Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and ...

That is their job or at least part of it, right?

Originally Posted by glatt

There are a lot of lawyers in congress, and unless you expect every one of them to be a lawyer, you shouldn't expect them to be reading the bills they are voting on.

You mean they aren't all lawyers??? FFS a lot of them have been there longer than most people have been alive. They probably were involved in much of the original bills as well.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by glatt

I work at a law firm. It's been a while because I'm in a managerial position now, but I've had to read the US Code and read laws as passed and go back to the Code to try to piece together what they mean. It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and you are never really sure that you got it right.

In my experience, Redux is correct on this point.

There are a lot of lawyers in congress, and unless you expect every one of them to be a lawyer, you shouldn't expect them to be reading the bills they are voting on.

Then they're doing it wrong. Can't be by the people, for the people, if the average person can't understand it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

I work at a law firm. It's been a while because I'm in a managerial position now, but I've had to read the US Code and read laws as passed and go back to the Code to try to piece together what they mean. It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and you are never really sure that you got it right.

Since that's the case, how the fuck can the Supreme court decide what the scope, and/or intent, of the law was supposed to be?

[Griff]

Remember when the Republicans didn't read the unPatriot Act? This is that again. We elect them to read this crap because we don't have time to. Someone in their office should read eveything they vote on or we should just go with direct democracy.

[TheMercenary]

I think we all know they can't adequately represent us if they don't have any idea what is in the bills they are voting on. And few of them seem to have any idea what is in the details of the bills. That is a problem. Esp in any Healthcare Reform.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think we all know they can't adequately represent us if they don't have any idea what is in the bills they are voting on. And few of them seem to have any idea what is in the details of the bills. That is a problem. Esp in any Healthcare Reform.

Since most members dont vote in the committees with jurisdiction over the reform bills, there is no reason for those members to read more than cliff note versions of every iteration of the various bills in question....until such tme that final versions are brought to the floor for full votes.

Then read the "plain English" section-by-section version, which in itself is likely to be a 100+ pages.

Originally Posted by classicman

That is their job or at least part of it, right?

Their job is to understand what they are voting on...in the same manner as a president understanding intel reports w/o reading every detail of every report.

You mean they aren't all lawyers??? FFS a lot of them have been there longer than most people have been alive. They probably were involved in much of the original bills as well.

Congressional trivia time!

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 111th Congress is 11.0 years (5.5 terms); for Senators 12.9 years ( 2.2 terms)
(editorial comment - why term limits are not necessary )


A closer look at the prior occupations of Members of the 111th Congress also shows:

• 16 medical doctors (including a psychiatrist), two dentists, three nurses, two veterinarians, a psychologist, an optometrist, a clinical dietician, and a
pharmacist;
• four ministers;
• 38 mayors, 13 state governors, ten lieutenant governors (including two Delegates), two state first ladies (one of whom was also the first lady of the United States), and one territorial first lady;
• three Cabinet secretaries, one Secretary of the Navy, a vice admiral in the Navy, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a Defense Department counter terrorism consultant, an ambassador, three state supreme court justices, and a federal judge;
• 269 (229 in the House, including two Delegates, and 40 in the Senate) state or territorial legislators;
• at least 112 congressional staffers (including 9 congressional pages) 13 White House staffers or fellows, and several executive branch employees;
• a parliamentary aide in the British House of Commons and a foreign service officer;
• five Peace Corps volunteers;
• four sheriffs, a deputy sheriff, four police officers (including a Capitol policeman), two state troopers, two probation officers, a volunteer fireman, an FBI agent, and a former border patrol chief;
• three physicists, one chemist, six engineers including a biomedical engineer, and one microbiologist;
• a radio talk show host, a radio/television broadcaster, a radio broadcaster, a radio newscaster, a television reporter, and a television commentator;
• five accountants;
• an astronaut, a naval aviator, the commander of an aircraft carrier battle group, an instructor at West Point, and a pilot of Marine One (the President’s helicopter);
• two professional musicians, a semi-professional musician, a screenwriter, a documentary film maker, a major league baseball player, and an NFL football
player;
• three organic farmers, three ranchers, two vintners, and a fruit orchard worker;
• a driving instructor, a cosmetic sales woman, a mountain guide, and a ski instructor;
• a casino dealer, a night watchman, and a prison guard; and
• three carpenters, two bank tellers, a furniture salesman, an ironworker, an auto worker, a clothing factory worker, a textile worker, an oil field worker, a mortician, a coroner, a waitress, a teamster member/dairy worker, a paper mill worker, a cement plant worker, a meat cutter, a shellfish specialist, a river boat captain, a taxicab driver, an auctioneer, a toll booth collector, and a hotel clerk.

Membership of 111th Congress - A Profile

End trivia.

[classicman]

lol - very nice! but still no chart and you didn't post any poll data either - you're slippin

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

lol - very nice! but still no chart and you didn't post any poll data either - you're slippin

Here is a good example from the House bill, The America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

The initial draft of the bill is 1,018 pages in its entirety. The reason it is so many pages is that it uses large fonts, short lines of text, with wide spaces between lines (and each line numbered) so that it can be marked-up by the committees as they review it.

Is it really a 1,018 page bill or are the Republicans playing theatrics when they wave it around and drop it on the table to a loud "thump" to make a dramatic point! Nope, with normal fonts/spacing/formatting, it is probably not more than 100-150 pages.

Now the example:
Title II is the proposal for a health insurance exchange (Subtitle A), including a public option (Subtitle B).

In the full text, 1000+ page draft bill, Title II is described in pgs. 72-143 (71 pages) - you dont want to read this, not because of the length, but rather because it can be confusing with all the references, including grammatical edits, to existing laws and the US Code.

In a cleaner version (with the removal of some, but not all of the extraneous references to existing code)...Title II is described in pgs. 22-42 (20 pages) and the total 1000+ page bill is reduced to 57 pages...but still not the easiest document to read.

In a section-by-section summary, Title II is covered in 4 pages (pg 4-8) and the total 1000+ page bill is reduced to 35 pages.

And the most basic, one page, "at a glance" descriptions of:
the Health Insurance Exchange

Public Option

IMO, most members of Congress do not need to read the full 1000+ page original text bill to understand the proposed health insurance exchange and public option (or any provisions), but every member should read more than the one page "at a glance" summaries.

There is no reason why any interested citizen cannot read the 35 page summary to have a reasonable understanding of the bill.

And can we now stop with all the 1,000+ page bill nonsense?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Every bill is carefully read, dissected, and digested, by knowledgeable people.

Those people then tell their bosses, to tell their lobbyists, to tell the congressman's staff, to tell the congressman, what it says... and why he's for or against it.

[TheMercenary]

Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/he...y/01swiss.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/he...y/01swiss.html

While many patients seem content, the burdens fall more heavily on doctors, especially general practitioners and pediatricians.
Dr. Gerlinde Schurter, Mrs. Burgstaller’s physician, says she feels squeezed by government regulators and insurance companies that have fought to hold down costs — most recently with a 15 percent cut in lab fees that forced her five-member group to lay off its principal technician.
If doctors cannot justify their treatments, they can be forced to repay insurers for a portion of the medical services prescribed.

On average, out-of-pocket payments come to $1,350 annually. Then there are the hefty prices of the insurance policies themselves, which can top 14,000 Swiss francs a year for a family of four in Zurich, or about $13,600.

As in the United States, practitioners typically are paid on a fee-for-service basis, rather than on salary. But they make less than their American counterparts. According to the O.E.C.D., specialists in Switzerland earn three times more than the nation’s average wage, compared with 5.6 times for American specialists. General practitioners in Switzerland make 2.7 times more than the average wage, versus 3.7 in the United States.

That is partly because the Swiss health insurers are not shy about using their muscle with physicians.

You think the AMA will go along with that?
I didn't see anything about Swiss malpractice policies, either.

[TheMercenary]

Panel Finishes Work on Health Bill Amendments

The bill would require most Americans to have insurance, would offer federal subsidies to help pay the premiums and would significantly expand Medicaid. To help offset the cost, it would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the projected growth of Medicare, impose a new excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and charge annual fees to insurers, drug companies and manufacturers of medical devices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/he...tml?ref=health

[classicman]

Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance, according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums — a difference of about $2,500.

The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four. That's where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.

For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium, according to the Kaiser calculator.

For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.

A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.


Another problem is that people won't be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes. To hold down costs, the assistance won't come until 2013, after the next presidential election.

Link

Is this fear or fact? You try and decide.