40s should not have annual mammograms and older women should reduce the use of this screening devise. . . ."

Take a look at the "Related Content" box to the right of the article for more info.

steph

HeyJude · Nov 20, 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by VickyRN

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/D...aspx?id=776792

I'm tired of all the shenanigans, the smoke and mirrors, the outright lies. They must think the American people are pretty stupid to buy into this ridiculous lie. Yes, this frightening bill will end up bankrupting America, especially the middle class - now that is the unembellished truth.

I just can't get outraged about this when for eight years under Bush we borrowed money - more money than we'll ever be able to pay back, I fear - to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are causing more problems than they're fixing...without a word from the OneNewsNow people (I listen to them too). I can't abide the outrage over the cost of the healthcare bill when we were fed lie after lie about Iraq's WMDs and it cost us as much in money and lives as it has, and no one on that side spoke up.

Man In Black · Nov 20, 2009, 03:24 PM

[quote]

Originally Posted by Spidey's mom

As a woman, I completely disagree with the mammogram recommendations. And now they are adding pap/pelvic exams.

I was responding to your comment.

For all the noise made about the recent mammogram recommendation change did anyone notice Sen Reids comment. He came out and said in so many words that reimbursements for the procedure should not change from current practice under reform. (Effectiveness research may find that genetic testing for BRCA and HEr would be a better strategy for identifying women at risk of developing breast cancer between age 40-50 which cold then tailor mammogram practices...)

From Us News:
In conducting their analysis, the panel weighed the number of false positives and unnecessary procedures against the number of lives saved from early detection and treatment. They estimated that screening at age 40 (as opposed to at age 50) prevented 0.7 breast cancer deaths for every 1,000 women screened, while 470 women would have a false-positive and another 33 would have unnecessary biopsies.

Far greater chance of being hit by a bus than having a missed cancer under the new guidelines. Lest you think I'm callous I'm not. I made the point that effectiveness research may very well yield the result that genetic screening based on family history would be far more cost effective AND yield better detection statistics than the current system.

470 false positives costs a lot of money along with the risk of unnecessary exposure to radiation which may increase the risk for breast cancer. Its crazy to not seek better and more effective means of delivering quality care. As TR REID has observed health care reform drives innovation.

Regards...

**VickyRN** · Nov 20, 2009, 04:00 PM

Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) on the Reid healthcare reform bill:

While I have not yet had time to review this 2,074 page bill in its entirety, what I have read so far makes clear that this bill is the wrong prescription for our nation's health care system. What concerns me the most is that this bill cuts Medicare benefits for seniors, increases taxes on small businesses, dramatically increases federal spending, and puts government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. This bill also increases health care costs. The real ten-year cost of the bill when fully implemented - $2.5 trillion - poses a significant threat to our nation's fiscal situation. I encourage you to read the bill and the official score by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

I believe there is a better approach to health care reform, such as providing portability, eliminating pre-existing conditions, reforming our malpractice laws, and incentivizing wellness, prevention, and disease management. These measures would provide greater access and lower health care costs for Americans. That is why I introduced my own health care reform legislation called the Patients’ Choice Act last May.

As an elected representative of the people of North Carolina, I have long believed that reform of our current health care system is necessary. Without any kind of reform, I fear that skyrocketing health care costs – which already consume one-sixth of our economy – will eventually destroy jobs and budgets as health insurance becomes increasingly unaffordable. I am committed to finding a solution that makes insurance affordable and accessible, but which also builds on what works in our current system. Any reform must continue to foster the medical innovation and quality that has made American health care the best in the world.

http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.....PressReleases

*Tweety* · Nov 20, 2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by VickyRN

Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) on the Reid healthcare reform bill:...........I believe there is a better approach to health care reform, such as providing portability, eliminating pre-existing conditions, reforming our malpractice laws, and incentivizing wellness, prevention, and disease management.

I imagine this approach is quite similar to what many of us want and in fact doesn't seem original. But kudos to him for at least acknowledging a problem and offering a solution.

**HM2VikingRN** · Nov 20, 2009, 08:30 PM

Links are embedded to CBO letter.

Employer and individual mandates:

Insurance costs limited to set percentage of income.....

9.8 percent in 2014, indexed over time—in which case the
employer would be penalized.

Moves more people away from individual coverage to group plans...(improves coverage levels and lowers costs for individuals)

Cadillac plan tax doesn't kick in until 2014....

Reduces Medicare Advantage spending by 118 Bn

Jolie · Nov 21, 2009, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Man In Black

From Us News:
In conducting their analysis, the panel weighed the number of false positives and unnecessary procedures against the number of lives saved from early detection and treatment. They estimated that screening at age 40 (as opposed to at age 50) prevented 0.7 breast cancer deaths for every 1,000 women screened, while 470 women would have a false-positive and another 33 would have unnecessary biopsies.

470 false positives costs a lot of money along with the risk of unnecessary exposure to radiation which may increase the risk for breast cancer.

It's been a busy week, so I haven't had time to research this statistic: 470 "false positives" out of every 1000 women screened. What the heck are they defining as a "false positive"? If we are to believe this stat (which I don't), we are to believe that nearly 1/2 of all women having mamograms are getting "false positives". That sets off my BS detector. If it is true, then why haven't changes been made long before now? I believe someone is stretching the truth quite a long way to come up with this statistic as a justification for reducing payment for mammograms.

Jolie · Nov 21, 2009, 07:51 AM

[quote=HM2VikingRN;3984610]

Insurance costs limited to set percentage of income.....

What was the percentage of income taxed when federal income income tax was originated? How many times has it increased since then? We are to believe that this is the maximum that individuals will be taxed for government mandated health care? Please don't attempt to insult our intelligence or make us question yours!

*Spidey's mom* · Nov 21, 2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Jolie

It's been a busy week, so I haven't had time to research this statistic: 470 "false positives" out of every 1000 women screened. What the heck are they defining as a "false positive"? If we are to believe this stat (which I don't), we are to believe that nearly 1/2 of all women having mamograms are getting "false positives". That sets off my BS detector. If it is true, then why haven't changes been made long before now? I believe someone is stretching the truth quite a long way to come up with this statistic as a justification for reducing payment for mammograms.

AND . . . . are they including those mammograms that look suspicious and women come back for a second look by mammo or sono? And then they find out that everything is fine? (Whew!).

Are those first mammo's "false positives"?

Because I've had them - and appreciate going back for further testing to rule out CANCER.

I've also had what might be called "false positives" with my yearly pap/pelvic exams. And go back for further testing of uterine tissue. Just to make sure it isn't CANCER.

I'm a hospice nurse dealing with mostly patients who have cancer . . . . being more careful about diagnosis is a good idea to me.

Maybe the issue should be instead of limiting tests - how about lowering the costs of the tests?

I've started calling around to find the lowest cost for lab tests, mammos, gyne appts, etc., taking into account the expertise too.

Maybe if the market had more leeway . . . .costs would go down.

But getting more bureaucracy and some "idgit" person in Washington D.C. to make decisions about MY health care decisions than is already in existence is maddening.

steph (my grandma always said "idgit")