For those who care for someone with Parkinson's disease
[Forum] [Home] [Help] [Search] [Register] [Login] [Books] [Commentary] [Contact] [Donate]
You are not logged in


Topic Parenting guidance and visitation part of national health care? Go to previous topic Go to next topic Go to higher level

By lurkingforacure On 2009.08.12 10:53
Now I know why the proposed bill is over 1,000 pages long, it includes non-health care stuff like this. On page 838, outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill, under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development." What practices? What theory of child development? I could go on and on about this part and the implications and potential violations of rights it raises.

Now, if you don't have any concerns with that, the proposed plan also points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

So, apparently low-income families know less about parenting, and middle- and upper-class parents are better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Any parent should be scared to death of something like this, whether it's part of a health plan or not. And what is this doing in a healthcare proposal anyway? Good grief. We need reform, but this bill, which by the way is NOT endorsed by AARP (Obama has represented that it was just this week and AARP rimmediately eleased a statement in response that they have not endorsed any healthcare reform bill), is just over the top.

By WitsEnd On 2009.08.12 11:35
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/many_seniors_arent_sure_healthcare_system_needs_repair.html

Interesting. Including the article on the AARP web site article (link above) which states in part:

"The House bill would help pay for the overhaul's estimated $1-trillion cost over 10 years by extracting about $500 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid, a government health program for the poor. Of that amount, about $231.4 billion would come from Medicare's budget, according to AARP.

Many seniors wonder how it is possible to cut that much without affecting medical care. The administration says there's a lot of unnecessary care being delivered -- as much as 30% by some accounts -- and it could be eliminated without compromising seniors' health. "

Anybody know one of those one in three people getting "unnecessary" care today?

By Newcaregiver On 2009.08.12 15:55
Possibly that may be referring to doctors' incentives to use many tests for patients to avoid being sued? Also, doctors she be given incentives for patients lowering their blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and obesity. More emphasis on wellness and disease prevention would be helpful and would help in lowering costs. I know lots of people who are young and overweight with high blood pressue and diabetes. It would be helpful if insurance companies gave incentives to employees who maintained good health practices also!

By karolinakitty On 2009.08.12 20:32
i agree with newcaregiver..i believe what that refers to is the tesing policies. I believe, and don't quote me, but CNN had someone talking about how doctors are paid more by insurance companies, to diagnose a disease than to treat a patient already diagnosed.... so .... more tests = more diagnosies = more money

By WitsEnd On 2009.08.13 09:18
Insurance companies already control testing, provide preventative care and provide incentives to people who manage their health issues. United Healthcare for instance pays up to $200 for reading articles, doing health assessments, etc. annually. They also reimburse up to $250 for things like gym memberships.

They limit the number of times I can get bloodwork without having to pay for it out of my pocket. (I can choose to do otherwise--but it's on my nickel.) I already have access to woman's wellness programs where they pay all of the costs for an annual exam.

I've never sued my doctor and don't know anybody who did. I do know that the insurance companies in Texas said if Texas did lawsuit reform that insurance rates for automobile insurance would drop. Guess what--no drop.

Of course it is going to cost more to diagnose somebody new. If a doctor doesn't know what the problem is, he's going to have to do more tests to figure out what's wrong. After he knows, he may only be doing routine check-ups or limited tests just to monitor the one thing he found out that was wrong.

I still don't see 30% coming out of Medicare without cutting health care. 30% would mean that at least 1 person out of 4's medical care got totally eliminated. None of the people I know got unnecessary care--of course that's me still defining what care I consider necessary and not the government. In fact we go out of our way not to put our loved ones through anything they don't have to go through. I could have taken dad to the dermatologist, urologists--I made the decision that if he did have prostate cancer or skin cancer that we should just watch it and if he didn't have symptoms that these conditions were generally long term in nature and he would die long before these things would affect him. How many people here have said no feeding tubes and no hospital?

I would suggest everyone read all of the AARP articles on how these proposals will affect current medicare coverage. Someone said they were happy with what they got with medicare. I would agree. It sure doesn't sound like though that the plan is to keep all of that care.

By Newcaregiver On 2009.08.13 09:41
Witsend: Your healthcare plan sounds very good. Mine is a good plan, but doesn't offer any incentives for being healthy. I am normal weight, don't smoke, exercise daily, good cholesterol. I pay the exact same amount as a colleague who is overweight, eats poorly and has had a bunch of unnecessary surgeries over the last few years. I had acupuncture (cost about $500 in total) to avoid back surgery and they wouldn't cover it. Of course, they paid who knows what for my colleagues back surgery. So, many inequities across health insurance plans.

I would think if any healthcare plans would have incentives given to doctors and to patients to actively seek good health by following appropriate preventative measures toward good health, the healthcare system would benefit greatly. Afterall, obesity is proportionately high in the US. right? If your health insurance would give you a monetary incentive for being in a correct weight bracket it would certainly be appropriate and might...just might...make people think of losing some weight. At least, it would reward those who do try and maintain a normal weight. For some this is easy - it is not for me. I have to work on this daily!

By lurkingforacure On 2009.08.13 11:00
How about tax credits if you lose weight and keep it off for a certain period of time? Or reduce your blood pressure/blood sugar levels with diet and exercise? I'd love it, it would provide the most incentive to people (to tax-paying people, that is) but it'll never happen.

Yea, tort reform, we need that too. In fact, in every country where they have socialized medicine, guess what went hand in hand with that? Tort reform. Again, that'll never happen, because we have way too many greedy lawyers in this country (remember most politicians went to law school, so they are included). I can say this because I'm a lawyer myself, and have seen it firsthand. As many good lawyers as I know we have in this country, the bad ones are ruining everything. Most lobbyists are also attorneys, or were at some point.

I wonder how doctors see this proposal. They will be limited in what tests and treatments they can give, yet will be subject to liability for failing to have those tests/treatments done. If my doc wants to order a cancer screen, but under the national health plan can't because it's not "covered", but I still can sue him if I find out I have cancer later and would have discovered it sooner had he done the test, what doc is going to want to practice under that system? Will docs have the opportunity to opt out of treating patients under the national health care system, and if so, wow, we may be left with very, very few docs to treat a nation of people. Here come the long lines folks are worried about.

If docs can't opt out of treating patients under a national health system, isn't that forced servitude? Not sure that can be done, and in any event, the doc lobby would never let that happen.

Tort reform has to go with healthcare reform. I find it incredible that the legislature managed to cram provisions for child-rearing in this bill but did not include anything to reform litigation, even a limited reform relating to healthcare litigation/liability would help.

By WitsEnd On 2009.08.13 16:10
The incentives in the healthcare plan are fairly new. If you like that then I would suggest recommending it to your employer and insurance company.

I agree there's some bad apples out there in the lawyer community and I also question whether people say "I don't want to be a doctor". The older ones retire, nobody comes in and then who is left to provide care?

Instead of worrying about putting child care counseling in the health reform bill Obama should be worrying about funding medical school educations and offering incentives to bring people into the field. At the end of the day, economics is simple. Supply and demand. Government regulations that affect the normal balance will have consequences. Always.

By trapper On 2009.08.22 16:17
WASHINGTON (Reuters) U.S. President Barack Obama hammered away at "outrageous myths" about his healthcare reform plans on Saturday, seeking again to take control of a debate that has tarnished support for his top domestic policy goal.

Obama, a Democrat, has tried for weeks to clamp down on criticism and misinformation about his healthcare plans and used his weekly radio and Internet address to confront them.

Republicans charged the president with distributing false information of his own.

"Today, I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the Internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country," Obama said in his address.

"Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true.

"That idea has never even been on the table. Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false."

Obama expressed outrage about persistent rumors that government-run "death panels" would have a say in whether ailing senior citizens would receive life-saving care -- an issue that was spread by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee last year.

"As every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called 'death panels' -- an offensive notion to me and to the American people," Obama said. "These are phony claims meant to divide us."

Obama also urged people not to get distracted by his desire to create a government-sponsored health insurance provider to compete with private companies.

"Let me repeat -- it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan," he said.

"This one aspect of the healthcare debate shouldn't overshadow the other important steps we can and must take to reduce the increasing burdens families and businesses face."

REPUBLICAN DISPUTES OBAMA'S STATEMENTS

Republicans charge that Obama's plans are too expensive in the face of skyrocketing budget deficits and say their own proposals would bring down costs without creating a government-run system.

Republican Representative Tom Price, a physician, said the president was playing "fast and loose with the facts" about his plans and insisted Americans would not be able to hold on to their health insurance plans under Democratic proposals.

"The President regularly tells Americans that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' But if you read the bill, that just isn't so," Price said.

"For starters, within five years, every healthcare plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage - one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it," he said.

Price said Republican alternative proposals to fix the healthcare system would put patients in charge of their medical decisions rather than having a "government-centered" approach.

"Unfortunately, the plan being promoted by the White House would give Washington the power to make highly personal medical decisions on behalf of patients," Price said.

"The President's plan is a 1,000-page expression supporting the notion that Washington knows best when it comes to your family's health care. And that's simply not true."

Obama's healthcare plan has been hit from both sides, with liberal members of his own party pushing for major changes while Republicans and conservative Democrats fret about cost and government involvement. Debate likely will intensify next month when Congress returns from its summer recess and Democrats renew their struggle to send Obama a final healthcare overhaul bill.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)


© 2003-2016 MyParkinsons.org · Privacy Policy & Terms of Use
Published by jAess Media. This website and Forum is sponsorsed by people like you