Why are special interests like the AMA and Pharma co.'s supporting Obama's plan???

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DoNoHarm, Jul 18, 2009.

  1. DoNoHarm macrumors 65816

    DoNoHarm

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Maine
    #1
  2. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #2
    The AMA supports him, as far as I can tell from the last AMA convention, because the rising costs of health care and of malpractice insurance is putting doctor's jobs at risk.

    As far as pharmaceutical companies, you'd have to me more specific.
    IMO, if they do support it, it's probably because they'd have a possibility to get their drugs to another 50M Americans if everyone is covered.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html
     
  3. opinioncircle macrumors 6502a

    opinioncircle

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #3
    Yeah it's a sure way to open a whole new market for them. I mean companies will be able to slash prices, when government won't. Kind of easy money if you ask me...
     
  4. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    Because Obama's plan is not going to be that good. Obama himself is very centre-right, so he was never going to introduce real healthcare reform. Plus, Republicans have put hundreds of amendments into this thing despite the fact that almost none of them will vote for it. I sort of expect that this healthcare bill will go over like the stimulus plan. It will fix the surface of the problem, but will never address the root causes for our current disastrous health problem: private, for-profit corporations in charge of our insurance coverage.

    HR 676, which was introduced years ago, is a much better proposal. But it had never been seriously considered, and probably never will, because we have no national leader willing to stand up against the insurance industry.
     
  5. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #5
    Would you also advocate government takeover of other forms of insurance, such as auto and home? If government can do a better job with health insurance, why not other types too?
     
  6. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Are you seriously trying to compare auto and home coverage to health coverage? Not everybody owns a car and not everybody owns a home. However, everyone in this country has a body that needs to be healthy in order to survive. Profit should not be made off of the health of people. A great profit is made by denying coverage to as many people as possible. They still pay their premiums, but can get screwed when the insurance corporation denies coverage, usually blaming a "pre-existing condition" as reason for refusing to pay.

    Which again, is the biggest problem I have with the proposed health care plan. It mandates that people buy into this system. Luckily, it seems I'm poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid coverage under the new plan, but I would not be happy at all if I were forced to pay premiums to a company that could well deny me coverage at a later date.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Agreed. The free market does not work with regards to health care. By it's very nature, it can't.
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Yes it does, when you allow it to work. Health insurrance is trying to cover everything which defeats the sole purpose of insurrance, you spread the disaster cost over a wide number of people. Health insurrance should have never became a maintenance entity, people should pay for their regular health checkups.
     
  9. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #9
    Fair enough; I get your point.

    You say that people would have to buy into this system. If you mean that they would have to pay for the coverage they get, even if the government were the insurance provider, I don't believe this is true. As I understand it, people would only be required to pay if they earned above a certain amount. My main problem with many of the proposals is that it provides for too many people being able to get coverage and therefore treatment free, including illegal immigrants and their children. If everyone would have to pay for coverage, I would have less of a problem with universal care. But that isn't what is going to happen.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    No it doesn't work. What's the goal of the free market? To make as much money as possible. Therefore, people get denied procedures that they need because the insurance company won't pay for them- too expensive and not profitable. People get denied insurance money for treatment because of "pre-existing conditions". The free market is antithetical to health care. It's insane to think it would ever work in the first place.
     
  11. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    I think we're a bit confused here. While I haven't read the entire bill (and I doubt anyone else here has either), I found this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31925037/ns/politics/

    It is comparing both the Senate and the House versions of the bill. The particular part of it I was referring to was this.

    If the individual or the family is wealthy enough, they would not be eligible for extended Medicaid plan proposed under the house plan.

    I think this discussion could be aided if there were a good break-down of the various bills available somewhere online. Unfortunately, that comparison link I posted is the best I've been able to find so far.

    What I meant to suggest was that rather than grant universal coverage, the proposed health care bills would simply mandate that people find health coverage. Its a rather assbackwards way to ensure universal coverage, in my opinion.
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    If anyone is looking for a critical view of the Obama's health care bills from the left, I found this article to be quite good.

    It may also explain why the industry is supportive of Obama's plan.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    I think you aren't gettig what I am saying. Preexisting conditions should be covered and they are part of the disaster umbrella. If everyone pays insurrance under the disaster umbrella the system works. Where it goes wrong is including regular maintenance. People choose their doctors on quality and price efficiency. The people control the free market, not the businesses.

    Health should be broken into two seperate entities. In fact I wouldn't even mind a government mandated disaster health tax because it would lower premiums to basically nothing when spread over millions.
     
  14. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #14
    The bill would perhaps mandate that people find health coverage, and would penalize those who don't, but would do so only for people making above a certain income. Those who are below this income cutoff would be provided coverage free, if I understand it correctly. In addition, any program that covers illegal immigrants beyond providing emergency services before deporting them should be rejected out of hand in my opinion. I don't believe that people who are here on work visas and other arrangements should be provided free or discount-priced health insurance or coverage at taxpayers' expense either.
     
  15. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    If you have a work visa and a job in the US, you pay US taxes period. You become a US taxpayer. The only way around this is if you lie (don't know why you would if you've got a work visa) or your employer lies.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Because the auto and home insurance industries are actually competitive.

    If the "free market" in healthcare is so great, why to the Americans spend more money on healthcare per person than any other country?
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Then no one would go for regular check ups. Come on- you know they wouldn't. Then your "disaster umbrella" gets even bigger, and people are even less healthy. The free market isn't the answer to everything all the time.
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #18
    Hospitals and doctors triaging patients to give priority to the most profitable instead of the most ill will work a charm.
     
  19. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #19
    Possibly because healthcare is better and therefore more costly here, there is more extensive and costly primary research that needs to be paid for, more expensive effects of government control of quality and integrity of health care and related industries, the add-on cost to cover services given to those who are not covered and are not paying anything into the system, possible greater use by Americans of non-essential services, unnecessary checkups, and treatment for every little ailment like a cold and dry or oily skin that they can and should treat themselves, and treatment for illnesses that by their nature will never get better. These are just a few hypotheses I thought of, none of which I researched or can validate. My point is that any difference in costs per person can be due to other factors and not necessarily the result of whether health care is free-market or government run. Perhaps it is up to you to establish any causal relationship here.
     
  20. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    If it's "better", than why do we live shorter lifespans compared to countries with a national healthcare plan?

    Colbert had a good guest on the other day. He said that the fact that if everyone got cancer that was in the audience, it was be *good* for the economy and the industry.
    That should never be true and is a good example of what's wrong. Our healthcare industry profits from people not getting better. Huge conflict on interests in my opinion.
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    According the last comprehensive study done by the WHO in 2000 the US was ranked number 37 out of 190 countries.


    Lethal

    EDIT: And in 2010 an estimated 6 million Americans will travel overseas for medical treatment.
     
  22. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #22
    There are plenty of things other than national healthcare that could account for lifespan differences, for instance, diet.

    Well, that is if you buy into the indicators that WHO uses as indicating quality of care being given. WHO's measures don't focus much on whether the healthcare is better, but rather the level of population health (which is easily affected by characteristics outside of the healthcare realm), health inequalities within the population, level of system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts), distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the system), and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population.

    WHO's measures don't really say much about the actual quality of the healthcare that is being given, instead they seem to focus more on who is treated (rather than the quality of that treatment), who pays for it, and fairness. The rankings are probably push America out of higher positions, not because American's receive poor quality care, but because there are large systemic issues with who receives healthcare, who pays for, etc.

    Its interesting to note that the WHO study found that America has the highest level of responsiveness (defined in their study as a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts).

    I'm certainly not saying that there doesn't need to be some level of reform so that more people are covered, but that study definitely doesn't mean that the care people who are insured in America get is any better or any worse than any other nation.
     
  23. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #23
    Fine. Discount the WHO. How do you know that American's is the "bestiest"?
     
  24. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #24
    rhsgolfer33 beat me out of the gate with his response. A shorter average life span could be had even with better care. To draw confident causal conclusions about the effect of quality of care on life span, it would be necessary for all other factors affecting life span to be controlled. Since it is not practically to do this experimentally (using random assignment of people to the different health care conditions being evaluated), it would have to be done by statistically adjusting the life span measures to account for differences between the groups on other factors that may affect their life spans (demographics, diet, atmospheric conditions, exposure to risk factors like complex traffic environments, etc.). Can you site any studies of the causal affect of health care quality on life span that attempted to control these other factors? Alternatively, you could try to make a case that these other factors aren't relevant, but I think that would be a losing argument.
     
  25. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #25
    I never said I did know that America was the best, I said that I don't feel the WHO's measure actually measures quality of care, rather the measure is weighted towards things like access, payment, and other issues not related to the quality of care individuals who are insured receive. That certainly doesn't mean their measure is a faulty measure in any way when applied towards the things that it actually does measure or to analyzing the effectiveness of a system in reaching a population as a whole. You're certainly free to disagree with me, but even the WHO's study had the U.S. at number one in responsiveness, which partially takes into account patient satisfaction. If patient satisfaction is any indicator of quality of care (and I'm not saying it necessarily is), then the U.S. probably has pretty good quality care provided you are insured. If you take into systemic issues, like access, payment, and other inequalities, then of course the U.S. system is going be ranked lower than a system that provides access to everyone for limited costs.
     

Share This Page