Don’t jump to conclusions about HR 3200
Don't believe everything you read.
There’s a lot of “news” floating around out there about House Resolution 3200. Unfortunately some of the discourse has devolved into scare tactics, misinterpretation and, in some cases, flat-out lies. Much like opponents of the people’s right to get a loan until payday call payday lenders “predatory,” opponents of the current administration are trying to twist language in the bill into meaning something it doesn’t.
It would be impossible, in one work day, for me to tackle all of the misinformation out there. Instead, I’ve picked three general misconceptions about HR 3200 to focus on.
1. The government is encouraging people to die
I chose to tackle this ridiculous claim first because it is the most offensive and the most inaccurate. In fact, the opposite is true. The bill makes sure that patients considered terminal receive proper consultation on things like creating, updating and finishing their will.
It also says that people should know their options. They will be informed about long-term care options such as hospice, nursing homes, etc. Page 429 also says that an order can be issued on the patients behalf that does the following:
“Effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual.”
I have actually encountered people who think (or say for political reasons) that this bill will allow the government “to issue an order to end a life.” The purpose of this part of the bill is to ensure that doctors don’t pull the plug unless that is specifically requested by the patient. To quote a memo by Ben Lenet, Deputy District Administrator for United States Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.:
This ensures that patients and families are given ALL the information about ALL of their options and makes sure that in all circumstances, the patient’s wishes are observed. (This prevents Bill Frist from making medical determinations off of VHS tapes from his Senate office).
2. Government can access personal information
Rumor has it that HR 3200 gives the government access to health records, bank account information and other personal records. It is true, if HR 3200 passes, the government will have access to these things. To put it another way, these things will stay exactly the same.
The government already is allowed access to your health records and bank account information. They were granted it by a little document called the PATRIOT Act. So stop panicking. Or start panicking, but know that the government has had access to all of this information and more since 2001.
3. The government will decide what services you can get
This is sort of, a little bit true. Just as current, private insurance providers specify what treatments your insurance plan covers, the government-run public insurance plan will have specifications on what it will cover. However, the government will not decide what makes the cut.
To quote, again, from Lenet’s memo:
This plan will establish a panel of DOCTORS who will evaluate the best practices for care. This will eliminate physicians ordering unnecessary tests and procedures solely for the purpose of a larger reimbursement.
Also, just like private insurers, the government will have a tiered program that will allow people to choose levels of coverage or to add additional services and treatments to their health insurance plans.
You can read the complete text of HR 3200 online, thanks to The Library of Congress. Know that there are poeple out there truncating and quoting portions of the bill making the meaning sound totally different than the truth. So before you believe everything you’re told about HR 3200, check it out for yourself.
I come from the UK and now enjoy life in America. You do not want government healthcare; I met a lady on my last visit to the UK, her hospital sent her home with the words; "you will be fine – come back tomorrow because all the beds are full." – The bus driver did a nice job delivering the baby on her way home.
If you want a government intervention read the following from (rlhleagueofnurses.org.uk) and then research QUALY's yourself.
QALY'S: a definition
QALY's were pioneered in Oregon in the USA, where they have been used to prioritise medical conditions and allocate resources accordingly. Professor Alan Williams has been the person most associated with the use of QALY's in the UK. Williams' definition of the QALY's technique is that a QALY takes a year of healthy life expectancy to be worth one, and a year of unhealthy life expectancy to be worth less than one. The worse the quality of life, the lower the value obtained. The general idea is that a beneficial health care treatment will generate a positive number of QALY's and that an efficient treatment will be one where the cost per QALY is as low as possible. Therefore a high priority treatment is one where the cost per QALY is low, whilst low priority treatments are those where the cost per QALY is high.
THIS IS HOW THE UK GOVERNMENT GOVERNS HEALTHCARE.
Chris Aldous – PA. who does not want to life the UK nightmare again.
I have been in the insurance industry for 40 years. I stopped selling health insurance plans about 15 years ago, because they are a big rip off. Valentin just doesn't seem to get it.
1. Medicare currently runs with 3% administration cost. The average insurance company charges 22-27% just for administration. So, who is more efficient, private insurers who pay their executives $8 million a year or the government that pays the President $400,000 a year? Further, lets face it, one of the big costs in Medicare is medication. The Republican dominated Congress, after being lobbied by the "medicine men," passed a law prohibiting Medicare from negotiating the price of medicines purchased through Medicare., and prior to the passage of the Medicare drug coverage act, the drug companies raised their prices another 15-20% just to make sure they could gouge Medicare again. So, the problem isn't government spending in the health area, it's that the health insurance carriers and the drug companies have their nose in the public trough, and they are taking the money right out of Valentin's pocket, and Valentin is too biased to even recognize how he or she is being taken to the cleaners.
2) There is currently a lack of competition in the health insurance industry. A federal law passed in the 1940's makes the health insurance carriers immune from anti-trust laws. That's why these companies uniformly use zip codes to set prices for their plans. If you have apples to apples plans and you are identified in the same zip code the premiums from the various companies will be almost the same across the board. Valentin writes about bureaucracy; well that reflects Valentin's complete ignorance about how insurance companies work. I've worked both in government and for a long time in the insurance industry. Insurance companies have the worst bureaucracy by far. So, a government option would be much more efficient that the mess we have now. Doctors spend 14% of their income processing insurance paperwork. WHAT A JOKE !!!!
3. Why is Valentin writing about a plan being deficit neutral? Every Republican administration including Reagan ran up the largest deficits in our country's history. The irresponsible spending by the Republicans under Reagan caused us to become a "debtor" nation. That means we had so much debt that we couldn't finance it. Foreigners had to buy our debt to finance the money spending frenzies to feed their friends. All of that cascading debt has now been handed to the Obama administration. Did Valentin scream about deficit neutrality when the Republicans were spending?
Valentin needs to pull his/her head out of the right wing cool aid.
1
The general public who are oblivious to HR 3200 need to know what it entails. The actuality of it needs to get out so it can be heard. People need to be informed, and they need to know what is actually going on with this bill. Go to http://www.buythebill.com to get a free PDF download of the bill, or you can purchase a printed and binded hard copy of the bill.
This plan will establish a panel of DOCTORS who will evaluate the best practices for care. This will eliminate physicians ordering unnecessary tests and procedures solely for the purpose of a larger reimbursement.
So, how exactly do u perceive this ??? Doctors will evaluate the best practices for care, and it will eliminate … See, that right there doesn't sound good to me. Sometimes u need that xray, mri, blood work, you can't always assess the patient without it. Even if those docs think the patient looks well or the blood work comes back okay, that still doesn't mean the patient doesn't need more work done. It is always better to be safe than sorry! The emergency room is just that, treat them like it's an emergency, a child falls, hits their skull because they fell off a swing, and doc thinks we'll observe for a bit and see how they act, and if they are okay we will release them without further testing, shit happens!!! it is not the doctors place to say he doesn't need any further tests he looks fine! if the parent feels uncomfortable and says no, i want to make sure , the parent/patient has every right to get the extra treatment/tests, ! That last part of larger reimbursement is a bullshit line. Sorry, we doctors think you don't need it.. so u must go home. A panel of doctors??? So now we have to abide by the rules of the government? Paying for insurance is better than dealing with that craziness!!! Do you think obama and his peeps will be on this type of insurance? Come on the senate will not have to abide by these rules!!! live by the words you preach!!! if this healthcare system is good enough for the people of america then it's good enough for washington!!
Forgot 2 important one:
5. It is incomprehensible and disturbing to know that politicians vote on such critical bills without reading them (this is the 2-nd bill that Washington politicians expressed reluctance to read it due to its size: 1,400 pages, after the Cap & Trade (energy tax Bill a couple of months ago)
6. This is related to 6. Why are Senators and Representatives reluctant to be part of this "superb" revolutionized health care system? Maybe that is why they do not read it because in the crassest elitist manner they exclude themselves from being affected by it.
Sincerely yours Valentin & Devora Dumitrescu
Dearborn, MI
From reading through the bill (yes reading the Bill as opposed to most if not all representatives) it became obvious that the overarching idea in H.R.3200 is that Government will be the instrument that will run the healthcare system eventually even if the government "option" is called an "option".
1. Government does not have a good track record at running (containing costs, etc.) healthcare under the Medicare and Medicaid. Similarly the government doe snot have a good track record at running Social Security (it "raided" it deviating radically from the original intent of Social Security) or Amtrak (transportation). These are just a few examples.
2. Government will eventually (in the word of Mr. Obama 2004, and 2007) and Barney Frank (2009) run the whole health care system: Democratic Party is committed to a "single payer" inherently bureaucratic and consequently inefficient (lack of any competition) system.
3. It is not deficit neutral: finally Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers spoke the unavoidable inconvenient truth that in order to compensate for the remaining 239bil taxes on middle class may be raised. White House denunciation of this does not count because there is no other source of money except the "inexhaustible" tax payers’ money.
4. It covers abortion with taxpayer money. Abortion (with the exception of rare instances) is not a treatment of a health problem (I hope you do not qualify the reluctance to becoming a parent a health issue) it is a choice issue that should not be covered by health government health insurance.
These are the big topics of the health care debate. Please address these ones.
Sincerely yours Valentin & Devora Dumitrescu
Dearborn, MI