What is Obama planning for seniors in terms of reining in health care costs?

[Peregrine Took]

From the sound of this article he is going to ask us to sacrifice more, in terms of health care treatments, in order to leave more for the younger generation?

Its in the section of the Bill regarding computerization of medical records.

Apparently, its a pet idea of Daschle's for a long time which he got from the English health care system.

Also, they want to much more closely monitor health treatments and penalize doctors who don't strictly adhere to new "approved" government standards.

Maybe this is right wing propaganda - it would sure suck if it were true. Here is a link to the article:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

[frankdtank78]

1. Saw that this morning

It's pretty Orwellian in nature. Isn't everyone a little frightened by a govt bureaucrat telling doctors what they can and can't do? The worst part about it is that as described in the article, this stuff is slipped into the stimulus bill. Control of health care snuck into a huge spending bill would be total dishonesty. I truly see no reason why we should stay in the USA if this stuff is true and gets enforced.

[spin]

2. If it is true, expect one hell of a backlash if it is part of the stimulus package...

The report is gaining attention. I've heard senators being asked about the idea on cable news this morning and the Bloomberg article made the Drudge Report.

Somehow I think Daschle's pet project will be removed from the bill before the President signs it.

[The empressof all]

3. Here's what concerns me about this.

This link is a commentary and may have very little basis in fact so I certainly would need more details before making any assumptions. That being said I also encourage you all to remember that Insurance Companies have been monitoring and controlling your health care for years for a Profit.

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

4. Admittedly, we don't know all the facts,

but really this sneakiness is a big mistake and one that centrist Democrats frequently make. I've never really understood why Daschle has the reputation of being a health care guru, especially on the strength of a rather slight book. This proposal, on the face of it, seems to be extending the monitoring capacities of the managed care systems and HMOs to the public sector. It makes very little sense, since these very capacities are the problem everyone has with insurance companies and managed care plans, that they are unresponsive and profit-oriented. Proposals of this nature really substitute the inherent weakness of these private systems with an public oversight that aims to ration resources based upon cost effectiveness.

The real efficiencies of systems like Medicare lie in the fact that they are able to achieve cost efficiences based on their bargaining position vis-a-vis providers (they can in effect virtually dictate benefit amounts paid to providers), and to the fact that they are single-payer programs with the reduced overhead that comes with that status.

The problem I have with all these realists and pragmatists is that they start out by assuming that the current system cannot be changed, only ameliorated. The same is true of all these bailout plans. They assume that structural change is impossible, hence we can maybe trick crooks into behaving in the public interest by providing incentives, etc. We as a nation need to start thinking about health care as a social right and a social cost. This isn't socialism. Most of the developed world already does this quite nicely. We ought to go out and look at systems that are by and large successful, like Germany, the Scandanavian countries, France, and even Canada.

[The empressof all]

5. Agreed

We have to contend with a large chunk of our population who have had the fear of "Socialized Medicine" drone into their heads for the last twenty years.

I never understood the Daschle love either...I never saw him as extraordinarly effective as a politician nor is he a strong communicator which is what we need to get the American people to understand why a single payor system is to their own individual as well as the general benefit.

[yy4me]

6. I am concerned about changes in the health-care portions of any

new proposal. I am the first one to agree that we need universal health care. Single -payer. In fact, years ago I was involved with a group who worked with Hillary on her initiatives. I was not a Senior then but as you age, your perspective changes a lot on this issue.

All recipients of Social Security already spend about $100.00 a month, deducted from their check for Medicare A & B (this does not count the annual deductible). There are additional fees for privately bought supplements to cover the non-coverage parts of Medicare. Of course there is the genius Part D prescription drug plan which almost no-one feels is logical or fair.

If we ever get a universal plan, I wonder if that $100.00 a month will cease to be deducted from our check. Maybe a single payer plan will pay for medicine too?

Somehow I don't think I'll live long enough to see this ever happen but there ought to be birth-to- death health-care for our citizens.

Somehow, lots of folks think that Medicare is free to elders. This statement is not true. It is like any other insurance with premiums, co-pays, deductibles and gaps. It is not a free ride, especially if Social Security is your only income.