Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I've been listening to both sides of this for weeks in the hopes that I would find what strange cultural facet of America makes this so different from other countries. But, I still don't get it. Someone, I'm hoping, will explain this all to me, someday, and tell me why universal heathcare brings about such frothing rage and anger over lost freedoms when the changes and laws passed over the past eight years involving indefinite detainment, domestic wiretapping, and the unchecked hemorrhaging of billions of dollars into various military contract black holes to fight a vague concept, The War on Terror. Why weren't the talking heads on AM radio spitting pissed at the use, loss, and theft of their tax dollars then? And I get the libertarian ideals being promoted in this argument, that my money should not go to help someone else involuntarily, but why is this debate the one bringing out all the extremists and not the other tens of thousands of services the government provides with taxpayer money?

We have strange ideals, these days.

I'm annoyed that we are the only westernized country that can't get seem to ever get universal healthcare correct, but I'm even more frightened at the response to it that my fellow citizens are displaying that seems to be a protest against aid to those that need it and a position that seems to lean towards the "fuck you if you can't afford it" style of healthcare. In an incredible show of irony, a large percentage of the people at the town hall protests are elderly and hold a sign declaring our country is heading down the path of nazi-esque socialism as they verbally issue their concerns about what will happen to their Medicaid/Medicare if UHC is implemented.

Really, is this what we've come to? That we are willing to hand over billions of dollars and much of our freedoms, virtually unquestioned, to our military and intelligence agencies in the name of protecting American lives but how dare we try spend a tiny fraction of that amount to fund healthcare for those that can't afford it in the name of, uh...protecting American lives?

I agree. The argument that healthcare should only be for those who can afford the astronomical (and growing) premiums/cost is just crazy, especially when you look at how much the executives make. Healthcare should not be about profit, it should be about the health of the people. I remember getting into arguments with people who say insurance and healthcare is a business, and in the true sense of capitalism, they should be able to charge whatever the market will bear. Well, when tens of millions of people are left out in the wilderness and over a million people a year are filing bankruptcy because of healthcare costs (according to the AARP), and over 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical bills (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-imb060309.php), that is obviously NOT what the market can bear, and eventually it will become a serious threat to national security.

I wonder why THIS wasn't front page news instead of the stupid "death panel" hysteria coming from Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh? What is it the right is saying about "rationed care" and long lines?

I think many of the people who are against reform have insurance with their jobs, or they have never had to deal with a catastrophic illness or with their insurance company not refusing to pay a claim. Once it happens to them, they will change their tune. Honestly, why the hell aren't they mad about how much the executives are making?

***OOPS. I see now that this has already been debated. Sorry!***

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well as soon as we significantly decrease their pay the incentive to go into those fields will disappear. I am not sure many people understand what it takes to become some of those specialists that everyone bitches about. And if there are less of those people you will get care from generalists who know a little about a lot of things. The other area that is not being addressed is tort reform. And until you drive down those costs do not expect that people are going to be further incentivized to go into those areas that have high risk.

Gawd, that is the same tired, old argument that is made about ANY POSITION where executives (or whatever) are blatantly overpaid. What a CROCK. No one is saying they shouldn't make money, it's the OBSCENE AMOUNTS they shouldn't be making. I think most doctors in other countries do very for themselves.

And ftr, we NEED more GPs and less specialists if we want to lower costs. The GPs need to make more, and the specialists need to make less.

Malpractice is a very small part of the rising costs.
...Tort reformers like to argue that fear of lawsuits forces doctors to practice “defensive medicine”, which then adds billions of dollars to the cost of health care each year. In fact, a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said that medical malpractice claims constitute less than 2% of U.S. health spending...
http://lansing.injuryboard.com/misce...oogleid=269472

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No. I said I know they are making deals to maintain their profit margin.

About that... while watching an interview the other night it was revealed that the insurance industry is in negotiations now to be able to make 35 cents on every dollar people spend on their policies. Casinos only get to keep 25 cents on the dollar, and in NJ they apparently only keep 17 cents. That means premiums will be going up again for everyone, and so will the copays. This is according to Wendell Potter, an ex-VP of Cigna. He was on Countdown, and he has appeared on Rachel Maddow's show several times to talk about how corrupt the system is. You can watch the interview here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32484421

And over the past 5 years or so their profits have gone up 1000% while patients costs have risen over 300%. There is something wrong with that picture. (I don't remember where I got those numbers but I believe it may have been Matt Tiabbi on Morning Joe.)

[classicman]

Hey sugarpop - a study with the group "Physicians for a National Health Program" and their conclusions might not be the most UN-biased if you know what I mean.

[sugarpop]

Physicians should be uniquely qualified to talk about it, don't you think? Regardless of whether they want a national health program or not... And I agree, they are probably not biased... :p

[Kitsune]

[ZenGum]

The power of a single cartoon ... awesome.

[classicman]

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too.

Good or bad, but certainly not indifferent.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Seems to me it could be written so the IRS has to divulge that information for anyone requesting "affordability credits".
Leave up to the individual to decide whether they want the credits or privacy.

[gadfly]

Can Healthcare reform happen without a gov't run system?

[skysidhe]

That's something everyone can understand better xob.


and I especially like this one kit.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

[DanaC]

That's a fantastic video Bruce. Really awesome.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by gadfly

Can Healthcare reform happen without a gov't run system?

No.

[gadfly]

Two suggestions that were presented to me in regards to funding of Health care and National debt.
1 . Let upper class tax cuts expire in 2010.
2. Obviously to increase taxes. But to which class Upper or Middle? Forget the lower.

Interesting to me are the tax percentages.
Top tax on earned income Capital Gains Corporate Profits
1979 70 28 48
2006 35 15 35


What picture is painted?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate.