Protest National Health Care

I am not sure that some of you are aware that the current government is trying to ram government health care down the throats of the voters. It is stated that a government system will compete with private insurance, this is bunch of foolishness. Eventually, the government system will crowd out the private market, reducing reimbursement rates, and physicians and nurses will leave the health care system, causing long lines and horrible health care.

Why would you pursue a career to be a physician or a specialized nurse, if you were unable to pay off a large student loan? How long do you want you and others to wait for a kidney transplant? Currently, Medicare is expensive because the goverment is paying 45 percent of all Medical claims in the United States. The way to reduce these costs is consumer choice.

In Sweden, the government decides what drugs you are able to purchase with your own private money, do we want that in the United States? The government knows more about our health care than we do??? Business will not be able to afford these tax increases and people are going to be laid off or fired, resulting less tax revenue to the government, along with high budget deficits.

In states where government health care has been tried, this system has been an object failure. In my state of Ohio, high taxes have result in businesses and corporations moving out of the state, If you are wondering, Ohio has the 3rd highest tax rate in the nation, behind California and New York, now, in a few years, Ohio will be facing huge budget deficits. Guess which programs are going to be cut, Medicaid, take a wild guess who will be hurt by these cuts? National health care will hurt the sick and the elderly, consumer choice health care equals compassion.

Mark

Mark I think your post is deeply misguided. From the point of view of people on dialysis healthcare reform is desperately needed.

I have a new post up Is a robust public insurance plan a threat to the provision of dialysis? My post isn’t exactly what you are talking about but it is another element of the current discussion.

To the points in your post I think CMS could better managing people with CKD5 who use dialysis to help them avoid expensive unnecessary tests and hospital re-admissions by getting rid of the dialysis weekend - every other day dialysis, for instance would cost about $5,000/year but could save that on the Part A side by avoiding one hospitalization which on average last 2.4 days.

Another likely target to generate savings in our corner of Medicare is Epo. Medicare could negotiate the price directly which could save $500,000,000 per year. This with no impact on your clinical care.

One area of debate is the impact of CKD 3 and 4 outreach, screening and education. For each percentage point decrease in the growth in dialyzors the savings are significant. Can that fruit be picked? I don’t know why not.

I think by relying on fear to squash healthcare reform you position yourself outside the debate and dimminish your relevance. Better to review the actual proposals if you would like to influence the direction of debate.

[QUOTE=Bill Peckham;17891]Mark I think your post is deeply misguided. From the point of view of people on dialysis healthcare reform is desperately needed.

I have a new post up Is a robust public insurance plan a threat to the provision of dialysis? My post isn’t exactly what you are talking about but it is another element of the current discussion.

To the points in your post I think CMS could better managing people with CKD5 who use dialysis to help them avoid expensive unnecessary tests and hospital re-admissions by getting rid of the dialysis weekend - every other day dialysis, for instance would cost about $5,000/year but could save that on the Part A side by avoiding one hospitalization which on average last 2.4 days.

Another likely target to generate savings in our corner of Medicare is Epo. Medicare could negotiate the price directly which could save $500,000,000 per year. This with no impact on your clinical care.

One area of debate is the impact of CKD 3 and 4 outreach, screening and education. For each percentage point decrease in the growth in dialyzors the savings are significant. Can that fruit be picked? I don’t know why not.

I think by relying on fear to squash healthcare reform you position yourself outside the debate and dimminish your relevance. Better to review the actual proposals if you would like to influence the direction of debate.[/QUOTE]

Bill:

I know what socialized medicine has done in other countries, such as Great Britain, Canada, and other Western European countries. I would agree, without a doubt, the dialysis industry is in desperate need of reform, along with the medical industry. Having worked in the public assistace department, Medicaid is a lousy payer, as is Medicare. We agree Medicare is a lousy payer, no disagreement. I have have friends, who are Democrats, have stated to me that they are not able to afford the current excessive tax rates. President Obama has prosposed trillions in new spending, without stating how new revenues would pay for these expenses. Costs do not go away because Congress waves a magic wand. I am not a fan of DaVita or the insurance companies. I believe the solution is consumer choice or competition to cut costs, health care is expensive because government is paying 45 percent of claims and there is no competition. Why do you believe other companies lowered their drug prices when Wal-Mart introduced $4 prescriptions, because they are nice people? How would you expect a dialysis clinic to operate when they are not being paid enough to cover costs?

Michael Barone- Almanac of American Politics:

“As Clinton White House deputy domestic policy adviser William Galston points out in the New Republic blog, “Congress has thus far given the cold shoulder to most of the administration’s proposals for raising revenues dedicated to health reform.” So if Democrats want to pass their health bill using the reconciliation process, which requires that they get only 50 votes in the Senate, they will have to come up with $150,000,000,000 in annual revenue or offsetting spending or else add to the $900,000,000,000 in yearly budget deficits projected by the Congressional Budget Office. As Galston points out, the CBO is unlikely to agree with administration projections of savings from comparative effectiveness research. So money is a problem.”

Private insurers are unable to compete with a government health plan. Government is able to use force to get people to comply with National Health Care, while private insurers are only able to use voluntary cooperation with the public. I would agree with Professor Hacker, that Medicare is excellent at cost control. However, many physicians will now not accept Medicare patients because of low reimbursement rates. The other issue that I would have with this proposal is that when I had a serious attack with asthma, I had to take predisone to enable me to breathe. With taking predisone, I had the side effect of acne, all over my back and wall to wall acne on my back. I had to wait two months to see a dermatologist, now, imagine how I felt sitting with my back in the recliner on dialysis for five hours. The shortage of dermatologists is due to the low reimbursement rates for physicians. If the reimbursement rates were high enough, this creates an incentive for high ability people to enter the field of dermatology. This way, I would have been seen immediately and not had to endure months of 24/7 agony. My acne was serious enough to take the drug called Accutane, the nuclear bomb for acne. After a year, my acne has 85-90 percent removed with a couple of more months to take the medicine. Physicians have been entering the profession at a rate of 1 percent per year, due to low reimbursement rates. The funding of the public plan will have to come from somewhere, do you believe people are willing to pay more taxes?

I know of a woman who takes care of two mentally challenged adults who have Medicaid for dental procedures. They have to wait six months for appointment, do you believe that is compassion, when they have high levels of pain in their mouth?

Honestly, I could care less about the stockholders of DaVita. I care about the level of service and care that the patients are receiving. Private insurance and high reimbursement would allow products such as HD+ and the Wearable Artifcial Kidney belt to succeed and flourish. I know that we both support better lives for kidney patients. We can cut costs and reform the medical profession thru competition and consumer choice. I believe you work in business, do your customers have a choice to purchase products from your company or from a competitor? Would the prices that you charge your customers be higher or lower if you did not have competition in your line of the economy? The service for cable television was lousy in the early 1980’s. However, service from the cable company has greatly improved because of the competition from the satellite dish. I am for increased profits to help give greater care to dialysis patients like me. If President Obama wants to reform the levels of profit, maybe he should return some of the millions he earned from the sale of his two books.

Mark

To the points in your post I think CMS could better managing people with CKD5 who use dialysis to help them avoid expensive unnecessary tests and hospital re-admissions by getting rid of the dialysis weekend - every other day dialysis, for instance would cost about $5,000/year but could save that on the Part A side by avoiding one hospitalization which on average last 2.4 days.

Agreed, have lived thru the dialysis weekend, hated it.

Another likely target to generate savings in our corner of Medicare is Epo. Medicare could negotiate the price directly which could save $500,000,000 per year. This with no impact on your clinical care.

Agreed, the amount of EPO given is excessive.

One area of debate is the impact of CKD 3 and 4 outreach, screening and education. For each percentage point decrease in the growth in dialyzors the savings are significant. Can that fruit be picked? I don’t know why not.

I agree, excellent idea.

[QUOTE=Bill Peckham;17891]Mark I think your post is deeply misguided. From the point of view of people on dialysis healthcare reform is desperately needed.

I have a new post up Is a robust public insurance plan a threat to the provision of dialysis? My post isn’t exactly what you are talking about but it is another element of the current discussion.

To the points in your post I think CMS could better managing people with CKD5 who use dialysis to help them avoid expensive unnecessary tests and hospital re-admissions by getting rid of the dialysis weekend - every other day dialysis, for instance would cost about $5,000/year but could save that on the Part A side by avoiding one hospitalization which on average last 2.4 days.

Another likely target to generate savings in our corner of Medicare is Epo. Medicare could negotiate the price directly which could save $500,000,000 per year. This with no impact on your clinical care.

One area of debate is the impact of CKD 3 and 4 outreach, screening and education. For each percentage point decrease in the growth in dialyzors the savings are significant. Can that fruit be picked? I don’t know why not.

I think by relying on fear to squash healthcare reform you position yourself outside the debate and dimminish your relevance. Better to review the actual proposals if you would like to influence the direction of debate.[/QUOTE]

Excellent debate- Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue

I am also for healthcare reform, heck, even ANNA supports it…

I would be interested in knowing the rate of 6X per week home dialysis in other countries (as a percent of total dialysis), preferably with citations.

Here’s one easy pattern to look at:

Given that the US has about 20% of world GDP, we seem to have lots of pharma. Looks to me like this country is medicine-friendly.

Finally, the AMA says:

“The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians”

When push comes to shove on allocating healthcare $$$, I’m not sure that nocturnal HD will come out very well. In-center and PD will be the only game in town.

I am for healthcare reform with a free and private market to reduce costs.

Mark

[QUOTE=Unregistered;17903]I would be interested in knowing the rate of 6X per week home dialysis in other countries (as a percent of total dialysis), preferably with citations.

Here’s one easy pattern to look at:

Given that the US has about 20% of world GDP, we seem to have lots of pharma. Looks to me like this country is medicine-friendly.

Finally, the AMA says:

“The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians”

When push comes to shove on allocating healthcare $$$, I’m not sure that nocturnal HD will come out very well. In-center and PD will be the only game in town.[/QUOTE]

HD Nocturnal dialysis is much more cost effective than In-Center dialysis.

Mark

Mark…actually I thought the CMS jury was still out on that, otherwise why wouldn’t they be more than happy to pay for it? They want to squeeze every extra $$ out of the provider system, if they were on board with your assertion they’d actually shift the guidelines toward nocturnal.

Since CMS refuses to look at the TOTAL costs of dialysis care (they split off hospital costs separately as “Part A”, while dialysis falls under “Part B”, no calculation they do will come out well for more frequent dialysis, because the major savings are in hospitalization costs.

Nocturnal done 3 to 3.5 times per week falls within their current reimbursement framework and shouldn’t be harmed. But even though nocturnal HD (preferably done 5-6 nights/week) is physiologically the best treatment, it’s a tough sell, since folks worry about having their blood outside of their body when they’re asleep…

No matter which way you cut it CMS doesn’t pay for 6X / week nocturnal HD at home. And the administration is proposing cuts to Medicare to pay for universal healthcare.

I don’t see how any of this is good for dialysis patients. The truth is that dialysis is very expensive and requires recurring funds over the remainder of the patient’s life. In a cost-cutting environment dialysis will certainly come under even more examination than it already has. With the current trend, I would wager that with 10 years, limitations will be put on dialysis.

From CQPolitics:

"President Obama on Saturday outlined a series of Medicare and Medicaid cuts he said would slice $313 billion in payments over 10 years so that the savings could be applied toward an overhaul of the U.S. health system.

The cuts come on top of Medicare and Medicaid revisions Obama requested earlier this year in his fiscal 2010 budget proposal; together with those cuts the White House is now proposing a total of $622 billion in Medicare and Medicaid revisions over 10 years, most of it from Medicare.

Obama used his weekly radio address to call for slowing annual Medicare payment increases to hospitals, medical device-makers, outpatient treatment facilities and other providers in order to encourage them to deliver more cost-effective care."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090613/pl_cq_politics/politics3142731_1

[QUOTE=Unregistered;17910]No matter which way you cut it CMS doesn’t pay for 6X / week nocturnal HD at home. And the administration is proposing cuts to Medicare to pay for universal healthcare.

I don’t see how any of this is good for dialysis patients. The truth is that dialysis is very expensive and requires recurring funds over the remainder of the patient’s life. In a cost-cutting environment dialysis will certainly come under even more examination than it already has. With the current trend, I would wager that with 10 years, limitations will be put on dialysis.

From CQPolitics:

"President Obama on Saturday outlined a series of Medicare and Medicaid cuts he said would slice $313 billion in payments over 10 years so that the savings could be applied toward an overhaul of the U.S. health system.

The cuts come on top of Medicare and Medicaid revisions Obama requested earlier this year in his fiscal 2010 budget proposal; together with those cuts the White House is now proposing a total of $622 billion in Medicare and Medicaid revisions over 10 years, most of it from Medicare.

Obama used his weekly radio address to call for slowing annual Medicare payment increases to hospitals, medical device-makers, outpatient treatment facilities and other providers in order to encourage them to deliver more cost-effective care."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090613/pl_cq_politics/politics3142731_1[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is my point. Federal dollars are going to be shifted in favor of the people who are “cost effective.” In other words, they are going to spending money on the people that require a small amount of health care, buying votes. The healthy outnumber the sick, by giant margins. It is amazing to me that the party that claims to be the party of the defenseless, is going to pay for “Universal Health Care” on the backs of sick. I wonder if there will be limits on dialysis, if needed by the political elite. I remember these same individuals, in the 1995 budget battle, claimed that increases of 7 percent per year, would throw people out on the streets. Representative Major Owens(D-NY) stated, “They are coming for the sick, they are coming for the poor…”

Does anyone really believe that Ted Kennedy would have had to wait for treatment under the Universal Health Care system? Do you think that President Obama or Speaker Pelosi will have to wait for treatment? The Kennedy family has more oil holdings than the Bush family. Speaker Pelosi owns many eating establishments and states that Unions are great for America. However, in Speaker Pelosi’s eating establishments, you do not need a Union card. The Kennedy family convinced many poor farmers to sell their mineral rights for pennies on the dollars, I thought they loved the poor? Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband are worth millions. As a Senate committe chair woman, Senator Feinstein steered millions of dollars in contracts to her husband’s company.

Why in the world should we have to wait months for treatment, while the treatments of Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, and Obama are immediate? I would submit that these people are frauds.

Mark

The politicians that you demonize in your post have all supported allowing the American people to have the same access to health insurance that they have. Federal legislators have the same choices in health insurance that other federal employees have. See this Fox News story by a former member of Congress that dispels urban legends that have been emailed around the country:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308378,00.html

Mark, the only reason dialysis IS paid for today is because the Federal government stepped up to the plate and required it in a Medicare program that is still today–37 years later–the only one of its kind that covers a single disease.

Do you seriously think that private health insurance companies are going to fall all over themselves to provide dialysis for you–one of their biggest money-losers–and whip themselves into a frenzy to be sure you can see a dermatologist in a week? I’m sorry, but that isn’t going to happen. At every turn, health insurance companies have done backflips to figure out how NOT to provide care for the premiums they receive. Folks who are so unlucky as to have individual (vs. group) plans can actually have paid claims rebutted months or years later, so the company comes after them for the money. Dialysis, transplant, cancer, and trauma are the most costly medical events. No insurance plan wants people who have these conditions. That’s why they screen people so carefully.

Will there be Federal cutbacks for dialysis? Who knows? But if you toss your healthcare fate to insurance companies and “competition”, I can bet you money that–without serious regulation–the first things they will do is drop the people who need the care most.

[QUOTE=Dori Schatell;17923]Mark, the only reason dialysis IS paid for today is because the Federal government stepped up to the plate and required it in a Medicare program that is still today–37 years later–the only one of its kind that covers a single disease.

Do you seriously think that private health insurance companies are going to fall all over themselves to provide dialysis for you–one of their biggest money-losers–and whip themselves into a frenzy to be sure you can see a dermatologist in a week? I’m sorry, but that isn’t going to happen. At every turn, health insurance companies have done backflips to figure out how NOT to provide care for the premiums they receive. Folks who are so unlucky as to have individual (vs. group) plans can actually have paid claims rebutted months or years later, so the company comes after them for the money. Dialysis, transplant, cancer, and trauma are the most costly medical events. No insurance plan wants people who have these conditions. That’s why they screen people so carefully.

Will there be Federal cutbacks for dialysis? Who knows? But if you toss your healthcare fate to insurance companies and “competition”, I can bet you money that–without serious regulation–the first things they will do is drop the people who need the care most.[/QUOTE]

First, if we institute deductibles and eliminate thousands of government mandates to cover everything under the sun, medical insurance will be cheap and affordable. What I would submit that corporate taxes be slashed to 1 percent. Then, the insurance companies would not have any excuses to deny coverage to individuals on dialysis, cancer, MS, etc. Either they would choose my 1 percent rate or we would find ways to put them out of business. You state that the insurance company would not whip themselves into a frenzy about seeing a speciality physician. The golden rule of business is to serve the customer. Now, when my employer who is paying over $1 million per year, for my health care, gives them a phone call, you better believe they will get on the stick. If Proctor and Gamble calls the insurance company about the health care of one of their employees, the insurance company will start marching. Business 101 states that you must cover all expenses to the company, otherwise you will go out of business. If we eliminate mandates and tax the company at a 1 percent, the insurance company will have no excuses not to cover the sick and elderly.

Now, as a former law enforcement officer, SSI and Social Security disability are noncollectable in terms of suing to recover debt. You may file a lawsuit for anything you like, does not mean you will collect. In terms of collection. Even if an individual is working, they must make a certain amount each week, before a judge will order a garnishment. The maximum amount that can be taken in a garnishment is 25 percent. In addition, the debtor may file bankruptcy, good luck in collecting in that situation. Once, the bill is paid by the insurance company, the creditor does not have any legal recourse. This is why it is a good idea to read the insurance company booklet. There are many ways to make life difficult for an obnoxious creditor. Everyone on this board should the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(1978) http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf In fact, the courts have ruled that hospitals are only entited to collect a reasonable amount for their services. In addition, if I had a hospital bill that I could not pay, I would push for a jury trial. The last thing a hospital attorney wants is to spend hours of company time, chasing a hospital bill in front of a jury. Juries have sympathy for a patient with outrageous hospital bills and are extremely likely to slash the bill. The hospital attorney does not want the embarassment of a two/three day trial where they are in a no win situation. A hospital collection case is also a matter of public record, which can be viewed by the public and the media. It is not in the best interest of the hospital to have a case like this in full public view. Just remember, the vast majority of cases are settled before they go to court, attorneys love to settle before a court case. Another way to settle a hospital bill is to find what Medicare pays for the procedures and offer that, plus a certain percentage over Medicare reimbursement. Many states require hospitals to provide care to the indigent. The last thing the hospital wants is a phone call from a state rep or a Congressman or Senator’s office, asking questions about their actions. The best guide in dealing with a physician’s office or hospital bill is to research their previous collection cases, this will tell you if they will fold easily or play hard ball.

Mark

[QUOTE=Dori Schatell;17923]Mark, the only reason dialysis IS paid for today is because the Federal government stepped up to the plate and required it in a Medicare program that is still today–37 years later–the only one of its kind that covers a single disease.

Do you seriously think that private health insurance companies are going to fall all over themselves to provide dialysis for you–one of their biggest money-losers–and whip themselves into a frenzy to be sure you can see a dermatologist in a week? I’m sorry, but that isn’t going to happen. At every turn, health insurance companies have done backflips to figure out how NOT to provide care for the premiums they receive. Folks who are so unlucky as to have individual (vs. group) plans can actually have paid claims rebutted months or years later, so the company comes after them for the money. Dialysis, transplant, cancer, and trauma are the most costly medical events. No insurance plan wants people who have these conditions. That’s why they screen people so carefully.

Will there be Federal cutbacks for dialysis? Who knows? But if you toss your healthcare fate to insurance companies and “competition”, I can bet you money that–without serious regulation–the first things they will do is drop the people who need the care most.[/QUOTE]

In addition, we depend on competition to restrict the level of prices in every industry in the United States. Competition is what holds down prices in the food market. As we know, every human being cannot do without food and water. What restricts companies from charging outrageous prices in the food market, which human beings cannot do without, competition. We have been able to research the results of government control in every day life, for example, in the Old Soviet Union. Every day decisions were made for the Soviet citizen by a Soviet breaucrat, including health care. Would anyone like to research and tell me what where the results of this policy? Grocery stores with plenty of certain items,a lack of certain items, and long lines waiting at the local Soviet stores. It is absurd to believe that one Soviet bureaucrat had the intelligence to make millions of decisions for millions of people, each and every day. Health Care in the Soviet Union was Third World at best, using infected needles, using medical supplies, over and over again, in the name of saving money.

What do you see when you visit an American Super Market? In an American super market, you see plenty of items, enough for everyone. Capitalism has created the strongest economic superpower in the world. Liberty, freedom, and choice has liberated millions of individuals from a life of grinding poverty to a life of prosperity. When you have government control, you have suffering, misery, and poverty. Nations with freedom are the nations that will prosper over a long span of time. A Government breaucrat does not care about the people, the Government bureaucrat gets paid regardless of the results. A capitalist does not get paid if the customer is not happy. Economic growth is the engine that powers high tax revenues to the government and a higher standard of living for the people. When economic growth is high, living standards double every twenty-six years. Currently, even low income people have living standards that kings and queen could only dream about, years ago. How many people do you believe had air-conditioning, years ago? How many people years,ago, had VCR’s, satellite dishes, microwaves, and color televisions? Now, where these consumer goods provided by the government? These goods were provided by the capitalist. The capitalist has provided the goods that have vastly improved our lives. What has the government done in past years to improve the standard of living for you and your family? Is the HD+ machine or the Wearable Artificial Kidney being provided by the government? These products are being taken to the private market by the capitalist, not the government. Funding for these items are being provided by the venture capitalist, not the government. The capitalist is the hero, raising living standards and providing a better life for the people. Capitalism is about serving your fellow human beings. If I want to buy a bottle of water at the store, the clerk will say, “Mark, what have you done to serve your fellow human beings?” I will use my dollar bill as proof of my service to my fellow human beings. Increased profits come from greater service to our fellow human beings. Bill Gates received his wealth from providing a great service and easier life to his fellow human beings. Government control results in enrichment for the few at the expense of the many. Capitalism results in the spread and the expansion of wealth to the larger society, resulting in compassion.

Mark

From what I’ve seen, it is precisely the opposite.

In the United States, the average poor individual has more living space than the middle class of Western Europe.

Mark

How is that relevant to dialysis?