It certainly is a topic that impacts every one of us. I would like to know why it was removed. I learned a few things from some of the comments. Marie
They do that sometimes if things get too hairy!
On the MedHelp social forum they banned political discussions. I wonder if they might be applying that to other areas.
Considering women's life expectancy is ranked 24th in the world compared to other westernized contries I think it is a valid question to ask: What impact does our method of healthcare delivery have on that type of statistic? I hope the discussion didn't disappear b/c a progressive perspective was being articulated.
Not sure why the post was removed...
I do agree that it's an important discussion to be had especially because it could possibly affect many of the women on this very forum who are dealing with cancer.
Here's an interesting article from another ovarian website. The lengthy reply was very interesting also. So much to think about ... my chemo RN mentioned she is concerned for us ovarian ladies.
Interesting article and interesting comments following. It is hard to imagine that a guy who lost his mother to Ovarian cancer and who bothered to mention finding a cure to cancer in (I believe) his 1st state of the union is just chomping at the bit to dismantle cancer research.....talking points of a very well oiled machine that has nothing left but fear tactics.
Though I wasn't commenting on the thread, I was also following this discussion with interest. However, it seems when posters get off the facts and start posting opinions it can stir up differences and take a negative turn. My understanding is that this forum is mainly for providing information and support to those of us either dx with and/or dealing with ovca, as well as those who are caregivers or concerned their symptoms may indicate they have ovca. While a discussion on this topic and how it affects us is timely, it's probably best to stick to sharing substantiated facts and leaving our own political opinions/agenda out of it so no one takes offense. We all have our individual opinions. Chris P
i agree....op-ed pieces (like the linked one above) are always landmines!!!
No offense intended, but "talking points of a very well oiled machine that has nothing left but fear tactics" could also be considered inflamatory:) It might be best to let people read the piece, research the author, and form their own conclusions. Chris P
I completely agree that this discussion should not become one of politics, or attempts to sway opinion.
My purpose of starting a thread regarding the proposed Health Care plan, was to get opinions on how our members feel about the issue as it relates to themselves.
I'm staged at 4B epithelial OVCA which metastasized to my lymph nodes and my oncologist says I'll be on chemo, the rest of my life.
At my asking him the dreaded "how long" question, my choice to ask, he replied he's expecting me to make the 5 year mark, it's been 2 since my diagnosis.
His associate told me yesterday, that they're having a very difficult time now, getting some chemo drugs approved by ins, companies, and they expect it to get worse under the new plan.
He said that I'll most likely not be approved for Avastin, and because of the expense of the office purchasing it, and not getting fully reimbursed, I'd need to get it done in a hospital setting, not the office I've been getting chemo for 2 years.
He said Medicare and insurance payments are slow in coming, and treatments are far from being fully funded now.
I'm frightened because I want the decisions on my care to be made by my doctors and myself, not a gov't. panel who'll decide if I'm young enough, and healthy enough to be worth the cost. That's rationed care, so this is personal and not political to me.
That is terrifing. I'd be very worked up if I heard those words coming out of my doctor's mouth. I hope he is wrong.
answers to some of the rumors and actual sources not just hersay....this actually makes me feel a little better.....
TOP FIVE HEALTH CARE LIES—AND HOW TO FIGHT BACK
Tell your friends:
The health care fight has turned ugly, fast. And lies about reform are spreading via anonymous email chains. Below are the real facts you need to know. Also, check out this great version of the Top Five Lies, created by Bradley, a Texas MoveOn member.
Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!
The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."1 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.2
If you'd like to read the actual section of the legislation that spawned these outrageous claims (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) for yourself, here it is. It's pretty boring stuff, which is why the accusations that it creates "death panels" is so absurd. But don't take our word for it, read it yourself.
Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!
The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.
Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!
The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.
Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.6 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.
Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!
The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.7 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.8
Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12
P.S. Want more? Check out this great new White House "Reality Check" website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ or this excellent piece from Health Care for America Now on some of the most outrageous lies: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51729
1. "No 'death panel' in health care bill," Associated Press, August 10, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51747
2. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," Huffington Post, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730
3. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1
4. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737
5. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736
6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1
7. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748
8. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1
9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1
10. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667
11. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735
12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1
Sources for the Five Lies:
#1: "A euthanasia mandate," The Washington Times, July 29, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51732
#2: "It's Not An Option," Investor's Business Daily, July 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51743
#3: "Rationing Health Care," The Washington Times, April 21, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51742
#4: "60 Plus Ad Is Chock Full Of Misinformation," Media Matters for America, August 8, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51734
#5: "Obama's 'Public' Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation," The National Review, May 13, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51744
Tell your friends:
Twitter Facebook Digg Email
You've certainly researched our President's view on universal health care.
BRAVO! You did a wonderful job setting things straight. So many nay sayers out there spewing propaganda scaring the pants of the public. Again, nice job.
I agree with dian. Thanks for all the time you took. Marie
I feel the need to respond to the top five lies and how to fight back column written by the Presidential backed movement. I will do my best to address the top 5, and then finish with some big picture thoughts.
1. The death panel claims are being confused with the end of life counseling. While the end of life counseling has no business in a health care bill, the death panel claims refer to the fact that there will be a Health Benefits Advisory Committee (section 123 of HR 3200) comprised of individuals appointed by the President that will decide what will be covered under Qualified Health Benefits Plans. This will apply to any public plan and any other private plans that want to "compete" with the public plan. In other words, all health insurance plans will have to meet these standards set out by the Committee. If you listen to how providing insurance to 46 million additional people will be paid for, it is by getting rid of waste in the system. Some of that waste is to not pay for "things that are not making you better" to quote our President. Well, that means a Committee deciding that certain treatments are a waste of money. If you want to be scared, just do a Google search of the President's Health Policy Advisor and read his published articles on how to cut costs from the health care system. If you are not between the ages of 15 and 40 and if you can still be a productive member of society, you have nothing to worry about.
2. The end of Private Insurance. Technically, the plan does not outlaw private insurance. However, if creates economic scenarios that make it highly unlikely that people will be able to keep what they have for the long haul. First of all, it is not possible to compete in any business with the government. The public plan proposes to be fully funded by premiums. However, if the government underestimates the costs (I know this is a real stretch), and operates at losses, everyone knows that they have unlimited resources to tap (yes taxes). A private insurance company does not have that luxury. Also, think about trying to compete with an entity that also gets to make and change the rules as it sees fit. That is what it would be like to compete with the government. As it is now, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates pay hospitals less than cost (something ranging between 80 and 92% of cost). So how do the hospitals stay in business? The "evil" private insurance companies reimburse them at rates close to 124% of cost. If the government takes a bigger chunk of the insured population, that will cause at least one of two things to happen, maybe both: (1) the private insurance companies will have to pay more per procedure, or (2) the hospitals will have to figure out how to make up the costs - pay doctors less or spend less on new technology. That should encourage future doctors to get into the business, right?
3. Rationing will happen, and of course that would never make it into a bill explicitly. All you need to do is ask yourself how you can put 46 million additional people into a system but spend less money. As I mention in the first point above, the Committee will establish what is covered for who. You can't just tell everyone that more people will have better coverage and it will cost less. That defies logic. There is nothing really wrong with regulating the insurance companies and taking away the ability to drop coverage or deny based on pre-existing conditions, but the government will ration if they need to foot the bill when everyone is ultimately in the public plan (see point 2 above). As of now, if specific insurance companies deny too many things, they will lose out to competition. If there is only one player (ultimately the government), and they deny things, you have no other options. We need to offer more options, but that could be done by removing the portability restrictions and opening up the state silos of insurance (just like what government employees get today). More choices is good, but because of our arcane rules, you can't buy insurance from other states and competition is limited. It also should not be tied to your employment, because that limits your choices. Insurance companies can't be so restrictive if they know there is true competition. Right now, if you have insurance tied to your employer, you may not have the options to shop. An exchange would be a great idea (that is part of the Bill that makes sense), but we don't need a government "option" in there.
4. In order to pay for this monstrosity, we are being told that they can trim hundreds of billions of "waste" from Medicare. This would lead one to conclude one of a couple of things: 1. If there is that much waste in a government-run health insurance system, why would we trust them to expand who they cover? or 2. "waste" means paying for things they don't think should be paid for (less benefits). On point 2, think about what the President has said about his own grandmother's hip replacement and the writings of his Health Policy Advisor. Also, I find it highly suspect that they can cut costs in Medicare when the baby boomers are rapidly approaching Medicare age. Not sure how you can cut costs when you are about to add a large amount of people (even without this plan). Also, if you have been listening to the Blue Dog Democrats, their sticking point has been that the plan doesn't have enough savings from Medicare and Medicaid. So, they are demanding more savings to get their votes. That means even more "waste" needs to be found.
5. Pot calling kettle black. This will absolutely add to the deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office already said that. They can't figure out how to pay for all of this, even with their aggressive estimates of "cost savings", and when is the last time the government ever came in under budget. Even scarier is the fact that they are looking out 10 years in their analysis. The "cost savings" and taxes will start soon. The provision of benefits under the bill does not even start until 2013. So think about that. You can have 10 years of cost savings from current programs and taxes, but 6 years of costs and still not get to cost neutral. Even with that hocus pocus, they can't get the math to work.
to be continued on next post
I agree there is propaganda coming from both sides of this issue and it is important to try to take a big picture approach to this. It becomes very easy to pick apart statements made by both sides to try to discredit their whole argument. For example, as someone who is opposed to the current house plans and the President's overall vision of fixing the healthcare system, it seems like one doesn't necessarily need to read the 1100 page version of the house bill to ask yourself some very high level questions that seem to defy all logic. First of all, how do we plan to add 46 million people to a healthcare system, require more things to be covered (less out of pocket for the consumers) and reduce costs? It is not possible.
If there is significant waste in the Medicare and Medicaid systems now (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars), why do we have to tie that with providing insurance to others? As a taxpayer, I am disgusted that a government will openly admit that they are flushing money down the toilet on the 2 government run health plans they currently have, yet they want us to let them cover more people.
If this was really just about reforming the private insurance industry, you don't need a government option and 1100 pages. Just regulate them harder. Get rid of those practices that are deemed unfair.
If we add the government as a player to force competition here, what is next? Are the supermarkets making too much profit on the food they sell us? Perhaps the government should step in there too. That is as essential as health care. Profit is not evil. We live in a capitalist society. The way to put pressure on too much profit is to have sufficient competition, which does not work with policies that are tied to employment and with no interstate competition.
My question is, and I know many Americans agree, why can't we slow down the process and why was there an attempt to rush it through congress before their summer recess? We know they didn't read the 1015 pages of the healthcare reform bill, they've admitted it.
The feeling seems to be, that the now questioning of what it will cost us financially, and changing our current medical coverage, was a concern to the White House and most in congress. Thus getting it through fast was the way to prevent criticism and the current questioning we're seeing now.
Not one congressperson has agreed to accept the new coverage they want us to accept, and give up their excellent coverage which we're all paying for.
Illegal aliens choking our medical system, tort reform and mismanagement of Medicare and Medicaid haven't been addressed either. Lets start with that before changing our access to care and choices of treatments.
If everyone in the country is covered under the Obama plan, where will the doctors and nurses and hospital beds come from. We don't have enough now, and adding a huge number of new patients will be costly and impossible to deal with.
I repeat that I NEVER want a bureaucrat deciding what treatment my doctor and I have decided is proper for me. I'm 66 with recurrent OVCA and as long as I can have the quality of life, further treatments will offer me, that's what I want and expect.
Mr. Obama and his family will always have the very best health care possible, I want that for myselef and my family as well.
I want to tell you that I truly appreciate the extensive information you posted on this controversial subject. Your opinions came from observing the issues and coming to your own conclusions instead of quotes from mostly biased websites, blogs and newspapers. I appreciate all opinions, but I maintain that our country does not need it's government running healthcare. There need to be some changes, yes, but not totally turning it over to the US Government. Look what's happened in the many agencies they run the full show? Yikes!