Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Health care reform’s costs are too high
Friday, July 3, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Has anyone wondered how it is that our government will be able to reimburse doctors and hospitals for our treatment with a national health insurance program, if it is struggling now to pay for Medicare or Medicaid?
There will be more cuts to what the providers get and what we get; there is no other way. Doctors will leave their practices, and we will be deprived of the care that we need and are accustomed to.
Be careful what you ask for, it might come to pass. There are no free lunches.
Discussion: 17 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Miguel Cotto turns up heat readying for Manny Pacquiao
- Joe Perry: Steven Tyler has quit Aerosmith
- Phil Hellmuth breaks down Main Event final table
- Metro officer’s fatal shooting of teen ruled justified
- New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU
- MGM Mirage following Harrah’s lead on marketing conventions
- Judge dismisses suits blaming Las Vegas Sands for stock drop
- Success: UNLV hits mark of $500 million in cash and pledges
- UNLV hoopsters ready for some unfamiliar faces
- Airport officials hope rivals will pick up US Airways’ flight cuts
Blogs
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (13 Comments)
Elsewhere
Fontainebleau suit takes aim at Soffer empire (6 Comments)
Mono puts date for Lesnar title defense in question
The Kats Report
Got a question for Wayne Newton? Or a favorite story? Send it over (5 Comments)
Now and Then
Rollie's team beats Isiah's team (4 Comments)
Calendar »
- 7 Sat
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
-
Everclear at the Hard Rock Cafe on the Strip
Hard Rock Cafe on Strip | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
UNLV Rebels vs. Colorado State at Sam Boyd Stadium
Sam Boyd Stadium | 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Eric Burdon and The Animals at Ovation
Ovation | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Anjelah Nicole Johnson at The House of Blues
House of Blues | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
2009 PBR World Finals at The Thomas and Mack Center
The Thomas & Mack Center
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Dennis Blair at the V Theater
V Theatre inside Miracle Mile Shops
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The following story reveals why many fear government run healthcare where the Doctor and Patient do not get to decide to treatment.
In this case a proven effective 5-year old technology using non-invasive, precision-targeted stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer is being dropped by Medicare.
The stated reason "The literature does not support an outcome advantage over other conventional radiation modalities."
Medicare does not see an advantage -- meaning it is as good as other methods, less invasive than other methods, has much shorter treatment time (usually five days), reduced side-effects, and hence preferred by many men.
So regional Medicare bureaucrats are saying you cannot have it.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jun/...
By LIZ FREEMAN (Contact)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Prostate cancer patients willing to try something relatively new a few years ago for faster treatment and reduced side effects came to swear by the CyberKnife technology. Men were coming to Naples, FL from all over for the robotic system for non-invasive, precision-targeted radiation therapy.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services leave the reimbursement decision up to its regional Medicare administrators.
For five years, Medicare in Florida has paid for CyberKnife treatment of prostate cancer. That's about to change and Medicare coverage could end this fall.
According to a spokesman for First Coast Services Options Inc., the Jacksonville-based Medicare bureaucrats for Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, First Coast has drafted a local coverage determination that says stereotactic body radiation therapy, the treatment offered by CyberKnife, will no longer be covered because scientific data doesn't show it offers an advantage over other treatment options for prostate cancer.
"The following story reveals why many fear government run healthcare where the Doctor and Patient do not get to decide to treatment."
Right...so we should keep the system where a BEAN-COUNTER at an insurance firm gets to decide based on how it will effect their bottom line.
I'm not one bit comfortable with the idea that someone decides whether people live or die based on that kind of calculation.
The push is about being FAIR. This will not make the total of health care better, it just makes everyone receive the same. So those with long lines and waits will now see everyone with long lines and waits, and somehow that is fair. Even if it stifles advancement and excellence. Just look at our schools, all government run, fair, and failing.
"I'm not one bit comfortable with the idea that someone decides whether people live or die based on that kind of calculation"
I agree so once the only plan left standing is a government run public plan it will be short-funded year to year like Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare, and the VA, all failure in delivering services to people.
Did you ever wonder why Retirees must buy a "Supplement"?
It is because Medicare does not cover all the basics.
Why is it every year the government reduces the pay schedule for Doctor and Hosipital service - because they have no money and they have a unfund liability of $36 trillion.
If you buy your own private plan you know what is covered and what you pay.
We can fix the access problem without a public plan.
"We can fix the access problem without a public plan."
No we can't. People with pre-existing conditions will never get a fair shake. They'll have to pay out-of-sight premiums with high co-pays and high deductibles, which is kinda pointless.
Insurance companies have bragged about terminating coverage for people who become a drag on their profit margin.
We've given them 16 years to fix the problem, and they chose to ignore it. They don't get another mulligan.
Health care should NOT be a for-profit business. And anyone who argues that it should needs to take a long look in a mirror and ask themselves if they would subject their loved ones to a system that sees them just as numbers on a balance sheet.
A few years ago, my mother-in-law died because she had a brain aneurism and needed a shunt put into her head. The insurance company called it "elective surgery." What's your solution?
My son has MS, lost his job, no insurance, no treatment!
My daughter has a serious medical condition that requires monitoring. Her employer does not provide health insurance coverage. No insurance, no monitoring. Like playing Russian roulette with your life.
If my wife gets laid off and we lose our health insurance, due to pre-existing conditions I would be unable to buy private insurance and I'm a dead man walking. Please don't suggest Cobra as it's a joke to think that unemployed people can afford $1,000 a month or more for health insurance when they're without an income.
Any suggestions from you healthcare experts? If not, what is it you don't get about the failures of our current system?
Good luck and best wishes to your family, Mr. Shumway. Please keep speaking out for the need for change.
Thank you gunowwners4; I'm probably going to need a little luck.
Did you notice that none of the "experts" came up with any suggestions for dealing with healthcare issues any family might have?
I wish you good health.
Gordon:
I have suggested a free-market system consisting of tax-deductible Health Savings Accounts combined with major-medical insurance, not employer-based, to put decision-making in the hands of the people paying for health care, make health care portable (not job-dependent), accumulate health care funds over generations, and bring down the cost of health care by eliminating documentation and bringing consumers in direct contact with providers. A taxpayer-funded program could be provided on a means-tested basis for those unable to afford their own health care, similar to VA.
A completely government-run system would allocate health care resources to operating a massive bureaucracy, disconnect consumers from providers, force a portion of the population to pay for health care for the entire population, and eliminate the consequences of personal lifestyle choices.
"I have suggested a free-market system consisting of tax-deductible Health Savings Accounts combined with major-medical insurance"
More giveaways to the health insurance industry that already has NO intention of changing its ways. What could possibly go wrong?
Did you not see the testimony on Capitol Hill the last two weeks? They aren't going to do anything to make the system better unless they're forced to.
Then again, you and I are never going to agree on this. So why am I even bothering to respond?
lazyfaire: Let's have a public option provided by the government to compete with a revamped private system made up of your proposals and you can keep your preferred insurer with the multi-million $ salaries for their executives. Health care should not be for profit and your health should not depend on some guys in $1,500 suits denying claims to maximize their salaries.
I hope you see the logic in this soon before the number of uninsured hits 60,000,000 or, someone in your family becomes ill and therefore an enemy of an insurance company. Be ready to fight if you do become ill.
Gordon:
While I am against the government "competing" against the private sector, I would be willing to see a government option compete with my proposals, as long as the government did not tilt the playing field to make the private sector unable to compete. As I've said, I don't like our current health care system, but I like a government-run system even less. It's a false dilemma to think that a government-run system is the only alternative to our current system.
"It's a false dilemma to think that a government-run system is the only alternative to our current system."
It's the only alternative that isn't impractical in terms of implementation or even more flawed than the system we have now.
A government run system would not be "competing" with the private sector. A government run system would be providing healthcare for everyone who needed it. The private sector would be competing with the government run healthcare system.
Maybe then those multi million $ salaries paid to some healthcare CEO's would dry up, or maybe they'd just charge you more! You realize that United Health Group CEO William McGuire is having it pretty tough getting by on the $124.8 million total compensation paid to him in 2005. It takes a lot of claims denials to get those bonuses.
HEALTH CARE SHOULD NOT BE FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Government run healthcare would be disastrous and would break America. Either party can't do their job what makes anyone think they can run a public healthcare system.
Look at history, Medicare, Medicate, Welfare etc" etc" etc" they're all riddled with crime, corruption, and provide lousy service. Yet people think that overnight Obama has the ability create a system that works. Only those with less intelligence would believe such a lie. Not to mention, everything this idiot has done to-date clearly shows how stupid Obama is.
its2hot: Every other industrialized and CIVILIZED country on earth provides healthcare for their citizens. Why can't America do it? Are we that far behind the rest of the world. Many Americans would like the sick, the elderly, and the poor, to just go away because we can't, or don't want to, solve the problem. We have turned into a nation of greedy heathens. What an embarrassment we are turning into in the eyes of the world.