National Health Care

[Snufi]

Hi to all, If you are looking for more info go to my previous thread and scroll down to AliceM, she has a web site you can click on. In addition, just so you guys know, this bill doesnt just apply to people at deaths door but to all diseases. For example, if a person has MS or arthritis or some other chronic disease and the gov feels it is not cost effective to treat them they will suffer greatly for the rest of their lives which could be a very long time. Also, lets say a woman has breast cancer and for some reason age or other the gov feels it is not cost effective to treat her she will die from that cancer as you all well know. Would you like to die that kind of horrid death? The gov is now playing God because it is deciding who lives and dies. Obviously, the elderly will suffer the most. So in essence, the gov is trying to save money by eliminating people. The abortion laws are also on the table to change. FOCA is the bill. If passed, Drs and facilities will be forced to perform abortiona even if they dont want to, What about their freedom of relgion? Also, minors will be able to get abortions without parental consent, partial birth abortion will be back. It is quite obvious the govs idea of saving money is to eliminate people the most vulnerable, the unborn and the elderly. Is this some kind of sci-fi movie we are living in? What if this were your parents the gov was telling to go home and die? And if any of you dont know what partial birth abortion is, you will be horrified to know the truth. Snufi

[ElaineM]

Do you all think this is something our new Advisory Board should get involved in?
Should we start a petition or something similiar?
Do you all think we should do something like Patrick Swayze is doing?

[fullofbeans]

Snufi I do not know what you are talking about or are you referring to something in particular?.. France and Canada for example have a National Health Care and no one is telling anyone to go home and die. However if cannot afford health care insurance then it is bye bye go home to die..

[alicem]

I have had my eyes opened to the health care system since my diagnosis in September, and I agree that it is broken and needs fixing. That being said, what is about to happen in congress is not the way to go about it. We live in a Democratic country - By the People, For the People, and Of the People. The last time I checked we have a constitution that guides our country. What is happening right now is an attempt to circumvent the checks and balances.

The stimulus bill would include legislature for healthcare reform which basically would impose those programs without the benefit of Congressional hearings or laws or debate of any kind.

The following is an editorial by Ed Koch, former DEMOCRATIC mayor of New York. If you scroll down to the last third of the article, you will find where he talks about what his own party is trying to do and he describes it with words like Tyranny and Stealth.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0097_02_03.asp

On a lighter note, for anyone interested, the photos of the "Flat Stomach Rule" off to the side are NOT photos of me, but they could be. They pretty accurately depict my results after my DIEP reconstruction 8 weeks ago with Dr. Spiegel in Houston. Needless to say, it is the bright spot in all that has happened to me in the last 5 months.

Finally, here is the link to the other article that Snufi referred to in the first post:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I think one thing we can all agree on is that a topic as important as Health Care Reform deserves the right to be debated in the light of day, not cubby holed into an enormous document and "rushed" through before the American people even knows what happened.

[fullofbeans]

Thanks Alice I did not know about what was initially referred to..I know nothing about this at all..so will not comment further.. it seems important and just saw that they are modelling on the UK..well this is simply plain stupid no one likes it here no one, model it on successfull national health system not on one that no one likes and has poorer results than former soviet states..

[Carolyns]

Snufi,

I haven't heard the President speak about National Health care only expanding health care options to more people. I noticed that the Bloomberg article was based on commentary by Betsy McCaughey. I will look further into her insights on the matter as this article is a commentary.

The other article seems to speak about extending Medicaid benefits to laid off workers during this time when many have lost coverage. I cut a pasted a part of the Ed Koch article below. It seems like I am missing something here and the connection between National Health Care and these articles. As a Stage IV cancer patient I take this all very seriously but do not want to be upset without reason. Isn't it a good thing to extend benefits to people who have no options for health care because they have lost their job? Or to help laid off workers retain private health insurance from the employer that laid them off because otherwise they could not afford to retain the private policy?

Carolyn


"With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the heath program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had. In addition, the stimulus package would offer a hefty subsidy to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers. Altogether, the economic recovery bill would speed $127 billion over the next two and a half years to individuals and states for health care alone, a fact that has Republicans fuming that the stimulus package is a back door to universal health coverage…As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade. The White House said the changes contemplated by Congress would provide coverage for nearly 8.5 million newly uninsured people who had lost their jobs and would protect Medicaid for many more whose eligibility would otherwise be at risk.”

[ElaineM]

In addition to my other suggestions we should contact or legislators and let them know what we think.
I remember when Medicare Plan D started. It was supposed to make things easier. My question is "for who". I have received so much junk mail from all kinds of Plan D "providers". What a waste of paper !! I see and hear seniors in the pharmacy who still don't understand Plan D. The kind pharmacist tries his best to explain to those people why they have to pay for their meds even though they have Medicare. Apparently either they never signed up with a plan, never informed or didn't understand the whole thing.

[Joe]

I do encourage discussions on this subject but please:

1. Try not to offend other country's healthcare systems and
2. DO NOT mention any political parties.
We have 501(c)(3) nonprofit status and must refrain from any political discussions.

Regards
Joe

[alicem]

Thanks Joe, I am a quasi-newbie, but that is no excuse. I should have known better. I must apologize to you Joe and the great members of this group.

I just get the feeling that the women on this forum are not your typical patient. We do not follow, like sheep, what our doctors tell us without question. We research, inquire, pray, and research some more when it comes to our health. I was just encouraging everyone to take the same pro-active role when it comes to our health care system. Let's not just accept what our leaders tell us, no matter which party. We would all be better off if everyone put as much interest into our government and their actions as what the latest Hollywood star or professional athlete might be up to.

Now, I'm getting off my soap box and going to bed.

[Joe]

Alicem,

I did not intend to choose you, but felt a bit uneasy about the direction the discussion seemed to be taking.
Feel free to criticize the government and our healthcare system but do not single out individual political parties.

I did mention that I do encourage this discussion.

The most accurate results of what we are trying to accomplish was posted in December 2007:

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31571


Regards
Joe

[MJo]

I am in favor of universal, affordable health coverage in the U.S. I will never speak out against it.

[ElaineM]

Joe,
We will try to be careful. We don't want to loose our home here at her2.support.org.
However, I guess you have figured out we are not the types to stand by and just let things happen without speaking up. It helps us get the treatments we need to live longer. Maybe we are just too good at speaking up and saying what we think. We have alot of experience doing that with our docs and medical professionals.

[RhondaH]

1. Doing this would take the burden off of the employers making it easier for people in this country to compete for jobs that are outsourced to other countries.

2. With so many people losing their jobs (and their insurance), more people are seeking out the emergency room for care rather than going to the doctor not to mention, people are forgoing regular checkups thereby waiting until it is too late or too serious and the condition REALLY costs more money (preventative care is by FAR the cheaper way to go).

While no system is perfect, it would seem more logical to spread the health care burdon among the healthy and sick (if they were to cluster the healthy and sick, can you IMAGINE what we would be paying for health care) and have it be covered by everyone as well as tiered based on income (I'm sorry, but if you make more you should be able to pay more)...My 2 cents worth.

[tricia keegan]

I think whats mentioned above is the very worst a national health care system can become if not done properly.
We have a national health health care system here in Ireland and while not perfect (is any system?) I've been very happy with my level of care. In saying that though, some may recall Carol H had to emigrate here from Scotland to get access to the tykerb she needed as it was'nt available there at that time. I've spoken to a few people in the UK who are angry at the length of time it can take NICE to pass these meds for general use.
I don't think we can generalize though as it's obvious there are pro's and con's in any system and no one has it perfect yet!

[ElaineM]

Those of us in the U. S. who might want to get more involved or who just want to keep up to date about about some of these issues can check out http://www.stopbreastcancer.org/

[Louise O'Brien]

I want to thank Joe for his reminder that this should not be a political forum, because I have been disturbed by what I consider "uninformed hysteria" when it comes to the slightest whiff of what people assume is national health care.

And Joe, I apologize if this inflames the debate. Please feel free to delete this post, if I have crossed the line. I won't be returning (not because you might have to delete) but because I can't bite my tongue any longer.

I say this because I come from Canada and I'm really offended. No one is telling any of us to go home and die because we're too old for treatment. No one is denying us treatment because of our age. That's just plain ridiculous.

I can only raise one point. Health Canada approved the use of Herceptin for early stage breast cancer patients in July 2005. It was available to all of us then, free of charge, without exception. It's my understanding that the FDA didn't approve Herceptin for early stage patients until more than a year later in November 2006.

I'm not comparing systems nor am I suggesting that one is better than the other.

But I am suggesting that there are some merits to our system and we're pretty happy that we don't have to worry about whether an insurance provider is going to have the last word on what treatment we can take - or not take.

[tricia keegan]

Well said Louise, I've been doing some of that tongue biting myself but find if people are uninformed and not prepared to check facts there's little point in debating a point.

[Midwest Alice]

Tricia and Louis, thank you for sharing your success with national health care in your countries. However, there are personal stories that show a bad light on this kind of government provided health care our citizens need to be aware of. Agreed, no system is beyond reproach. This forum is not the place for this debate. I have been biting my tongue also.

[gdpawel]

The Medicare D Plan was filled with lots of holes. The biggest problem was in designing the program. The previous administration did not want the Medicare drug benefit to be administered directly by the federal government (where Medicare is run efficiently). Instead, it devised a public program run by hundreds of competing private plans, each with it own prices and coverage policies.

With oncology drugs accounting for about 69% of total Part B spending on prescription drugs and related services, the Part D plan made it more important for Senior cancer patients. A study published in the journal Health Affairs discovered that Part D expanded access to cancer therapies and required only low co-payments.

Researchers found that the most commonly prescribed cancer drugs were available and when a brand-name drug was not covered, its generic equivalent was. Apparently Medicare has gone far in accomplishing the task of making many cancer drugs available to our Seniors. Nearly all generic cancer drugs and 70% of brand-name cancer drugs are covered by the Part D plans.

As far as the subject at hand, "comparative research" is not rationing health care. The research funding doled out in the Stimulus Package would go to the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to focus on producing the best unbiased science possible. Nothing in the legislation will have the government monitoring treatments in order to guide your doctor's decisions. Doctors will still have the ultimate decision, along with the patient.

Comparative research has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work. This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the "industry" wants to share. Companies want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it. Just about the way they are controlling data now.

It's been difficult for the Medicare program to contol the substantial costs of cancer drugs. In a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, an article by Dr. Peter Bach stated that the costs to Medicare of injectable cancer drugs given in doctors' offices increased from $3 billion in 1997 to $11 billion in 2004, an increase of 267% at a time when the costs for the entire Medicare program increased 47%.

It also states that there was a huge reduction in Medicare expenses that occurred when the off-label use of ESAs (drugs for anemia-related issues) was found to actually cause harm to patients. The drugs were proven to be over-used and the net result of expose was that use of these drugs quickly dropped and the costs to Medicare dropped from over $1 billion a year to just $200 million.

In 2003, in the political payback deal of the century, Congress guaranteed premium pricing for pharmaceuticals, by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices, and it provided hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer subsidies to pay for these premium drug costs. Now the specter of "rationing" is raised.

Dr. Bach stated ways that the Medicare program could control costs. One of those ways was to fund a comparative-effectiveness program to assess whether or not treatments (mostly the newer targeted regimens) are really better than older treatments. Decisions are being made about what cancer treatments patients can actually afford.