news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Reforming health care could reduce high costs

Sunday, November 15, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

I am a physician that works in the area and I deal with the lack of proper health care every day.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that health insurance companies have undue influence over how we practice medicine. They dictate what we do, how we do it and when we do it. It is often not in the best interest of the patient or in the management of our health care dollars.

The main reason we need reform is because we all pay for society’s health care in the end. No one is turned away regardless of ability to pay. Yes, these patients are burdened with the bad credit but health care facilities really pay. And those costs are passed on to the next patient. We need health care for all and we need to figure out how we can afford it.

Valerie Fields
Oak Ridge
 

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Yvonne

November 15, 2009 - 7:37 am EST

Thanks, Valerie, for reiterating what I and, some others in the health care field, have been saying all along.

Sawdust

November 15, 2009 - 9:00 am EST

I notice that the lte writer didn't say that the legislation under consideration would do anything to control costs. As far as I can tell, it just shifts costs around a bit more. I haven't read the whole thing, but I haven't found anything in it that would actually contain costs without cutting care. Has anyone else found such a provision?

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 9:01 am EST

I doubt it is in there, Sawdust.

danagain

November 15, 2009 - 7:45 am EST

"...and we need to figure out how we can afford it."

That is what hasn't been done yet. The proposed raising taxes on rich people is but a drop in the bucket.

xeno10

November 15, 2009 - 8:21 am EST

You're not very bright are you, danagain? And you just talk to hear your head rattle? Seriously?

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 8:57 am EST

yo xeno .. I have my issues with Dan the Often Shallow .. but chill.
He's correct in that what hasn't been done is to figure out how we can afford it."

One disagreement: "The proposed raising taxes on rich people is but a drop in the bucket." ... disagreement because "rich people" had to play by the same rules as you and I, they would be outraged and might actually be interested in limiting the size and scope of g-men intervention. Right now a Big Government is in their interest ... of course Dan is OK with this (as are many others) because it is "legal" and someone fat cat paying 2% of their compensation is still more total tax revenue than the 20% or more the rest of us pay ...

danagain

November 15, 2009 - 8:15 pm EST

JDR, you and I both know this plan is not going to be deficit neutral as Obama promises. You could take 90% of the income of eeeeevvvvviiiiillll rich people and it still won't be covered.

J D R

November 16, 2009 - 12:34 am EST

.. agreed .. but if "rich people" had to play by the same rules as you and I, they would become interested in limiting the size and scope of g-men intervention ...

... and funny you should mention taking 90% of the income of eeeeevvvvviiiiillll rich people ... because the last time we did that was in the 1950's when we were paying off WWII .. also the last time we actually reduced the national debt (1956 and 1957).

Year ~ Debt Outstanding ~ Y-Y % ~ Top rate (%)
2008 ~ 10,024,724,896,912 ~ 11.29% ~
2007 ~ 9,007,653,372,262 ~ 5.89% ~
2006 ~ 8,506,973,899,215 ~ 7.24% ~
2005 ~ 7,932,709,661,724 ~ 7.50% ~
2004 ~ 7,379,052,696,330 ~ 8.78% ~
2003 ~ 6,783,231,062,744 ~ 8.91% ~ 35
2002 ~ 6,228,235,965,597 ~ 7.25% ~ 39
2001 ~ 5,807,463,412,200 ~ 2.35% ~ 39
2000 ~ 5,674,178,209,887 ~ 0.32% ~ 40
1999 ~ 5,656,270,901,615 ~ 2.35% ~ 40
1998 ~ 5,526,193,008,898 ~ 2.09% ~ 40
1997 ~ 5,413,146,011,397 ~ 3.60% ~ 40
1996 ~ 5,224,810,939,136 ~ 5.04% ~ 40
1995 ~ 4,973,982,900,709 ~ 5.99% ~ 40
1994 ~ 4,692,749,910,013 ~ 6.38% ~ 40
1993 ~ 4,411,488,883,139 ~ 8.53% ~ 40
1992 ~ 4,064,620,655,522 ~ 10.89% ~ 31
1991 ~ 3,665,303,351,697 ~ 13.36% ~ 31
1990 ~ 3,233,313,451,777 ~ 13.15% ~ 28
1989 ~ 2,857,430,960,187 ~ 9.80% ~ 28
1988 ~ 2,602,337,712,041 ~ 10.72% ~ 28
1987 ~ 2,350,276,890,953 ~ 10.59% ~ 39
1986 ~ 2,125,302,616,658 ~ 16.58% ~ 50
1985 ~ 1,823,103,000,000 ~ 15.95% ~ 50
1984 ~ 1,572,266,000,000 ~ 14.16% ~ 50
1983 ~ 1,377,210,000,000 ~ 20.59% ~ 50
1982 ~ 1,142,034,000,000 ~ 14.45% ~ 50
1981 ~ 997,855,000,000 ~ 9.93% ~ 69
1980 ~ 907,701,000,000 ~ 9.82% ~ 70
1979 ~ 826,519,000,000 ~ 7.13% ~ 70
1978 ~ 771,544,000,000 ~ 10.40% ~ 70
1977 ~ 698,840,000,000 ~ 12.64% ~ 70
1976 ~ 620,433,000,000 ~ 16.36% ~ 70
1975 ~ 533,189,000,000 ~ 12.24% ~ 70
1974 ~ 475,059,815,732 ~ 3.69% ~ 70
1973 ~ 458,141,605,312 ~ 7.23% ~ 70
1972 ~ 427,260,460,941 ~ 7.32% ~ 70
1971 ~ 398,129,744,456 ~ 7.34% ~ 70
1970 ~ 370,918,706,950 ~ 4.86% ~ 72
1969 ~ 353,720,253,841 ~ 1.77% ~ 77
1968 ~ 347,578,406,426 ~ 6.55% ~ 75
1967 ~ 326,220,937,795 ~ 1.97% ~ 70
1966 ~ 319,907,087,795 ~ 0.83% ~ 70
1965 ~ 317,273,898,984 ~ 1.78% ~ 70
1964 ~ 311,712,899,257 ~ 1.91% ~ 77
1963 ~ 305,859,632,996 ~ 2.57% ~ 91
1962 ~ 298,200,822,721 ~ 3.19% ~ 91
1961 ~ 288,970,938,610 ~ 0.92% ~ 91
1960 ~ 286,330,760,848 ~ 0.57% ~ 91
1959 ~ 284,705,907,078 ~ 3.03% ~ 91
1958 ~ 276,343,217,746 ~ 2.15% ~ 91
1957 ~ 270,527,171,896 ~ -0.82% ~ 91
1956 ~ 272,750,813,649 ~ -0.59% ~ 91
1955 ~ 274,374,222,803 ~ 1.15% ~ 91
1954 ~ 271,259,599,108 ~ 1.95% ~ 91
1953 ~ 266,071,061,639 ~ 2.69% ~ 92
1952 ~ 259,105,178,785 ~ 1.52% ~ 92
1951 ~ 255,221,976,815 ~ -0.83% ~ 91
1950 ~ 257,357,352,351 ~ 1.81% ~ 84
1949 ~ 252,770,359,860 ~ 0.19% ~ 82
1948 ~ 252,292,246,513 ~ -2.32% ~ 82
1947 ~ 258,286,383,109 ~ -4.13% ~ 86
1946 ~ 269,422,099,173 ~ 4.15% ~ 86
1945 ~ 258,682,187,410 ~ 28.70% ~ 94
1944 ~ 201,003,387,221 ~ 47.04% ~ 94
1943 ~ 136,696,090,330 ~ 88.75% ~ 88
1942 ~ 72,422,445,116 ~ 47.92% ~ 88
1941 ~ 48,961,443,536 ~ 13.95% ~ 81
1940 ~ 42,967,531,038 ~ 6.25% ~ 81
1939 ~ 40,439,532,411 ~ 8.81% ~ 79
1938 ~ 37,164,740,315 ~ 2.03% ~ 79
1937 ~ 36,424,613,732 ~ 7.83% ~ 79
1936 ~ 33,778,543,494 ~ 17.69% ~ 79
1935 ~ 28,700,892,625 ~ 6.09% ~ 63
1934 ~ 27,053,141,414 ~ 20.03% ~ 63
1933 ~ 22,538,672,560 ~ 15.66% ~ 63
1932 ~ 19,487,002,444 ~ 15.99% ~ 63
1931 ~ 16,801,281,492 ~ 3.81% ~ 25
1930 ~ 16,185,309,831 ~ -4.40% ~ 25
1929 ~ 16,931,088,484 ~ -3.82% ~ 24
1928 ~ 17,604,293,201 ~ -4.90% ~ 25
1927 ~ 18,511,906,932 ~ -5.76% ~ 25
1926 ~ 19,643,216,315 ~ -4.26% ~ 25
1925 ~ 20,516,193,888 ~ -3.46% ~ 25
1924 ~ 21,250,812,989 ~ -4.92% ~ 46
1923 ~ 22,349,707,365 ~ -2.67% ~ 44
1922 ~ 22,963,381,708 ~ -4.23% ~ 58
1921 ~ 23,977,450,553 ~ -7.61% ~ 73
1920 ~ 25,952,456,406 ~ -5.25% ~ 73
1919 ~ 27,390,970,113 ~ 87.71% ~ 73
1918 ~ 14,592,161,414 ~ 155.21% ~ 77
1917 ~ 5,717,770,280 ~ 58.42% ~ 67
1916 ~ 3,609,244,262 ~ 18.02% ~ 15
1915 ~ 3,058,136,873 ~ 5.00% ~ 7
1914 ~ 2,912,499,269 ~ -0.13% ~ 7
1913 ~ 2,916,204,914 ~ 1.67% ~ 7
1912 ~ 2,868,373,874 ~ 3.72% ~
1911 ~ 2,765,600,607 ~ 4.26% ~
1910 ~ 2,652,665,838 ~ 0.50% ~
1909 ~ 2,639,546,241 ~ 0.48% ~
1908 ~ 2,626,806,272 ~ 6.90% ~
1907 ~ 2,457,188,062 ~ 5.14% ~
1906 ~ 2,337,161,839 ~ 2.75% ~
1905 ~ 2,274,615,064 ~ 0.47% ~
1904 ~ 2,264,003,585 ~ 2.79% ~
1903 ~ 2,202,464,782 ~ 2.03% ~
1902 ~ 2,158,610,446 ~ 0.71% ~
1901 ~ 2,143,326,934 ~ 0.30% ~
1900 ~ 2,136,961,092 ~ ~

swerdna

November 15, 2009 - 1:18 pm EST

Ok, xeno, please tell us how we WILL pay for this healthcare program because NOone seems to be able to give exact numbers or an exact plan yet! We don't want to hear the speculations as to how we'll pay for it, we want to hear specifics! So, since you claim danagain isn't very bright because of his statement, then I'm under the assumption that YOU have all the answers. Let hear the answers instead of insults. Waiting.

danagain

November 15, 2009 - 8:13 pm EST

swerdna, trolls never offer an opinion, that's not their job.

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 7:57 am EST

"They dictate what we do, how we do it and when we do it. It is often not in the best interest of the patient"

A Dr. not doing what is in the best interest of the patient? You let an insurance company tell you how to treat your patients...or you only do what the insurance company will pay for and let your patients suffer the consequences?

xeno10

November 15, 2009 - 8:25 am EST

And here we have the "wild and wooly" words, from the "wild and wooly" neocon, on this beautiful Sunday morning! Seriously.

swerdna

November 15, 2009 - 1:22 pm EST

Again, insults appear to be your ONLY contribution to these posts.

xeno10

November 15, 2009 - 8:26 am EST

oops

huck

November 15, 2009 - 8:52 am EST

neocon,

From what I can tell, Dr. Fields is a cytopathologist who is not involved in direct patient care. This might explain why she would let an insurance company "dictate what we do, how we do it and when we do it". But her most relevant statement was "we need to figure out how we can afford it". For the life of me, I can't understand why we're trying to ram this current bill through, even though it will likely increase costs rather than contain them!

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 10:20 am EST

Ms. Fields stated "I am a physician". This led me to believe she saw patients on a regular basis.

As for ramming this bill through, it has been the goal of socialists for decades to control the actions of others, and what better way to control the actions of others than to be in charge of their health? Once there, they can dictate almost anything that affects the lives of average Americans. (whom they deem too stupid to care for themselves) They can ban anything they think is detrimental to their health. (guns, tobacco, fatty foods, non-approved footwear, sugar, etc.etc.etc.)

As for the reason they are in such a rush, they realize they have such a narrow window of opportunity to get it done. The midterm elections are less than a year away. As time goes by, more and more Americans are realizing they really don't care for the idea of Barney the Frank and Chris Dodd running the health care industry. Time is the enemy. Slick Willie came out the other day urging the congress to pass the bill now... regardless of anyone having reservations about the consequences because they can always 'go back and fix it later'. He knows that as time goes by and more people become aware of what's in this monstrosity, the chances of it passing will be near nil.

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 11:05 am EST

Half Truths.

As for the reason they are in such a rush, they realize they have such a narrow window of opportunity to get it done.

True.

"As time goes by, more and more Americans are realizing they really don't care for the idea of Barney the Frank and Chris Dodd running the health care industry."

False. It is instead that more and more Americans are realizing the lack of clear savings.

" .. it has been the goal of socialists for decades to control the actions of others ..

True .. but that the goal of Americans to want socialism is far from a universal truth.

"They can ban anything they think is detrimental to their health. (guns, tobacco, fatty foods, non-approved footwear, sugar, etc.etc.etc.) "

True and False:
Guns - mostly liberals
Tobacco - clearly both
Fatty foods - clearly both
Sugar - 100% ADM

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 1:48 pm EST

Out of 35 posts 11 are from you.

My god you are a whiner.

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 2:08 pm EST

...and why can't you & others simply address questions honestly, or pose some of earnest ones of your own?

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 2:46 pm EST

Address what? 'Sugar..100% ADM.' 'Guns ...Liberal'.. 'Fatty foods...both'? .Fraud and corruption in government programs are no longer the fault of government, but a 'free market' clerk? WTF?

During the last administration, the US government was the most inept, corrupt, and fraudulent entity on earth, now that your boy is at the head, it's the 'free market clerk'. My god you are a whiner.

Prattling bull shit, but I'm sure truman and Yvonne are on the verge of soiling their panties.

Sawdust

November 15, 2009 - 6:06 pm EST

That 1 comment makes my day. Thanks, neo.

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 6:13 pm EST

If you have something to contribute .. do so.

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 6:49 pm EST

I will. And I don't need permission or instructions from you or anyone else to comment. You paint a scenario, offer your opinion as to why this scenario is legit, then anyone who doesn't waste their time challenging you, they 'have nothing to offer' and 'can't address your legit questions'. Did it ever occur to you that many people who comment here don't really give a damn about what you think on a given subject? No, it probably hasn't.

neocon

November 15, 2009 - 6:59 pm EST

BTW, you're one of the few true narcissists I've run across. FWIW, I think your little messiah suffers from this too, so you're in good company.

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 8:08 am EST

"The main reason we need reform is because we all pay for society’s health care in the end."

Well not really .. Most do .. probably all with-in this blog .. probably all those with-in this blog know on a first name basis ... but there are some that contribute nothing .. we can start with the Charlie Manson's of the world .. then the head up the food chain to .. let's do The Walton Family ...

Maybe I'm a cynic (there's a surprise) .. but Sam was good with the Legal money games .. for example before he died he split up his wealth among family members so upon death there was no Inheritance Tax to be collected. "He" is not part of the "we" paying for society’s health care.

To be fair, apparently Sam's wife Helen has given big gifts to charity .. but ROB, THE CHAIRMAN flies around in his own Jet .. paid for by the company certainly and I'm OK with that, but am equally sure he has qualified himself for paying only 4 cents in Av-Fuel tax while the more common Airplane Drivers (like our friend Dan) pay the going rate which is (I think) about 29 cents ... and when he goes "From his home in the Colorado mountains Rob will take off in his jet to go cycling in France, or hunt geese in Canada, or go on bio-safaris in South America" ... it's a pretty safe guess there is usually a business purpose. "He" is not part of the "we" paying for society’s health care.

http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/aboutus/report.asp
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/11/15/819109...

You get the point .. but regardless ... it's all Legal and therefore Right and Proper .. Correct all you 'bamahaters?

... just don't believe "we all pay for society’s health care in the end" ...

... and I do not believe you are sincere when you talk about how the Gov'ment is Always Screwed Up .. 'cause how can they be Always Screwed Up when you constantly support the skirting of "we all pay" when some clearly don't through "Legal and therefore Right and Proper" loopholes which were established by the very Gov'ment that is Always Screwed Up?

xeno10

November 15, 2009 - 8:12 am EST

Dr. Fields, thank you for your LTTE! You state: "We need health care for all and we need to figure out how we can afford it." And I believe we already have a reasonable solution for the problem: a single-payer health care system! As you know, in our country today, there are many, many different health care organizations, e.g., HMOs, billing agencies, et cetera, et cetera. And by having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated. (I can only imagine how complex billing must be in your office when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers and web sites, et cetera, et cetera!} Now, in a single-payer system, doctors, hospitals and other health providers would bill one entity -- government-run -- for their services! And this action alone reduces waste in large measures, and saves millions and millions of dollars that can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don't have it. Unfortunately, Dr. Fields, the DEMOCRATIC Health Care Reform legislation that will soon be enacted into law will not provide a single-payer system for our nation, but it will contain a "public option" (Yes, it will!) and that will be a "giant step" in the direction of "single-payer" that one day, in the not too distant future, our nation will enjoy! Seriously!

Sawdust

November 15, 2009 - 9:07 am EST

Let's see: Medicare is a single-payer system, yet it is a well-known fact that there are billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system. The same folks are going to be handling the money in any "single'payer" system devised by the Congress. What exactly have you seen that leads you to believe that they will be able to handle a much larger system competently and efficiently? I haven't seen a single thing which leads me to believe that nonsense.

JGALT

November 15, 2009 - 9:13 am EST

Dust, $89.3 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Medicaid.

J D R

November 15, 2009 - 10:11 am EST

To paraphrase Mona Lisa Vito, "That's a Bull Sh!t Statistic" Galt.

The only reason there is they are unfunded - they are both "backed by the full faith" of the g-men and over-comitted by the g-men. It they were as "responsible" as the Fabled Private Insurance Providers .. they would have zero unfunded liabilities .. they would use next month's payout on next month's revenues and if they were going to be short they would simply charge more and if that didn't work they would simply go out of business.

Apples and Oranges.

Response?

JGALT

November 15, 2009 - 11:24 am EST

When the current administration is going to partially pay for the current expansion of entitlement programs with you're waste and fraud, it is noteworthy to be reminded of the difference between promises made and premiums collected and forecast. Hardly a bullshit statistic. The fraud of government promise is far greater than the incidental (though enormous) waste in the operation of these programs.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search