Impeding changes to our Health Care system
I have no idea where it is going but there are some interesting points in this article from the NYT today.
March 3, 2008
News Analysis
About Those Health Care Plans by the Democrats ...
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — While Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight over who has the better health plan for the uninsured, they say little about a more immediate challenge that will confront the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican: how to tame the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid.
The two programs, for older Americans and low-income people, cost $627 billion last year and accounted for 23 percent of all federal spending. With no change in existing law, the Congressional Budget Office says, that cost will double in 10 years and the programs will account for more than 30 percent of the budget.
Economists and health policy experts say the federal health programs are unsustainable in their current form, because they are growing much faster than the economy or the revenues used to finance them. The Medicare program is especially endangered; its hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run out of money in 11 years.
But the need for cutbacks is not a popular theme for political candidates wooing voters who want more care at a lower cost.
The Democrats do not say, in any detail, how they would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid or what they think about the main policy options: rationing care, raising taxes, cutting payments to providers or requiring beneficiaries to pay more.
Nor do they say how they would overcome the health care industry lobby, which has blocked proposals for even modest reductions in Medicare payment rates.
Instead, scores of lawyers and lobbyists are continually urging Congress to expand Medicare coverage of specific drugs, medical devices, tests and procedures.
The leading edge of the baby boom generation becomes eligible for Medicare in three years. The number of beneficiaries, now 44 million, is expected to reach 49 million in the first term of the next president and then climb to 55 million by 2017.
Those numbers, while daunting, are less significant than other factors.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said, “The bulk of the projected increase in spending on Medicare and Medicaid is due not to demographic changes, such as increases in the number of beneficiaries, but to increases in costs per beneficiary.”
And what is driving those costs?
“Most of the long-term rise in health care spending is associated with the use of new medical technologies,” the budget office said in a recent report. It suggested that more selective use could save substantial amounts — a prospect that alarms manufacturers of some medical devices.
“Medical technology has saved and improved countless lives by reducing disability and death rates from cancer, heart disease and other conditions,” said Stephen J. Ubl, president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a trade group.
Spending on Medicare and Medicaid tends to increase in tandem with health spending generally.
“Federal health spending trends should not be viewed in isolation from the health care system as a whole,” said David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States.
When Medicare and Medicaid squeeze payments to doctors and hospitals, health care providers often try to increase charges to other patients, Mr. Walker said. To rein in the costs of Medicare and Medicaid, he said, it will be necessary to slow the growth of health costs generally.
For several years, an independent federal panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, has recommended that Congress reduce payments to private health plans. Those payments are about 12 percent higher, on average, than the cost of caring for similar patients in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program.
Insurance companies, working with satisfied customers and lawmakers who want to preserve access to such plans, have successfully resisted the proposal.
To help pay for their coverage plans, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both say they would roll back the “Bush tax cuts” for the wealthiest Americans. But major provisions of the tax cuts, adopted in 2001 and 2003, are already scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Democratic lawmakers, moreover, have committed the savings from the elapsed tax cuts several times to other pet programs, like eliminating the alternative minimum tax.
Some experts say the only real way to tame health care costs is by limiting access to expensive treatments or by requiring affluent Americans to pay for more of their health care.
Medicare has generally not taken costs into account in deciding which services to cover. If officials even suggest that Medicare should deny payment for an expensive treatment that could produce a small improvement in a person’s condition, they are accused of rationing care.
Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School have found large variations in the amount of hospital care and other services that people with the same condition receive in different parts of the country. In some regions, where doctors favor more intensive treatments, Medicare spends much more without getting better results for patients.
This research “suggests that about 20 percent of Medicare spending could be eliminated with no adverse effects on health,” said Prof. David M. Cutler of Harvard, an adviser to the Obama campaign. Identifying that 20 percent would be “very difficult,” he acknowledged.
President Bush says high-income people should pay higher premiums for the Medicare drug benefit, and at least some liberals are willing to discuss the idea.
“We can go further in setting Medicare premiums at higher levels for affluent beneficiaries without unraveling the universal nature of the program,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But, he insists, “we should also eliminate billions of dollars in overpayments to private Medicare plans.”
The Democratic candidates do believe they can wring savings out of an inefficient health care system that spent an average of $7,400 a person last year, far more than any other country.
Mr. Obama says his plan can achieve “tremendous savings” by making the health care system more efficient. Mrs. Clinton says her plan will save more than $50 billion a year with “efficiency reforms.”
To this end, Democrats and some Republicans are coalescing behind proposals intended to improve care while lowering costs. These proposals call for greater use of health information technology, including electronic medical records, programs to manage the care of people with multiple chronic diseases and research to compare the effectiveness of different treatments.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, describes Medicare as a “fiscal train wreck.” He voted against adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in 2003 because, he said, it added huge costs to a program going broke.
Mr. McCain says he, too, wants to cover more people. But he has not explicitly embraced the goal of universal coverage, saying he worries more about costs.
Public opinion polls show broad support for federal action to cover the uninsured. But Robert D. Reischauer, a health policy expert and president of the Urban Institute, said, “It will be difficult for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to retain popular support for their plans once the details are specified.”
I posted about this a while back and now we are seeing some fallout as plans move forward. One thing discusssed during the run up to the election was how the Obama plan was going to provide care for not only the un-insured but the under insured. And if the government provided plans available to all that was cheaper than what companies provided there would be no incentive for companies to offer care and they would shuffle the people over to the government plan and save millions. Who wins? Big business hands down. Walmart already does this and does not offer health plans for the average worker. Who loses? Patients and health plans that offer insurance better than what you get with the current government plans. Providers will also lose. The government can barely manage medicaid and medicare. The formation or additon of millions of people onto another governent health plan will do little to provide access to care. Medicare and Medicaid patients are limited as to who they can see for care. This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Time will tell.
Obama Health Care Plan Squeezes ETFs
Health care companies consider President Barack Obama's budget a potential profit-killer. Investors agreed and dumped their shares last week, dragging down exchange traded funds.
The budget aims to raise taxes and deduction limits for people who earn more than $250,000 a year. The ultimate goal is to raise $634 billion to help fix the health care system. The tax hikes will generate $318 billion of that amount, and the rest will be squeezed from Medicare, the government-sponsored health program for seniors.
The actual cost to create a universal health system is projected to be significantly higher than the budget estimates. To close the gap, the government might cut reimbursements paid to health-care providers, eroding profitability.
The Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurers could lose as much as $175 billion. The Advantage program is on the chopping block because it pays 14% more to providers than Medicare would for the same services.
The health-care and biotechnology ETFs we track lost 7.4% during the five trading days that ended Feb. 26
Obama promises that workers who like their company plans will be able to keep them. But if the government offers better benefits with lower premiums, private health groups might be forced to compete. If people move en masse to government plans, private insurers would suffer. each lost at least a third of their values.
The nightmare scenario for health insurers, a "Medicare for All" system like the one Representative Dennis Kucinich envisioned in his 2005 bill, could put many of these companies out of business. On the other hand, the U.S. automobile industry and other sectors consider the end of company-sponsored health care the route to international competitiveness.
A national healthcare reform primer
The many issues confronting President Obama as he tries to achieve insurance coverage for all Americans.
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/health/la-he-healthreform2-2009mar02,0,1986914.storyMass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King, MD, March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.
There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.
An interesting discussion:
An interview with John Goodman on the future of health care
It’s hard to find anyone who likes America's health care system, including John Goodman, president and founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis. But you'll never find Goodman saying that health care is better in places like Europe, where socialist governments provide "free" universal health care for everyone.
Goodman – dubbed "the father of Health Savings Accounts" by The Wall Street Journal – has written nine books, including "Handbook on State Health Care Reform" and "Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis."
To find out what he thinks America's health care system should look like – and why Europe's government health systems are the last things we should copy – I called Goodman on Wednesday, Feb. 11, at his offices in Dallas:
Q: Many people – mostly people who think health care should be provided free to everybody by the government – point to Europe as a model. Should they?
continues:
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990223030This might actually be a good thing if he can pay for it. Although it might be cheaper to just pay for those who have the facilities to do the work rather than re-invent the wheel. The problem is that most providers are maxed out so I don't see where they are going to get the people to do the work.
Obama pushes centers as one focus of health reform
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0243160920090302?sp=trueAnother interesting opinion piece from a physician ran in the WSJ.
When Doctors Opt Out
We already know what government-run health care looks like.
By MARC SIEGEL
Here's something that has gotten lost in the drive to institute universal health insurance: Health insurance doesn't automatically lead to health care. And with more and more doctors dropping out of one insurance plan or another, especially government plans, there is no guarantee that you will be able to see a physician no matter what coverage you have.
Consider that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported in 2008 that 28% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one, up from 24% the year before. The reasons are clear: A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association, for example, found that only 38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients. The statistics are similar in New York state, where I practice medicine.
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. I've had several new Medicare patients come to my office in the last few months with multiple diseases and long lists of medications simply because their longtime provider -- who they liked -- abruptly stopped taking Medicare. One of the top mammographers in New York City works in my office building, but she no longer accepts Medicare and charges patients more than $300 cash for each procedure. I continue to send my elderly women patients downstairs for the test because she is so good, but no one is happy about paying.
The problem is even worse with Medicaid. A 2005 Community Tracking Physician survey showed that only 50% of physicians accept this insurance. I am now one of the ones who doesn't take it. I realized a few years ago that it wasn't worth the money to file the paperwork for the $25 or less that I received for an office visit. HMOs are problematic as well. Recent surveys from New York show a 10% yearly dropout rate from the state's largest HMO, the Health Insurance Plan of New York (HIP), and a 14% drop-out rate from Health Net of New York, another big HMO.
The dropout rate is less at major medical centers such as New York University's Langone Medical Center where I work, or Mount Sinai Medical Center, because larger physician networks have more leverage when choosing health plans. Still, I am frequently hamstrung as I try to find a good surgeon or specialist to refer one of my patients to.
Overall, 11% of the doctors at NYU Langone don't participate in at least two insurance plans -- Aetna or Blue Cross, for instance -- so I end up not being able to refer my patients to some of our top specialists. This problem, in addition to the mass of paperwork and diminishing reimbursements, is enough of a reason for me to consider dropping out as well.
Bottom line: None of the current plans, government or private, provide my patients with the care they need. And the care that is provided is increasingly expensive and requires a big battle for approvals. Of course, we're promised by the Obama administration that universal health insurance will avoid all these problems. But how is that possible when you consider that the medical turnstiles will be the same as they are now, only they will be clogged with more and more patients? The doctors that remain in this expanded system will be even more overwhelmed than we are now.
I wouldn't want to be a patient when that happens.
Dr. Siegel, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center.
Wait till doctors start accepting "cash only"
I guess we're just going to have to spend less on bombs.
Is the typo in the title a freudian slip Merc?:P
Wait till doctors start accepting "cash only"
I have one. Smoothest running office ever. The staff is cheerful and friendly and they certainly don't have a shortage of patients.
We need to just get rid of ALL insurance companies and figure out some other way to do this - maybe have a government insurance program where you pay them every month, and they pay out claims - because they are ALL corrupt.
My mother's homeowners insurance is dropping her because she made two claims in the past three years. The two claims totalled $2800. And she has been paying them for many, many years. Like, decades. I just don't understand how they can drop her for having to pay out a little money after she has paid them tens of thousands of dollars over the years. :mad2:
I have one. Smoothest running office ever. The staff is cheerful and friendly and they certainly don't have a shortage of patients.
There will always be some unless they are forced by law:( or competition. If too many doctors go that route they won't have enough patients to go around
My mother's homeowners insurance is dropping her because she made two claims in the past three years. The two claims totalled $2800. And she has been paying them for many, many years. Like, decades. I just don't understand how they can drop her for having to pay out a little money after she has paid them tens of thousands of dollars over the years. :mad2:
Did the company give you that reason, or are you/she speculating?
government insurance program where you pay them every month, and they pay out claims - because they are ALL corrupt.
:lol2:
There will always be some unless they are forced by law:( or competition. If too many doctors go that route they won't have enough patients to go around
Did the company give you that reason, or are you/she speculating?
That is the reason they gave in the letter they sent informing her they were dropping her. I called the state insurance person to report it and see if there is anything we can do, but they said insurance companies are allowed to drop you if you file 2 claims within a 3 year period. It seems ridiculous, seeing as how small the claims were.
:lol2:
What? You think the insurance industries aren't corrupt to the bone? A-I-G. nuff said.
Sugah - re-read the part of your post I quoted. It can be taken a completely different way with your use of pronouns.
Wait till doctors start accepting "cash only"
Many already do. They take limited private insurance whom they have contracts with and cash, no Tricare, no Medicare, no Medicaid.
The doc who did my radiation (Edward Hughes) and I had a talk about this very dilemma. He takes medicare AND medicaid and said, "People who don't understand this problem, people who are cavalier about it, are people who have never had to DEAL with this problem. I firmly believe that their time will come and either they themselves or a family member will experience a short-fall and THEN they will understand the need for compassionate, reasonable health care costs. But not until then."
I hope no one has to go without care because they cannot afford it. I hope no one's goddamn balloon bursts. I hope everyone just floats along without any snags in their life. Christ on a cracker, look who's lining up to decide who gets care and who doesn't.
pathetic.
why do I come here? It makes me sick. and I can't afford sick.
No, you come for the blue stones. You lurvs blue stones.:p
Is the typo in the title a freudian slip Merc?:P
I thought the same thing, and figured someone would beat me to mentioning it. I thought: how ya gonna stop 'em? This should be interesting! :)
Wait till doctors start accepting "cash only"
Our dentist currently runs his office this way, as does my son's clinic. They give you all the forms you need to file your own claim and try to get reimbursed, but they simply won't deal with it themselves.
Is the typo in the title a freudian slip Merc?:P
Naw, just a stupid typo on my part. Maybe it was my unconscious Id taking over my fingers.
"Was it a Freudian slip?"
"No. Maybe it was a Freudian slip."
"Was it a Freudian slip?"
"No. Maybe it was a Freudian slip."
Yep. That is what I said. :p
nah - It was Bush's Freudian slip/fault
The answer to Medicaid et al is simple, as I see it. Government doctors. Government hospitals. they can have their "free" managed care for those who wan it and private doctors for those who don't.
The doctors can be paid a flat salary , perhaps with some enticement such as tuition reimbursement thrown in to sweeten the deal.
As long as there is a choice for the person in question, I fail to see the problem.
They would have a hard time staffing the hospitals with people at a competitive rate. The VA and Military hospitals really struggle with this now. They really could not afford to start their own hospital system.
Merc, I can't believe you are behind the system when you actually work in it. Every doctor I see wants the system to change, because they understand it is severely broken. shit, even Talc started admitting it over at SMN. Remember?
Merc, I can't believe you are behind the system when you actually work in it. Every doctor I see wants the system to change, because they understand it is severely broken. shit, even Talc started admitting it over at SMN. Remember?
I know first hand how broken it is. I also know some details about various fixes that are being proposed. We have had extensive discussions about obama's smoke screen over electronic record keeping and pretty much blew that baby out of the water as being nothing more than a big black hole that money is going to be poured into. We all want change. Just not the kind you think you want.
If private insurance cos could be forced to do the right thing and stop charging so much, then I am all for it. It seems all they care about though is profits and big salaries, just like the people on Wall Street. I watched something on (it was either) Dateline or 60 minutes the other night about AIG, and how they are forcing veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for their benefits. it was sickening. And that is business as usual with insurance cos. It has to stop.
If hospitals were required to put cameras in operating rooms, it might cut down on frivolous lawsuits against doctors, because there would be proof of any wrongdoing. That would make doctor's insurance premiums go down significantly, I think. It would also weed out the bad doctors who give all doctors a bad name. What do you think of that idea?
Then there are the general costs. Why does an aspirin cost so damn much in a hospital? It's ridiculous, the fees they charge for certain things. Health care should not be about profit. That is when it all started going to shit. Of course it is a business, and every business has to make some profit, but not the way is it now.
I won't even get started about big pharma cos.
Then there are the general costs. Why does an aspirin cost so damn much in a hospital? It's ridiculous, the fees they charge for certain things.
Because they charge those with insurance and cash paying people to cover the costs of those without insurance plus profit for everything.
Health care should not be about profit. That is when it all started going to shit. Of course it is a business, and every business has to make some profit, but not the way is it now.
Why not?
Typical General Surgeon training:
Goes to High School. Works harder than most, makes good grades at an early age. Works hard to go to college.
Goes to college. Takes all the Pre-med track to get into Med School, generally studies pretty hard to get into a good medical school. A much harder track than most. Has to apply to Med School and interview at everyone they want to apply to. Needs pretty good grades to get into a good one.
Gets into medical school. Now has to study pretty hard for four straight years, including most summers or a portion of, to get into the specialty they want. For general surgery needs pretty darn good grades in medical school.
Graduates and immediately goes into a 1 year transitional internship. All the time trying to get accepted into a Surgical residency. Say they pass the mustard to get in and you have to work pretty darn hard because there are not that many slots and you get in.
Now you do 5 years, balls to the wall non-stop residency training, no breaks, no summers off. 16 to 20 hour days are the norm. Try that with a family, many do.
Now say you graduate and pass all the bs. Now you go into your case collection period of 1 to 2 years to become board certified, after 1 year you sit for a written board (written test). If you pass that you get to continue to do case collection (fancy way of doing lots of surgery and documenting every single case). After another year you are eligible to sit for oral boards. Here you get to stand in front of a group of people who wrote the text books and defend the cases cases you did as well as answer any question to the exhaustion of what you know. If you do well you pass and become "Board Certified", if you fail you try again the next year and study harder. Many do not pass the written test, nor the orals and cannot become Board Certified.
Each specialty is different for the length of the Residency but the process is generally the same for every physician.
If you want to become a plastic surgeon you do the same as above and then apply for a fellowship and do an additional 2 years, rinse and repeat through the board certification process.
Anyone want to give it all up and be a doctor?
All I got from that was that they have to work pretty darn hard and get pretty darn good grades. Sounds pretty darn prohibitive, for most. ;)
Oh, and if they don't pass the mustard, they're screwed. Those hot dogs won't flavor themselves, you know.
Oh, and if they don't pass the mustard, they're screwed. Those hot dogs won't flavor themselves, you know.
Yea, you can pretty much be dumped at any step along the way and have to at least go back to the beginning of your immediate starting point. Anyone want to buy a hot dog?
Merc, I am not saying doctors don't deserve high salaries, because I think they do. I think some of them overcharge significantly, but still, I don't think doctors are the problem. INSURANCE is the problem.
And you still haven't answered my question about cameras in operating rooms.
Merc, I am not saying doctors don't deserve high salaries, because I think they do. I think some of them overcharge significantly, but still, I don't think doctors are the problem. INSURANCE is the problem.
And you still haven't answered my question about cameras in operating rooms.
No one is going to agree to cameras in an OR. Forget that. It will not happen.
They overcharge becase of all the patients they care for who do not pay or for the underpayment by federal health insurance programs. No different than what hospitals do to stay solvent.
Well then, why do we pay SO much more per capita in this country for health care than any other country on earth? It's friggin' ridiculous, how much the cost of health care has risen over the past decade. We should have done something back in Clinton's first term, but the insurance cos put all those commercials on TV that scared the crap out of people. I think a majority of people today want a single payer system, but Congress will never pass it. The insurance industry is too important to them. (BIG money)
Why is it that hospitals will never agree to cameras in ORs?
could it be because they know they'll get the crapped sued out of them left and right if they do that?
could it be because they know they'll get the crapped sued out of them left and right if they do that?
Essentially, yes. They stopped video in the OR a long time ago. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time there is no mistake and no problem. So why give the lawyer ammo when something comes up?
I think a majority of people today want a single payer system, but Congress will never pass it. The insurance industry is too important to them. (BIG money)
I would consider it, bu I certainly don't want it to be run by the Gov't :headshake
Essentially, yes. They stopped video in the OR a long time ago. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time there is no mistake and no problem. So why give the lawyer ammo when something comes up?
ummmm, having video in the OR would stop most lawsuits if there is no mistake 99.9% of the time. so again, why don't they put them in the OR? The if there IS a mistake, they can go ahead and settel out of court. it would be a lot cheaper.
I would consider it, bu I certainly don't want it to be run by the Gov't :headshake
I don't believe it has to run by the government, it just has to be paid for by the government. They could have a private industry running it, and it could be overseen by the government.
ummmm, having video in the OR would stop most lawsuits if there is no mistake 99.9% of the time. so again, why don't they put them in the OR? The if there IS a mistake, they can go ahead and settel out of court. it would be a lot cheaper.
Because provider will not allow it. I do not allow myself to be filmed during procedures. I rarely allow pictures.
Why? I don't get it. If it will help you avoid a lawsuit in the future...
They could have a private industry running it, and it could be overseen by the government.
A nice independent organization like... say...
nuts?
If you put cameras in the operating room, then standardized procedures suddenly become open to subjective opinion. WTF does a lawyer know about the best way to suture something? Nothing--but if he can convince 12 other people who don't have a medical degree that those sutures "don't look like they're being done right," that doctor will lose a lawsuit that never should have existed. Quite frankly, sugarpop, you are the exact type of person who would look at an operation room video with your emotions, and just feel in your heart that some sort of malpractice is taking place rather than acknowledge you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
Clod said it best. There was a short time when people use to actually film and record laproscopic procedures when they first started doing them, specifically cholesystectomies (gall bladder removal). They stopped doing it soon after they started.
It would have to looked at by other professionals, not lawyers.
Unfortunately that is not how our system is set up. A jury of your peers is hardly ever composed of your peers.
No, but they have to have expert testimony.
Even with that a clever lawyer can get answers to questions they want while they supress others. That is the art of a good lawyer. If Doctors had juries made up of only doctors I think you would have a much different outcome in many cases.
Expert testimony, like that given by a medical expert leading to the wrongful conviction of numerous women because of a series of (criminally) mistaken diagnoses of so-called shaken baby syndrome.?
huh? Shaking a baby is bad. It can be very damaging to their tiny brains.
Yes. Shaking a baby is bad. But a medical expert's evidence led to several women being convicted of murdering either their own children or the babies in their charge (one very prominent case was of a babysitter). That evidence was shown in the end to have been entirely misleading.
In one case, (the babusitter I mentioned) the evidence given was that she must have shook the child so violently and then swung it against the bannister rail of the stair with a force equivalent to a car hitting a stationary object. There was no bruising consistent with this. Nor was any attention paid to several other very important details. It was purely by chance that a doctor watching a programme about it and seeing aphoto of the kiddie in question before he died, noticed his eye drooping slightly and beginning to turn in. Turned out the child had some very serious and undiagnosed health problems. There was no violence involved in his death. It was just a tragic situation.
The same doctor who insisted that this child's injuries were consistent with the kind of injuries 'expected' in 'shaken baby syndrome' has also provided the mostdamning evidence in other cases involving mothers whose children had died of cot death. he was insistent that actually they were shaken to death. He has even made suggestions to the effect that most cot-deaths are in fact abuse.
Hiss was a very prominent case and I believe he has been struck off now as a medical practitioner. His evidence was not just inadequate it was in some cases actually dishonest. But...he was an expert witness. The fact he'd been an expert witness in so many cases only served to increase his prestige until the miscarriages of justice began to come to light. He was an expert witness, and on the basis primarily of his evidence juries convicted several women of murder, including some who'd actually lost their baby to cot death and were still grieving.
There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but. IMO the solution is to get them out of the system.
It would have to looked at by other professionals, not lawyers.
There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but.
yup - thats why they don't need nor want no stinkin cameras.
There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but. IMO the solution is to get them out of the system.
When a case that requires experts goes to trial, we get an expert for our side. They get an expert for their side. Usually, the two experts will contradict each other. You can almost always find a qualified expert to oppose a position. Just look at the global warming "debate."
No problem, have each expert present their case and the Cellar will decide their validity. We Rule! :lol2:
No problem, have each expert present their case and the Cellar will decide their validity. We Rule! :lol2:
I will not be presented by any experts and I don't need anybody to decide whether I am valid, thank you very MUCH! :p
I will not be presented by any experts and I don't need anybody to decide whether I am valid, thank you very MUCH! :p
Well that's just to damn bad because we've already validated you, so live with it. :p
The answer to Medicaid et al is simple, as I see it. Government doctors. Government hospitals. they can have their "free" managed care for those who wan it and private doctors for those who don't.
The doctors can be paid a flat salary , perhaps with some enticement such as tuition reimbursement thrown in to sweeten the deal.
As long as there is a choice for the person in question, I fail to see the problem.
[breaks no politics rule]
Well said Brian, this is a sensible solution. A lot of people would be happy to pay cash or use cheaper insurance for their regular gp visits if they knew there was a parallel system for the bad times. What we can't afford is a system that makes private medicine illegal or continues to subsidize paper pushing over health care. [/to acknowlege common sense over politics]
Most of our private doctors also do NHS work. It's the same personnel. Sometimes using the same facilities. Many semi-decent jobs will include membership of the company's BUPA scheme at a subsidised rate as one of the percs. I was offered it in my last formal job.
Well that's just to damn bad because we've already validated you, so live with it. :p
Wha, so now I'm a parking ticket? Is that it? :D
No, you've been validated as resident artist and heartthrob.
Sweet! Does that mean I get a free parking pass?
The Dems' Disharmony
By George Will
Reconciliation: The action of bringing to agreement, concord, or harmony.
— Oxford English Dictionary
But under Senate rules, "reconciliation" can be a means for coping with disharmony by deepening it. The tactic truncates Senate debate and curtails minority rights. The threat to use it to speed enactment of health-care reform has coincided with talk about possible prosecutions relating to the previous administration's interrogation policies. Harmony is becoming more elusive.
Under "reconciliation," debate on a bill can be limited to 20 hours, enabling passage by a simple majority (51 senators, or 50 with the vice president breaking a tie) rather than requiring 60 votes to terminate debate and vote on final passage. The president and Senate Democrats have decided to use reconciliation by Oct. 15, unless Republicans negotiate compliantly regarding health care. But the threat of reconciliation mocks negotiations.
The reconciliation process was created in 1974 to facilitate adjustments of existing spending programs. Former senator John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says using reconciliation to ram through health-care reform would "circumvent the normal and customary workings of American democracy." But those workings have changed markedly.
The most important alteration of the legislative process in recent decades has been the increasingly promiscuous use of filibusters to impose a de facto supermajority requirement for important legislation. And "important" has become a very elastic term.
It should be difficult for government to act precipitously. "Great innovations," said Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." Revamping health care — 17 percent of the economy — qualifies as a great innovation. This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.
But when Republicans ran the Senate, they, too, occasionally made dubious use of reconciliation. And Republicans' merely situational commitment to legislative due process was displayed in 2003 when they held open a House vote for three hours until they could pressure enough reluctant Republicans to pass the prescription drug entitlement.
As Washington becomes increasingly opaque to normal Americans, its quarrels come to seem increasingly trivial, even when they are momentous. The reconciliation tactic is unknown to most Americans, and so, too, is the institution at the center of the controversy about torture — the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. From it came the so-called "torture memos" arguing the legality of certain "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The OLC provides opinions about what is and is not lawful government behavior. By not quickly quashing talk about prosecutions of the authors of the memos — or, by inference, higher officials who acted on the basis of those memos — the president has compromised the OLC's usefulness: If its judgments can be criminalized by the next administration, the OLC can no longer be considered a bulwark of the rule of law.
On the other hand, four things are clear. First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture. Third, that does not mean that the memos defending the legality of those techniques were indefensible, let alone criminal, because: Fourth, the president might be mistaken in saying that there is no difficult choice because coercive interrogation techniques are ineffective.
A congressional panel, or one akin to the Sept. 11 commission, should discover what former CIA director George Tenet meant when he said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots." And what former national intelligence director Mike McConnell meant when he said: "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was frequently briefed as a member of the intelligence committee, could usefully answer the question: What did you know and when did you know it? She regularly conquered reticence about her disapproval of the Bush administration. Why not about the interrogation methods?
Furthermore, four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will043009.php3?printer_friendlyIt should be difficult for government to act precipitously. "Great innovations," said Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." Revamping health care — 17 percent of the economy — qualifies as a great innovation. This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.
Bold mine.
Bold mine.
Good. Insurance companies are uniformly thieves and contract breakers.
This is especially so because the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system. They would do this by creating a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. It would be able to — indeed, would be intended to — push private insurers out of business.
Imagine.....George Will, a conservative columnist, who thinks the govt should do nothing more than it did in 1787, misrepresenting Obama's health plan with the scare of a "government-run" health care system...and freezing out the private sector.
Instead, imagine the truth.....a plan that allows/encourages workers with employer-provided coverage to keep that plan if they so choose but provides more choices, in the same manner as the govt employee plan with options provided by numerous private insurers
And a plan that would allow small business to create health pools to have that same option of choosing from among a plan administered by the govt but providing choices from private insurers.
Merc and Classic.....do you guys ever take the time to look for the facts or just jump on the first editorial opinion that supports your pre-conceived position.
Dont bother answering....your posts speak for themselves.
***
The best throw away line of Will's editorial, re: interrogation/torture techniques:
Furthermore, four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew
Imagine the truth...that neither Obama nor any of those cabinet members or senior officials, were chairs or ranking members of the Intel Committees, so none received classified briefings on the torture memos.
Instead, imagine the {My Opinion}truth.....
I fixed that for you.
I fixed that for you.
Merc...what would you do w/o your editorials? You certainly never speak for yourself.
Sadly, you are a sucker for every conservative talking point you can find....regardless of the facts.
Please
cite anything from any Obama health policy docs that supports George Will's claim.
I am less concerned with what Obama wants to do than I am with what Congress is going to do with it as it comes out of committee. And how Congress debates the bill and what process they use to vote on it. Time will tell.
I am less concerned with what Obama wants to do than I am with what Congress is going to do with it as it comes out of committee. Time will tell.
So neither you nor Wills have anything to support his baseless claim other than your shared distaste for anything government.
I get it...same old bullshit and same old lack of cites from you.
So neither you nor Wills have anything to support his baseless claim other than your shared distaste for anything government.
I get it...same old bullshit and same old lack of cites from you.
The bold in my post by Will is not some fanciful wonderings of a political commentator. They are factual statements about the process of "reconciliation" and how many lawmakers and legal as well as political scholars view the process as proposed by the current Congress. The individual comes to the table with credentials. You bring none.
The same "reconciliation" Republicans used for welfare reform and Bush's $trillion tax cuts.
And still nothing in the budget proposal, or anything put forth by any Democratic member of Congress, to support Will's conclusion about govt run health care and freezing out private insurers.
That is a fact as well.
The same "reconciliation" Republicans used for welfare reform and Bush's $trillion tax cuts.
And still nothing in the budget proposal, or anything put forth by any Democratic member of Congress, to support Will's conclusion about govt run health care and freezing out private insurers.
That is a fact as well.
You are a shill for the Obama Administration.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=562425&postcount=76Another perspective:
Government-Run Health Care?
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:
* The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
* It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."
Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is, as its name indicates, a conservative group, and it’s also quite obviously not a proponent of government-run health care. Its minute-long ad was launched April 27 with what the group said was a month-long $1 million buy.
...the ad implies that the U.S. Congress wants to implement a health system like those in Britain and Canada. That's contrary to what President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have said.
Obama hasn’t called for such a government-run plan, also called a “single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it. The administration has said on the White House’s “Health Care” Web page (and previously on its transition site) that “President Obama and Vice President Biden believe” that government-run health care is “wrong.” And they also believe, the administration says, that the other extreme, “letting the insurance companies operate without rules,” is wrong
Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate.
More recently, single-payer advocates have felt shunned by the White House and Congress as the debate over changing the U.S. system has begun. In early March, no single-payer advocate was invited to a White House summit on health care, leading a group of physicians who back such a system to say Obama's message to them and similar groups was to "drop dead." A day before the summit, the White House extended invitations to the president of the group....
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html
You are a shill for the Obama Administration.
LOL....your standard response when I ask you to
cite anything factual to support your editorials.
Its OK..call me whatever you want. That is what you do best (although you're not very good at it.)
It doesnt change the facts....and you still havent cited anything from the Democrats in Congress that would suggest plans for a single payer, government run health care system and driving the private sector out.
[INDENT]
"We are not Europe. We are not Canada. We need
a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players." -- Sen Max Baucus, the Dem point man on health reform in Congress.[/INDENT]
Maybe because its just more conservative bullshit?
You don't read very well, or you just want to focus on one aspect of Will's commentary. As I stated. I am less concerned with what Obama says he thinks he is going to do as I am with what the final product is going to be coming out of Congress and how they vote on it in the end. {See bold in Will's commentary, which is factual.}
Do I really need to continue to link you back to my previous posts to make that point?
You don't read very well, or you just want to focus on one aspect of Will's commentary. As I stated. I am less concerned with what Obama says he thinks he is going to do as I am with what the final product is going to be coming out of Congress and how they vote on it in the end. {See bold in Will's commentary, which is factual.}
Do I really need to continue to link you back to my previous posts to make that point?
And I asked you to provide any cite that Congress is even considering a single payer, govt run health care system that would drive out the private sector....and you wont or cant.
[INDENT]
"We are not Europe. We are not Canada. We need a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players." -- Sen Max Baucus, the Democrat point man on health reform in Congress.[/INDENT]
Fact...there is no Democrat plan or even remote suggestion for a single payer, govt run health care system.
Do I need to continue to point out the baseless conservative bullshit you post?
The only thing factual in that editorial is that the Democrats, like the Republicans before them, may use reconciliation on a health care reform bill...and even that is questionable w/o support of guys like Baucus.
On a higher note:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html
was a good link. I believe that is a more accurate assessment of how they want things to go. But they have not sent it through the grinder of lobbyist and special interest groups in Congress so the final product remains to be seen. And on top of that, how is it going to be paid for by the rest of us with jobs and insurance.
On a higher note:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html
was a good link. I believe that is a more accurate assessment of how they want things to go. But they have not sent it through the grinder of lobbyist and special interest groups in Congress so the final product remains to be seen. And on top of that, how is it going to be paid for by the rest of us with jobs and insurance.
The cost of health care reform will be at the heart of the debate.
It would be nice if the bullshit about a govt run system could be excluded from the debate, but that wont happen. I suspect it will be the Republican talking point throughout....along with talk of "rationing care" and "government taking away choices" and "controlling all health care decisions" for you and me.
And as you probably know, from being in the health care system, you and I and the rest of us with jobs and insurance are already paying for the 45+ million uninsured and, for many workers, health care costs are the fastest rising costs they face.
Not to mention the impending Medicare explosion as baby boomers drop into the system.
Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.
Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.
I can't agree more. I just don't want it to be me who pays more.
That's the point of this whole change in the system, if it doesn't happen you will pay more, much much more.
That's the point of this whole change in the system, if it doesn't happen you will pay more, much much more.
I am afraid that even if it does change I will be paying more, much more. I have started to hear federal tax rates as high as 49% being floated around, but to date have not found a reliable source for those numbers. That is quite unreasonable IMHO.
I have started to hear federal tax rates as high as 49% being floated around, but to date have not found a reliable source for those numbers.
wut
LOL....your standard response when I ask you to cite anything factual to support your editorials.
Your attack is misdirected. I posted the editorial by George Will not Merc.
you and I and the rest of us with jobs and insurance are already paying for the 45+ million uninsured and, for many workers...
Something has to be done to provide affordable and accessible health care for all and someone has to pay.
So what you are saying is that a Gov't run plan will save those of us who are already paying? Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money. Gov't run programs are inherently loaded with bureaucratic costs and obscene costs much more than the private sector and virtually always slow to adapt as the politicians and lobbyists have to get their "piece" of the pie.
Your attack is misdirected. I posted the editorial by George Will not Merc.
It looks to me like
Merc posted the George Will editorial....but you are often interchangeable.
I thought it was another example of a dishonest editorial:
[INDENT]reconciliation is not something new to the Democrats...the Republicans used it on numerous occasions
there is no plan to "put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system" as Wills suggests and you highlighted.
and this closing bullshit about torture - four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew?
Not one of these Cabinet members or senior officials were on the leadership of the Intel Committees..and therefore had no briefings on the torture memos.[/INDENT]Everything about that editorial was either false or misleading.
So what you are saying is that a Gov't run plan will save those of us who are already paying? Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money. Gov't run programs are inherently loaded with bureaucratic costs and obscene costs much more than the private sector and virtually always slow to adapt as the politicians and lobbyists have to get their "piece" of the pie.
I will say it again..since you dont seem to get it.
There is
NO plan on the table for a government-run, single payer system.
The most likely proposal is a mix of public-private options....workers with employer plans could keep those plans... and to stimulate greater competition by including options comparable to the govt employees plan, which is govt administered but with a mix of private providers.
Small businesses would be encouraged to create health pools and join a plan comparable to the govt employees plan...administered by a govt agency with a range of private insurers providing various levels of coverage (PPO, HMO, etc) at varying rates, from which those small business employers/employees could chose.
One more time.....there is
NO plan for a government-run, single payer system.
Could you please expound on that and cite examples of when any Gov't run plan saved anyone money.
Okay.
http://www.newmotorcity.blogspot.com/
Toyota's RAV-4 will be produced at Woodstock, Ontario, Canada in a new factory that will employ 1,300 workers.
100,000 Toyota RAV-4's a year will be built, starting in 2008. The Mini-Sport Utility Vehicle has been a big seller in the North American mini-sport utility vehicle market.
Why is Toyota expanding in Canada rather than in the United States? Honda and Nissan have had problems bringing new plants up to maximum production in Alabama and Mississippi due to a lack of literacy and industrial training of the local workers. Company trainers had to use improvised illustrated materials to teach some workers who could not read at a high level to use high-tech production equipment.
In Canada the level of the workers education is so high that the training program you need for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before is minimal compared to what is involved in the southeastern United States.
Another major reason: Canadian workers cost employers $5 per-hour-less because the health-care system is a national, comprehensive system. In the United States the "Big Three" automakers are required to provide expensive heath-care insurance, creating an incentive to close plants and fire (or "early-retire") thousands of employees.
More vehicles are now produced in the Canadian Province of Ontario each year than in the state of Michigan, which was once the center of the automotive industry in north America.
We have a health insurance crisis, not a health care crisis.
[INDENT]reconciliation is not something new to the Democrats...the Republicans used it on numerous occasions
So now that is your excuse?
Everything about that editorial was either false or misleading.
That is a false statement.
It looks to me like Merc posted the George Will editorial.
You're right - He did.
There is NO plan on the table for a government-run, single payer system.
The most likely proposal is a mix of public-private options....workers with employer plans could keep those plans... and to stimulate greater competition by including options comparable to the govt employees plan,
which is govt administered but with a mix of private providers.
...administered by a govt agency with a range of private insurers providing various levels of coverage...
One more time.....there is
NO plan for a government-run, single payer system.
ok so you are playing semantics with "Gov't run" versus "Gov't administered.":eyebrow:
ok so you are playing semantics with "Gov't run" versus "Gov't administered.":eyebrow:
Not at all.....you just fail to see the difference.
Medicare is a government run plan.
The Federal Employees plan is a government administered plan....with a variety of choices from among private providers, depending on if the employee wants a Chevy or a Cadillac.
And under the Obama and Democratic proposals.....the 2/3 or so of those working Americans with employer-based plans could keep those plans OR consider a plan comparable to the Fed Employees plan with numerous private providers.
There is no proposal to push those on employer-based plans to a Medicare type govt run plan.
One more time....t
here is NO plan for a government-run, single payer system....despite what you read in George Will editorials or hear from right wing talking heads.
The Devil is in the details. It is not that clear Redux what the proposals are going to do and just how much of a penalty will be paid by employers to participate or not participate. They may not "make" anyone drop their plan but until the final details are worked out there are enough questions about whether the federal program will actually give an incentive to all the larger companies, like Walmart currently does, and drop their employer provided plans all together if it is cheaper to put everyone on the Federal dole. You will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.
You will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.
But its OK for George Will to write in an editorial "with such surety" that
"the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system."
Hell, you should be holding George Will to a higher standard than you hold me....he has a lot more followers who believe his every word.
I suggest you write him a letter:
[INDENT]Dear George:
I love your work but you will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.
Sincerely,
Merc[/INDENT]
And in the meantime, there is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system!!
Damn...what part of that dont you and classic get?
But its OK for George Will to write in an editorial "with such surety" that "the administration and its allies, without being candid about what is afoot, are trying to put the nation on a glide path to a "single-payer" — entirely government-run — system."
Hell, you should be holding George Will to a higher standard than you hold me....he has a lot more followers who believe his every word.
There is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system!!
Damn...what part of that dont you and classic get?
I think the part you don't get is that the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan. Under these programs all government administered health insurance programs, which are privately operated, are not for profit. As I stated the devil will be in the details and at this point we don't know them all yet. But to date what is being proposed will not work on a open market for profit model, a mainstay of our system, unlike all the others that the current admin and dems are proposing. So you really cannot say that this point that "there is no proposal on the table to push workers in an employer-based plan to a Medicare-type government-run system" when in fact that may be the eventual result. You may not say it is planned. I don't see it working any other way.
I suggest you write him a letter:
[INDENT]Dear George:
I love your work but you will have to wait until the final plan comes out before you are able to speak with such surety about what is and is not going to be offered by the Demoncrats.
Sincerely,
Merc[/INDENT]
Mine would be more like, Dear George, Great job. Keep pissing them off.
Sincerely,
Merc
:D
I think the part you don't get is that the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..
Bullshit.....the model is not a national health service like any of the above.
Rather, the model is the FEHB public/private model....the federal employees health benefit program that ofers choices from Care First (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to various national and local private insurance PPOs and HMOs...at a variety of benefit levels and prices....and negotiating better pricing from the private providers through a much greater economy of scale.
Bullshit.....the model is not a national health service like any of the above.
Rather, the model is the FEHB public/private model....the federal employees health benefit program that ofers choices from Care First (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to various national and local private insurance PPOs and HMOs...at a variety of benefit levels and prices....and negotiating better pricing from the private providers through a much greater economy of scale.
Not bullshit. You are un-informed. You need to do more research. The only system that has true national health insurance is Japan and the UK in those models. Even in Japan the insurance is not a government run progam.
Show me the current plan by Obama and the Dems.
Read the Fact Check again:
Government-Run Health Care?
Or the Obama plan from the
campaign.
The model is a public/private plan to make health care more accessible and affordable.
OR better yet, how about backing up your own claim for once:
[INDENT]
the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..[/INDENT]
Where's your
cite?
George Will? :eek:
How about Michele Malkin? ;)
Read the Fact Check again: Government-Run Health Care?
Or the Obama plan from the campaign.
OR better yet, how about backing up your own claim for once:
[INDENT]the model that Obama and the Dems are using as a change for our current insurance is based on models from the UK, France, Germany, and Japan..[/INDENT]
Where's your cite? George Will? :eek:
You have to know about the other systems to see the parallels. You obviously don't know about them so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
You have to know about the other systems to see the parallels. You obviously don't know about them so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
So you have no cite......again.
Got it.
Plenty of citation out there. I am just not going to discuss with you something you don't understand fully. Currently there is no detailed plan on the table.
Plenty of citation out there. I am just not going to discuss with you something you don't understand fully. Currently there is no detailed plan on the table.
Plenty of cites? I just asked for one that can provide any factual information that the Democrats will (or have) proposed a UK type national health service.
Next time you ask me for a cite, remember these words:
[INDENT]
You obviously don't know (insert issue here) so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
~ The Merc.[/INDENT]
Plenty of cites? I just asked for one that can provide any factual information that the Democrats will (or have) proposed a UK type national health service.
Next time you ask me for a cite, remember these words:
[INDENT]You obviously don't know (insert issue here) so I suggest you do some research. I am not about to do that for you.
~ The Merc.[/INDENT]
You still can't show me the details of a plan that is being proposed by Congress and Obama can you?
LOL.
On a quick read, you have a guy who is comparing an expanded medicare type plan to European plans.
There is no expanded medicare type plan on the table.
You still can't show me the details of a plan that is being proposed by Congress and Obama can you?
I gave you the general principles of the plans as discussed by Obama and Congressional Democrats.
There is no plan, nor have there been discussion, of a UK or German or Japanese national health service type.
There is no plan, nor have their been discussions, of a plan funded primarily through general taxes instead of employer/employee premiums.
The framework has been more affordable and accessible through employer based plans, supplemented by government administered FEHB type.
Its all the same bullshit...again and again....issue after issue.
Obama and the Democrats are nationalizing the banks...nationalizing health care...intruding into every possible nook and cranny of our lives.....redistributing the wealth....Socialism is coming!
Will says it...Malkin says it...Limbaugh says it......it must be true!
Get over it, dude!
LOL.
On a quick read, you have a guy who is comparing an expanded medicare type plan to European plans.
There is no expanded medicare type plan on the table.
I gave you the general principles of the plans as discussed by Obama and Congressional Democrats.
There is no plan, nor have there been discussion, of a UK or German or Japanese national health service type.
There is no plan, nor have their been discussions, of a plan funded primarily through general taxes instead of employer/employee premiums.
The framework has been more affordable and accessible through employer based plans, supplemented by government administered FEHB type.
Again you are uninformed. The plan generally proposed by Obama during the campaign are from an amalgamation of a number of plans from other countries around the world. You only need to educate yourself to understand the similarities. You say it is not going to be funded through a general tax, but yet you can't say where the money is going to come from? Obama has not proposed supplemental plans, he proposed an either employer based plan or government adminstered plans, not employer based. You have a lot of home work to do on this one.
Its all the same bullshit...again and again....issue after issue.
Obama and the Democrats are nationalizing the banks...nationalizing health care...intruding into every possible nook and cranny of our lives.....redistributing the wealth....Socialism is coming!
Welcome to a world of US politics dominated one party rule. It just so happens this time it is the Demoncrats. Time will tell. I am willing to wait around to see. But you are right. Demoncrats have intruded into the freemarket to a level never seen before and it makes people nervous. Into the banks, into the auto industry, and now into health care, and it makes people very uncomfortable. You may be comfortable with "I am the government, I am here to help", I am not.
Some more great discussions about the current plans. The first two actually took place before the election but it talks about the uncertainty in just how Obama would be able to pull this off without significant concessions by the insurance industry, doctors, and the whole health industry.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/criticalcondition/special_interview.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/10652
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/unemployed-and-uninsured-how-h.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101706614One of the more detailed discussions of Obama's proposals during the run up to the election":
He would reinsure employer plans for a portion of their catastrophic costs. This would reduce employer costs but it would do so by simply shifting them onto the government. He runs the risk of shifting these costs away from a market that now has incentives to manage them to a big government program that likely will not have the same incentives to confront and manage them. I don’t see this as cost saving as much as just cost shifting.
Obama would make the insurance markets more competitive and efficient by creating the “National Health Insurance Exchange” to promote more efficient competition and he would set a minimum health cost ratio for insurers—not defined in detail. Reducing insurance company overhead is important but constitutes only a small percentage of costs and those overhead costs have been increasing at the rate of general inflation while health care costs have been increasing by two to four times the basic inflation rate in recent years. The biggest cost containment challenge is in the fundamental cost of health care itself.
Capping or even reducing costs means you have to cap or reduce costs. There are no magic bullets that reduce payments without doctors, hospitals, insurers, and lawyers getting less than they would have gotten. All of the health IT, prevention, wellness, and the like will not reduce costs by any big amount at least in the short term.
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.htmlThanks for all the links.
Not one points to anything remotely like a UK, European or Japanese style national health care service. Only George Will's editorial..if that is an example your homework, you still havent supported your basic claim.
Several of the above point to encouraging competition, forcing concessions by the bloated insurance industry. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.
For the first time in years, the insurance industry has agreed to come to the table and be part of a broad solution and even offering concessions already (pre-existing conditions, portability) , as long as they are not frozen out of the market..and there is NO intention to freeze them out of the market.
Like I said in a previous post. If you understand how the other programs work in the other countries you see the comparisons. Nothing Obama has proposed is detailed to this point. I suspect we will not know until the Dems ram it through Congress and it pops out the otherside as a mandate. But that is JMHO.
It would require a major realignment of professional and economic power on the supply side.
Third, on the health insurance facet, the president would like to develop a well-functioning market for individually purchased health insurance, as an alternative to the employment-based system which covers most insured non-elderly Americans.
There now is such a market, but it covers only a small fraction of non-elderly Americans, primarily because it is highly fragmented and, moreover, in most states pegs the individual’s insurance premiums to that individual’s health status. To reform this market, the president would establish a National Insurance Exchange.
This can be thought of as the analogue to a farmers’ market on which competing insurers offer their products, subject to a set of regulations that make transactions in the market transparent and honorable, and the competition among insurers fair.
A major contentious issue here is whether the insurers competing in this market should include a newly established public insurance plan like Medicare, but for the non-elderly.
It would also disseminate information from what should be called “cost-effectiveness analysis,” but, as was discussed in earlier posts, has been constrained to be mere “comparative effectiveness analysis” (see this and this for more on this subject).
Finally, to make all of these pieces work harmoniously together — toward the social goals of improving the health status of Americans by providing all of them with access to timely care, and of protecting their budgets from undue inroads of medical bills — there would have to be a whole set of additional government regulations, mainly on the health insurance industry.
From one of my previous links:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...c-health-plan/
Germany has one of the best health care systems in the world, providing its residents with comprehensive health insurance coverage. The health insurance reform 2007 requires everyone living in Germany to be insured for at least hospital and out-patient medical treatment.
The options available to you for health insurance while living in Germany are the government-regulated public health insurance system, private health insurance from a German or international insurance company or a combination of the two.
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/insurance.html
This is the normal health care cover that most Germans have. Essentially, you pay a fixed percentage of your salary to an insurance company and your employer does the same. Then, the insurance company provides you with health cover.
The percentage varies from one part of the country to another. For example, in Konstanz, which is a popular retirement destination, large numbers of old folk are subsidised by those in work and the percentage is high. Also, if your monthly earnings are above (currently) DeM6300, you only pay the percentage on that first DeM6300.
This is a much more extensive scheme than the UK and that sounds good until you consider a few things:
You are paying for it yourself. If you are contracting, then any employers contributions that you pay are coming out of your own money.
The scheme is actually rather more comprehensive that you might ever want or need and remember, you are paying for it!
There are some benefits for which you are unlikely to be eligible even though you are paying for them.
If you are earning a good income, you may well find that you are paying an awful lot of contributions.
In the Krankenkasse, highly paid single people are subsidising poorly paid people with large families.
The main alternative to the Krankenkasse is the Privatkasse. This is a private scheme where you pay an amount linked not to your income but to your health outlook. So, if you are old, have a poor medical history or a large family, you will pay more than a young single person.
If your income through a German employer is higher than a certain level, you are permitted to leave the Krankenkasse and join a Privatkasse. In the Krankenkasse scheme, you pay a fixed percentage of your income and so, young healthy single workers end up subsidising the old, the sick, the unemployed and those with large families.
This ability to opt out of the need to subsidise those other groups is the main appeal of the Privatkasse scheme. There is of course a drawback. Once you enter the Privatkasse, you are not allowed to go back into the Krankenkasse scheme. So, you have to be certain that you can fund your private cover for the rest of your life.
Rather than the pooled social fund structure of the Krankenkasse, the Privatekasse is an insurance scheme and so your premiums will increase as you age or as you aquire dependants etc.
When you are in employment, your employer must match your contribution to the Privatkasse scheme but, after retirement, you have to pay for the whole deal from your pension or other resources.
As with the Krankenkasse, you need to be an employee of a German company or a self employed person in order to join the Privatkasse scheme.
http://www.jpoc.net/countries/germany/germanschemes.htmlMedicare is a government run plan.
The Federal Employees plan is a government administered plan....with a variety of choices from among private providers, depending on if the employee wants a Chevy or a Cadillac.
... and how cost effective are they?
What are the positive & negative attributes of each?
How do they differ from the current independent plans available?
Why cannot those people without insurance become covered under one of those plans?
Why do we need another Gov't run/administered program?
Mine would be more like, Dear George, Great job. Keep pissing them off.
Sincerely,
Merc
:D
Because that's what you've been, and are, all about.
... and how cost effective are they?
What are the positive & negative attributes of each?
I have never been in the FEHB plan (I was in the Congressional plan for two years more than 20 years ago)..but friends and colleagues who have been in both FEHB and private sector plans cite greater choice in FEHB at comparable premium prices. I currently have a choice from among three plans at varying premiums....feds in FEHB have 8-10 plans (I think) from which to chose.
How do they differ from the current independent plans available?
I assume by independent plans, you mean plans in which an uninsured person purchases insurance on the open market, with no employer contribution. the biggest difference, particulary for workers in small business who dont provide insurance, would still be a shared cost with employer (but less for the employer than if he had to go to the independent market - a matter of risk size and diversity). The other difference, independent plans are able to cherry pick their risks. YOu have a pre-existing condition or approaching medicare eligibility in a few years...forget it, no independent plan will touch you.
Why cannot those people without insurance become covered under one of those plans?
I think it was part of the Clinton plan..but the whole plan was so disjointed and poorly presented in the first months of the administration, with Hillary as as the point person, that they were completely unprepared for and underestimated the backlash and just fucked it up.
Instead, Clinton focused on uninsured children of working class families and created the SCHIP program, which covered 6 million kids....funding through a dedicated tax (cigarette tax)
The other issue is the screwed up regulatory environment at the state level, where in many states, small employers cannot join together to create a shared risk pool.
Why didnt Bush/Republicans consider it in the six years when they had control? You would have to ask a Republican.
The fact is, they didnt seriously consider any health care reform as costs continued to go up and access to go down. Hell, Bush twice vetoed SCHIP expansion to cover more kids of working families.
[Why do we need another Gov't run/administered program?
We dont need another government run program like Medicare.
But a government administered public/private program, primarily for small businesses and those uninsured who are above the Medicaid eligibility, as well as making it an option for those with employer-based plans, will provide more choice and affordability through greater competition with the existing private (independent) plans.
It would provide an incentive for those private insurance companies to be more efficient and more responsive to consumers. They are not hurting for profits...the top 5-10 private health care providers made $10+ billion in profits last year. Profits are determined in part (and in some states) based on a percentage of premiums....the higher the premiums, the greater the profit.
They have a choke-hold on the current system and it is a money making machine that they control in near absolute terms.....to their interests, not the health care consumers.
added:
What is your alternative for the 45+ million uninsured and the rising costs and fewer choices for those who are insured?
I have no alternatives. Thats primarily why I asked the questions.
followup - Would it be easier or more efficient to expand medicare/caid qualifications to include more of the uninsured instead of creating another plan? I wonder if this program, whatever it will be, will have all independent administration and employees. Seems like it would be a duplication of responsibilities. By expanding one of the existing plans it would seem to be more efficient and less costly.
Just a though - - - or replace one/both with this new plan.
Isn't there a way to change how the Gov't contracts for care and/or prescriptions. IIRC they were/are restricted in the negotiating process in some way that seemed insane to me at the time.
Because that's what you've been, and are, all about.
I don't worry to much about that any more. "So you heard what you expected to hear, and assumed my intent."
"No matter what you do, you end up with people who don’t receive a beneficial medical therapy because they can’t afford it."
Ever since invention of medicine, there has never been any country at any stage of history where this was not true. This is because people are meant to die, and therefore there is always an more demand for medical care and therapy than supply.
I wish that someone in the Administration would admit that the only way to reduce healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP is to ration care. That's it. Everything else is window dressing.
Let me explain the problems with employer-paid health insurance. It is not a privilege but a right for every employed person to get the best health care available. Why does it sound socialist? Because every person gets the same benefit and there is no choice.
Unlike some countries, in the USA the employer does not pay for our house rent/mortgage. Out of the take home pay, the employee determines how much she can afford to spend on housing accordingly buys or rents a home. The choice is hers, the consequences are hers and the office clerk and the CEO usually do not have identical homes.
When it comes to health insurance, the clerk and the CEO get exactly same health coverage. They usually do not care how much the doctor charges, how much the medicines cost or how much the hospital bill is. There is a place with unlimited funds called health insurance Company that will take care of everything. This attitude is formed because it is not the onus of the employee to buy insurance.
A few thoughts on the healthcare situation
"There is a place with unlimited funds called health insurance Company that will take care of everything."
Is this a joke? In what fantasy world does this guy live? Has he never heard of deductibles and co-pays and limits? My employer pays the majority of my insurance premium, but not all, and my employer pays zero of my family's. I pay all of that.
And what's the betting that when you most need the payout they'll find a reason not to do so?
My employer pays the majority of my insurance premium, but not all, and my employer pays zero of my family's. I pay all of that.
I'm in the same boat.
Which countries are these where the employer pays for housing/rent?
Dunno - I found the comments after reading an article on "the Economist" site. I never said I agreed with them.
Just realized I didn't link the article... that would have helped.
The future of health-care reformWait times to see doctor are getting longer
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm
[COLOR="White"]Surveys are still the weakest form of statistical measure. The article was interesting anyway.[/COLOR]
Surveys are still the weakest form of statistical measure. The article was interesting anyway.
Nah PFA statistics are much weaker.
From the WSJ
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--An outline of health-care legislation drafted by House Democrats would require employers to provide insurance to workers and would require individuals to carry insurance.
The outline, put together by the House Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor Committees, includes a "play or pay" provision that would require businesses to provide health insurance or make a contribution to the federal government "on behalf of their uncovered workers."
But the outline also states that "small low-wage firms" would be exempted from the requirement and that a new small business tax credit would be put in place for employers offered health coverage.
I don't think we should be "forced to" carry insurance. This is beginning to look bad. Apparently there are no tangible details of their "plan" and they are floating this out there with little to no transparency. That or they have no real plan.
I am still struggling with exactly how we are going to increase the number of insured by around 50 million or 15%-20% while decreasing costs and not having the long lines or rationed care that other countries have.
Unless we are going to get taxed out the ass, this isn't logically feasible.
Lack of a specific plan aside, I'm curious: do you think it is fair that drivers are forced to carry auto insurance?
Yes I do. Do you equate the two somehow?
Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care
Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.
The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month.
It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years.
But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.
From where? I think thats something we should know beforehand.
Yes I do. Do you equate the two somehow?
I do think there are parallels. If you cause a wreck, it would be unjust for the other guy's car to go unrepaired. The car has to get repaired, it's just a question of who is going to pay for it. If you come down with a severe disease or injury, it would be unjust to simply let you die when we have the knowledge to save you. Again, the doctors are going to treat you, it's just a question of who is going to pay for it.
Now, I'd be all for limitations on that sort of thing--like, if you were only required to carry very-high-deductible catastrophic medical coverage. Cover the big things, save your life, but that's about it. That would seem to me to be pretty similar to the idea that you are only required to carry a minimum of liability coverage on your car, even though more insurance coverage is certainly available.
All I can say is that you all are about to be butt fucked and you have no idea it is coming. Some will win, some will lose. But in the end you will get what you asked for and only time will tell exactly what that will be.
Very inspirational merc. Thanks.
If some will win and some will lose, then how are all about to be buttfucked? Surely those who are going to 'win' won't be?
Also... some are doing fine under the current system and some are left behind. So surely some are currently being buttfucked by the system who may be a little less buttsore under the new?
Dana, IMHO when it comes to HC in the US the Americans want their choices, I suspect we will be losing a lot of personal control over what we currently get out of the system. In some cases that can be good, in some cases it could be bad. I see the potential to do some really good stuff. The question is will they do it. And more importantly, can they do it. The various factions who have a finger in the economic pie are large and wide, and in most cases very rich and powerful with deep pockets. Given our history of reform in this country it will take nothing short of a governmental take over of the whole system to enact real change. And that is where the chips will begin to fall. Because I have seen very few examples of where the gov dove in with both feet and the system did not come out being further bloated, inefficient, and less user friendly to those it set out to help. There are so many variables. And currently we have nothing more than Obama admins "floating" ideas to the press and gauging the reactions. There have not been any concrete plans that people can sink their teeth into. That leaves all the real experts, and talking heads on TV, to speculate. And then don't forget all of this will have to make it through congress, who may or may not rubberstamp what ever they come up with. It's is just a big mess. I could go on but....
IMHO it will take nothing short of a complete take over of the system to start with a new clean slate. Without that, and I suspect, the political darlings of the Demoncratic party will come out smelling like a rose, and that is the Insurance Industry. Everyone else, including patients, will be taking it in the shorts.
Major changes are coming to the health care industry in the US - Fact.
Governmental intervention is inevitable - Fact.
Inefficiency, cost INCREASES and rationing of care/supplies is sure to follow. That is what happens with every gov't controlled ... anything. Name one thing the Gov't "controls" that isn't.
I would be much more in favor of the administration rectifying the problems with Medicare and medicaid FIRST.
Who Does Medicare Cover?
Medicare is a Federal health insurance program for people 65 years or older, certain people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Medicare has two parts -- Part A, which is hospital insurance, and Part B, which is medical insurance.
Source: www.qualityplusmedical.com
Medicare is Australia’s equivalent of the National Health Service. Australia operates a reciprocal health agreement with the UK where you must enroll in Medicare to get free public hospital treatment. New Zealand operates a similar scheme. If you require medical treatment in Australia or New Zealand, you must register for treatment with Medicare or the equivalent scheme in New Zealand. If you do not, we may reject your claim or reduce the amount we pay to you.
Source: 65plus.acetravelinsurance.com
Medicare is Australia's public health system. It covers all Australian citizens and permanent residents.
Source: www.hba.com.au
Who Does Medicaid Cover?
To qualify for Medicaid, individuals must meet financial criteria and also belong to one of the groups that are “categorically eligible” for the program: children, parents of dependent children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Federal law guarantees eligibility for individuals in these groups who fall below specified income levels. States also have broad authority to expand Medicaid income eligibility beyond federal minimum standards. However, unless they have a federal waiver, states cannot receive federal matching funds to cover childless adults, no matter how poor they are. Many states have expanded Medicaid, but eligibility varies widely by state.
Source: www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7235-02.pdf
Given the current situation, wouldn't it make more sense to revise/overhaul/modify the programs that we already put in place. Instead of creating an entirely new program? It would seem more prudent to fix what is wrong instead.
Can anyone agree on what is wrong?
I dunno, seems like the option of fixing the programs that are already in place isn't even on the table. Seems like the D's just want to create some new shiny healthcare program.
Can anyone agree on what is wrong?
It really depends on whom you talk with.
The among the few things that is agreed on by healthcare providers is that we have to figure out a way to cover the uninsured, we have to figure out a way to cover the costs of catastrophic care that does not place the burden on the insured, and we have to find a way to stem the tide of ever decreasing reimbursements for care that does not cover costs. Actually the providers list is much different than one that the end user or hospital administrator would make.
We don't have enough preventative care.
Insurance companies have gotten between providers and patients.
Trauma care is breaking some hospitals.
Insurance companies will not let the system provide cheaper care to patients.
God the list is just to long.
I guess the short answer is "no" then.
I tend to look at the insurance companies when I'm looking at the problems with healthcare. They provide a service of redistributing money, but they skim a hell of a lot of that money off for themselves. I don't think they are worth what we pay to have them as part of the system.
In other words, if I look at what my employer and I have paid into the system compared to what I've received in return, it's orders of magnitude off. Granted, I'm young, and haven't needed a lot of medical attention, but we did have two births in my household, and those costs were high.
I'd love to see a simple pie chart of what the total costs of health care in this country are, and where that money goes. How much of each dollar spent on health care goes to the running of the insurance companies, how much goes to cover the ER visits of the uninsured, how much goes to the administration of the hospital or dr. office, how much goes to supplies, how much goes to doctors, lab work, medication? Then I'd like to see another pie chart that shows how much of that funding comes from insurance premiums, how much from out of pocket, how much from the government?
I do know that this country pays a lot for its health care, and I don't think it gets its money's worth.
Insurance companies by their very nature take in as much as they can and pay out as little as they can. So obviously they're skimming off significant portion of the money that goes into healthcare. That's their job: to make as much profit as they can for their shareholders and to continue to increase their profit levels, just like any company.
National Health Care Spending
In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs
Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2
The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6
The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.7
The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs
National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.2
Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.8
A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.10
About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. 11
A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.12
Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage.13 Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.
According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.14
The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.14
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtmlLot of information there UT. This was interesting "we [Americans] overpay by about $477 billion per year, or $1,645 per capita."
I'm surprised that the administrative and insurance costs appear so low on that chart. It's easy for me to blame the insurance companies, I don't want to have to give that up.
Edit: Although if I'm reading the chart correctly, even though the biggest savings are not to be found in the insurance companies and administration, that is where the greatest rates of waste are located. According to this chart.
It's easy for me to blame the insurance companies, I don't want to have to give that up.
I can feel your anger...it gives you focus, makes you stronger...
The chart is interesting in that it says there is only 15% waste in the public funding sector. Does that mean Medicare and Medicaid? Apparently those government programs are one of the areas that are not so bad.
The chart is interesting in that it says there is only 15% waste in the public funding sector. Does that mean Medicare and Medicaid? Apparently those government programs are one of the areas that are not so bad.
That is completely misleading. There are vast differences among the states.
I read somewhere (???) that most states do relatively well with the medi- but states with huge cities do REALLY poorly. Can't find that link/article tho
Differences in costs of Medicaid spending by state. Some are obvious, largely populated states will spend more. but when you compare them in the more compareable population centers there are vast differences. Why? Again, it is multifactorial.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=177&cat=4
Vast differences among the states programs accounts for many of cost differences.
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/The-Continuing-Medicaid-Budget-Challenge-State-Medicaid-Spending-Growth-and-Cost-Containment-in-Fiscal-Years-2004-and-2005-Results-from-a-50-State-Survey.pdf
An example of one states experiences with costs of Medicaid that also shows where the waste goes and the differences between the states:
James Mehmet, former chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, told The New York Times on July 18 that fraud equals about 10 percent of total Medicaid dollars spent each year. In addition, the use of medically unnecessary services and procedures that probably doesn't rise to the level of criminality siphons off an additional 20 to 30 percent, he said.
"So we're talking about 40 percent of all claims [that] are questionable," according to Mehmet. All told, nearly $18 billion of the New York Medicaid budget is spent on fraudulent or medically unnecessary services and procedures, Mehmet said.
Doctors, drug makers, hospitals, and their unions have all fought attempts to provide tighter oversight of Medicaid spending. "All of the emphasis of the coalition in New York has been on expanding the size of the program, and that's where the payoff is for politicians," said Stephen Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Any attempts to rein in spending on unnecessary, wasteful medical services are fought bitterly by those profiting from such waste. As a result, the state has failed to experiment with reforms that other states have used successfully. "There's been little emphasis on reform or eliminating waste, so that even as the program has grown to become the largest in the nation, the state office that investigates fraud and waste in Medicaid has been shrinking," Malanga said.
Runaway Costs
New York's Medicaid program is the largest and most costly in the nation. Although the state accounts for less than 7 percent of the U.S. population, nearly 14 percent ($45 billion) of Medicaid funds nationwide will be spent there in 2005 on more than 4 million enrollees, according to the National Governors Association.
Per capita, New York Medicaid spending is 130 percent more than the national average, according to the Public Policy Institute of New York State. The state spends $10,788 per Medicaid enrollee--more than $43,000 to insure a family of four. New York spends more on almost every service category than comparable states: hospitalization, long-term care, and in-home and personal care.
New York spends about as much on Medicaid as do California and Florida combined, despite having only about a third of their combined population. The federal government pays 50 percent of New York's Medicaid costs, and the state shifts nearly one-third of its remaining costs to the counties.
"New York spends far too much on Medicaid. We can cut costs sharply and still improve quality dramatically," said Robert Ward, director of research for the Public Policy Institute of New York State. According to The New York Times, Medicaid has become "an economic engine that fuels one of the state's biggest industries."
http://healthcare.ncpa.org/commentaries/fraud-and-waste-infect-new-york-medicaid
The one thing that the article does not show is that Medicaid pays the least amount of all insurance programs and I think it encourages providers and organizations to attempt to recoup costs by ordering many more tests than they would on a cash paying patient or one with insurance.
The fight begins.
Industry Groups Push Back on Kennedy's Health Bill
WASHINGTON -- Employers and health-insurance companies are pushing back against parts of a health bill proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy, in a sign of the challenges that loom for Democratic-led legislation.
Lobbyists spent Wednesday combing through the "Affordable Health Choices Act" that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released a day earlier. The bill would require most Americans to buy health insurance and would create government-run exchanges where they could buy policies. It also calls for a new government health-insurance plan and indicates employers would be required to help pay for employees' plans.
continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467520516103947.htmlHouse Health-Care Bill to Include $600 Billion in Tax Increases
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.
Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure’s cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.
Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcgRemember how I said the politico's are in bed with the healthcare industry?
Key health care senators have industry ties
Influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. The wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the Senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.
Members of both parties have industry connections, including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin, in addition to Dodd, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatch, financial reports showed Friday. .
Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of the Connecticut Democrat, is on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (JAV), Cardiome Pharma Corp. (CRME), Brookdale Senior Living and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals.
Dodd is filling in for ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill.
Other publicly available documents show Mrs. Dodd last year was one of the most highly compensated non-employee members of the Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc. board, on which she has served since 2004. She earned $32,000 in fees and $109,587 in stock option awards last year, according to the company's SEC filings.
Mrs. Dodd earned $79,063 in fees from Cardiome in its last fiscal year, while Brookdale Senior Living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their SEC filings show. She earned no income from her post as a director for Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in Pear Tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.
The annual financial disclosure reports for members of Congress are less precise. They only require that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges of values.
Dodd was granted a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, but released it to The Associated Press.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said, "Jackie Clegg Dodd's career is her own; absolutely independent of Senator Dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. The senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife's career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort."
DeAngelis said that Mrs. Dodd has hired a personal ethics lawyer to avoid any conflicts of interest and is not a lobbyist.
Other reports showed:
- Rockefeller, D-W.Va., reported $15,001 to $50,000 in capital gains for his wife from the sale of a stake in Athenahealth Inc., a business services company that helps medical providers with billing and clinical operations.
Rockefeller is honorary chairman of the Alliance for Health Reform, a Washington nonprofit whose board includes representatives from the UnitedHealth Group health insurance company; AFL-CIO labor union; the AARP, which sells health insurance; St. John Health, a nonprofit health system that includes seven hospitals and 125 medical facilities in southeast Michigan; CIGNA Corp., an employer-sponsored benefits company; and the United Hospital Fund of New York.
- Coburn, R-Okla., is a practicing physician. He reported slight business income, $268, from the Muskogee Allergy Clinic last year; $3,000 to $45,000 in stock in Affymetrix Inc. (AFFX), a biotechnology company and pioneer in genetic analysis; $1,000 to $15,000 in stock in Pfizer Inc. (PFE), a pharmaceutical company; and a $1,000 to $15,000 interest in Thomas A. Coburn, MD, Inc.
Under Senate ethics rules, Coburn can't accept money from his patients.
- Gregg, R-N.H., disclosed $250,001 to $500,000 in drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY) stock and $1,000 to $15,000 each in stock in pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. (MRK) and Pfizer, the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) health care products company and Agilent Technologies, which is involved in the biomedical industry.
- Kyl, R-Ariz., the Senate minority whip, reported $15,001 to $50,000 in stock in Amgen Inc. (AMGN), which develops medical therapeutics. Kyl's retirement account held stakes in several health care businesses, including the Wyeth, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and AstraZeneca pharmaceutical companies; medical provider Tenet Healthcare Corp.; CVS Caremark prescription and health services company; Genentech, a biotherapeutics manufacturer; and insurer MetLife Inc.
- Harkin, D-Iowa, has a joint ownership stake in health-related stocks. Harkin and his wife, Ruth Raduenz, own shares of drug makers Amgen and Genentech, Inc., each stake valued at $1,001 to $15,000; Their largest health care holding, Johnson & Johnson, was valued at $50,001 to $100,000.
- Hatch, R-Utah, a member of the Finance and Health committees, reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of stock in drug maker Pfizer Inc. He spoke to two pharmaceutical industry conferences last year. Sponsors of the conferences donated $3,500 to charities instead of speaking fees, as required by Senate rules.
Like millions of Americans, several senators took a financial hit in 2008. A sampling:
_Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., lost some $100,000 in equity in his home in Springfield and $35,000 in his Chicago condominium. Durbin, who released his tax returns, reported losing $32,259 in various investments last year, including more than $10,400 in Berkshire Hathaway and $5,535 in Fidelity stock.
_Kennedy in 2007 had four trusts each valued between $5,000,001-$25 million. In 2008, only one trust was still in that category while the rest had slipped in value to $1,000,001-$5 million.
_Hatch's investments suffered from the banking crisis. In 2007, he reported assets of between $2,002 and $30,000 in Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. stock. His 2008 financial disclosure lists the value at less than $1,000.
One of Dodd's investments showed a vast improvement.
A new appraisal more than doubled the value of his vacation cottage in Ireland, which has been subject of a Senate ethics complaint filed by a conservative group questioning if the undervalued property was really a gift.
The property is valued at 470,000 euros, or about $660,000, on Dodd's disclosure report.
The previous year's report valued the seaside home, located in County Galway, at between $100,001 and $250,000.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98PBGU03.htmlRemember how I said the politico's are in bed with the healthcare industry?
Key health care senators have industry ties
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98PBGU03.html
Actually, if you spend some time tooling around the Senate website, they're ALL basically owned by big pharma.
The system we have isn't perfect. We all agree on that. But to me, to dismantle it and replace it with a system that is a complete unknown without a VERY SPECIFIC design (which we are not getting now) It will more than likely be worse and cost more, much much more - especially in a recession.
This is very unwise and is a dangerous proposal. Why are we rushing into this? I think we should take care and study the alternatives very carefully. I agree to we should do something, but increasing the number of insured by as much as 25% and reducing the overall task is and extremely daunting task, if not impossible.
We all know far too well how inefficient our government is. To mandate coverage to private industry makes no sense. The government has never run a profitable enterprise - EVER. Therefore it is crystal clear how this ambitious new plan will be payed for - tax increases. To even consider it ignores that reality.
We all know far too well how inefficient our government is. To mandate coverage to private industry makes no sense. The government has never run a profitable enterprise - EVER.
But isn't mandating private coverage better than running the coverage program themselves? I agree that I don't know if it's the best time or not to be instituting any changes, but IMHO running the program through existing private insurers is far better than trying to copycat the Medicare program on a larger scale.
Think of it this way: if an illegal immigrant comes into an ER without insurance, and it is law that you must have a basic minimum of health coverage, then now that issue can be addressed in a legal fashion. No more people (of any immigration/citizen status) using the ER as a revolving door free clinic.
I don't think there is ever a 'good' time to institute change. Either there's a recession....or you're in 'recovery'...or the economy is strong and you wuoldn't want anything to upset that...There is always an argument to wait.
There are far too many people struggling with medical bills, or inadequate/no insurance. There are far too many people unable to get insurance because of existing medical conditions. It needs a solution. Though a recession may not be the best time to institute change, it's also the time it's likely to be most needed, as that's when people are losing jobs and employer based insurance. It's during a recession that the gaps show most keenly in people's lives.
To mandate coverage to private industry makes no sense.
That's how car insurance works.
The government has never run a profitable enterprise - EVER. Therefore it is crystal clear how this ambitious new plan will be payed for - tax increases. To even consider it ignores that reality.
If the government ran something at a profit, it should either spin it off to private industry or decrease its budget. One of the reasons for a government to run something is if the profit motive is insufficient (e.g. pure science) or corrupting (e.g. the military).
If there were a way to set up private health insurance in such a way that the profit motive incentivized low premiums and paying claims, maybe that could work. Unfortunately, it's the other way round. Is there even a theoretical way for health insurance companies to be run at a profit without incentivizing the denial of claims?
All I can think of are from the other direction, placing more restrictions on the various reasons insurance companies give for denials, such as "preexisting conditions" or "experimental". But as long as the incentive is still for denial, they'd just make up new classifications.
There are far too many people struggling with medical bills, or inadequate/no insurance.
But providing insurance for all removes the incentive, the reward, for being rich. ;)
There is always a good time to make a positive change. This change doesn't appear initially to be one though. It appears that we are going to get saddled with increasing costs and taxes, not decreasing. Yes,we will cover more people, but the rush to get another major plan done is disconcerting. This is huge and for the administration to come out and put a deadline on when this "has to be done" is foolish to me. If you think it should be done right then that should be the goal, not just getting something done by a certain date for what appears to be political reasons.
Thats BS.
Also, there are some very basic issues not being addressed - just off the cuff - Will medicare and/or medicaid be replaced, eliminated or modified?
Exactly how are we increasing the # of insured while decreasing costs SPECIFICALLY.
How are we going to provide services without rationing increase demand by as much as 25% while not increasing the supply of providers.
HM - With car insurance, which the Gov't DOES NOT PROVIDE, we are each assessed on our own risks/history. There are plenty of those who still drive without.
"If I am not paying for it what is the incentive for me to change my unhealthy behaviors?" If I am obese, diabetic or have clogged arteries because of my diet - Who is being penalized with the increased cost for my health care costs? Not me if I'm not paying for it.
There is always a good time to make a positive change. .....This is huge and for the administration to come out and put a deadline on when this "has to be done" is foolish to me. If you think it should be done right then that should be the goal, not just getting something done by a certain date for what appears to be political reasons.
Thats BS.
It's been 15 years since the last time anyone talked about fixing health care in the US. If this doesn't get done now, while the Obama horse is still charging out of the gate, it simply isn't going to get done during his term. His administration, like all administrations, will get bogged down and run out of steam. Most likely, after Obama, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans, who won't bring up health care reform. So it won't come up again until the Democrat after that. Perhaps in 16 years. Basically, it's a situation where we fix it now, or we wait another 16 years before bringing it up again. The question is, if you really believe there are huge problems with the US health care system, would you rather rush to fix them now, or let those problems exist for the next 16 years and be facing the same difficult prospect of fixing it then? That's the choice the country faces.
The Republicans can't do health care reform, like Clinton can't do welfare reform.
HM - With car insurance, which the Gov't DOES NOT PROVIDE, we are each assessed on our own risks/history.
That was in response to the question of mandating coverage to private industry, which is part of the plan. Having a public option in addition to that is a different issue. Having single payer instead is another different issue.
There are plenty of those who still drive without.
People who drive without are breaking the law, unless there's some exception I don't know about.
would you rather rush to fix them now
no, do it right or don't do it at all. The last time we rushed to get something done ...well we are still finding BILLIONS in waste from that one.
no, do it right or don't do it at all. The last time we rushed to get something done ...well we are still finding BILLIONS in waste from that one.
That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you are choosing to have illegal immigrants use the ER when they get a sore throat and we all foot the bill for that in increased medical costs. Why would you choose that?
The Republicans can't do health care reform, like Clinton can't do welfare reform.
Good point, but the republican haven't addressed health care reform, and show no signs of doing so on their own.
That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you are choosing to have illegal immigrants use the ER when they get a sore throat and we all foot the bill for that in increased medical costs. Why would you choose that?
lol - I wouldn't - they would be outta here if it were up to me. They'd get one shot at that and be gone when they were done. The next major project comparable to the Hoover Dam, would be a wall on our southern border - think of the employment opportunity there... and the potential long term jobs it would create.
The less of them draining our system and denying our citizens of care , the better. Perhaps we'd have a few more employed citizens too. Just a thought.
Medicare prescription drug plan notwithstanding, I guess.
But isn't mandating private coverage better than running the coverage program themselves?
I would have to guess that this would be the lesser of two evils.
Think of it this way: No more people (of any immigration/citizen status) using the ER as a revolving door free clinic.
Sorry missed this post earlier - Yes, that would be a benefit if it actually got enforced, which I, unfortunately, don't think it will.
Also, there are some very basic issues not being addressed - just off the cuff - Will medicare and/or medicaid be replaced, eliminated or modified?
Exactly how are we increasing the # of insured while decreasing costs SPECIFICALLY.
How are we going to provide services without rationing increase demand by as much as 25% while not increasing the supply of providers.
None of these have been addressed - still. I would think these would be at the top of the list when considering something of this magnitude. I wonder why that is.
People who drive without are breaking the law, unless there's some exception I don't know about.
Yet it happens every single day.
This is an interesting exchange with Kathleen Sebelius...
Also, there are some very basic issues not being addressed - just off the cuff - Will medicare and/or medicaid be replaced, eliminated or modified?
Exactly how are we increasing the # of insured while decreasing costs SPECIFICALLY.
How are we going to provide services without rationing increase demand by as much as 25% while not increasing the supply of providers.
None of these have been addressed - still. I would think these would be at the top of the list when considering something of this magnitude. I wonder why that is.
I'm not sure if you're asking us or the government to address these issues, but I can answer the second one for you: once someone is insured, even if it's against their will initially, they can now go to a normal family doctor for their sore throat instead of the ER. This will save huge amounts of money right off the bat, because a family clinic simply does not cost as much to run as a hospital. Hospital resources are wasted on non-emergency treatments, and that's a cost that the rest of us subsidize one way or another. What's more, when someone is insured, they are more likely to go in for preventive care and early checkups of symptoms, and thus may never need the emergency surgery they would have required if the disease sat until it could no longer be ignored. We all save the cost of that surgery, too.
... hypothetically speaking of course.
And I am asking for opinions here because many times we all look at things from different viewpoints and come up with interesting ideas.
I am also asking the Gov't and have written my "representatives" already.
I am still waiting for a reply.
People who drive without are breaking the law, unless there's some exception I don't know about.
Yet it happens every single day.
Then I guess I don't see the problem. Criminals notwithstanding, mandating coverage is a proven workable system. I thought you were pointing out some difference between auto insurance and possible mandated health insurance.
Well perhaps you'd actually like to answer the real questions instead of bringing car insurance into it.
I've asked three times now.
I'm not sure if you're asking us or the government to address these issues, but I can answer the second one for you: once someone is insured, even if it's against their will initially, they can now go to a normal family doctor for their sore throat instead of the ER.
I have insurance. Last time I got a sinus infection I called my doctors office and told them what was going on (sinus infection, visible swelling on my face). It was a Friday am and I didn't want to suffer all weekend but my doctor didn't want to see me or call in a prescription for antibiotics. She instructed me to go to the ER.
See if you have a local "urgent care" sort of place. It's like the ER without the battle. Saturday night people convinced me I might have strep, and my local place had me examined and cultured in 20 minutes for a $30 co-pay.
Then I guess I don't see the problem. Criminals notwithstanding, mandating coverage is a proven workable system. I thought you were pointing out some difference between auto insurance and possible mandated health insurance.
Paying for mandated health insurance is the problem.
I'm not sure if you're asking us or the government to address these issues, but I can answer the second one for you: once someone is insured, even if it's against their will initially, they can now go to a normal family doctor for their sore throat instead of the ER. This will save huge amounts of money right off the bat, because a family clinic simply does not cost as much to run as a hospital. Hospital resources are wasted on non-emergency treatments, and that's a cost that the rest of us subsidize one way or another. What's more, when someone is insured, they are more likely to go in for preventive care and early checkups of symptoms, and thus may never need the emergency surgery they would have required if the disease sat until it could no longer be ignored. We all save the cost of that surgery, too.
But the assumption here is that their family doctor will take the federally funded health program. If the reimbursement is to low many doctors just will not see those patients, like they do now with Medicare/Medicaid.
See if you have a local "urgent care" sort of place. It's like the ER without the battle. Saturday night people convinced me I might have strep, and my local place had me examined and cultured in 20 minutes for a $30 co-pay.
Good idea... I think there's one right down the street. Although I have to say that Paoli's ER is lovely and battle free.
I'm not sure if you're asking us or the government to address these issues, but I can answer the second one for you: once someone is insured, even if it's against their will initially, they can now go to a normal family doctor for their sore throat instead of the ER. This will save huge amounts of money right off the bat, because a family clinic simply does not cost as much to run as a hospital. Hospital resources are wasted on non-emergency treatments, and that's a cost that the rest of us subsidize one way or another. What's more, when someone is insured, they are more likely to go in for preventive care and early checkups of symptoms, and thus may never need the emergency surgery they would have required if the disease sat until it could no longer be ignored. We all save the cost of that surgery, too.
They have also been talking about rewarding doctors for preventative treatment on patients so they don't end up with more costly disease treatments later on. I think that is a great idea. If you can get a patient to quit smoking or lose weight, that should be an incentive for the doctor. Preventative medicine will help lower costs a LOT, IF we can shift the stinking thinking in this country.
I'm also hoping *fingers crossed* that somehow the whole issue of how food is grown in this country is brought into the debate. The movie
Food, Inc. comes out this month, and that is a HUGE problem in this country that adds to health care costs. The food itself is unhealthy. Obesity is huge problem, and there are many problems that go along with that. Also, many people who aren't fat are still not FIT, and that means they are unhealthy and that also causes health problems.
Another thing that is a major problem is the cost of care in the last few months of life. We need to find a way to reduce those costs.
A couple of thoughts, I know someone said something about this earlier, but the cost of executive pay in the insurance industry is one reason why costs are so high. I imagine the reason why insurance companies turn down so many claims is because
they have to in order to keep their executives living high on the hog. And so people who have been paying for insurance end up in bankruptcy or losing their life savings or their homes because their claims are denied. Add to that the cost of advertising, something the government doesn't have to do, and that is another way how costs would come down. (No inflated salaries, no advertising costs.)
Here is a list of a few executive salaries for 2006-7 (you know they are even higher now): ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY EXECUTIVES (2006 and 2007 figures):
• Ronald A. Williams, Chair/ CEO, Aetna Inc., $23,045,834
• H. Edward Hanway, Chair/ CEO, Cigna Corp, $30.16 million
• David B. Snow, Jr, Chair/ CEO, Medco Health, $21.76 million
• Michael B. MCallister, CEO, Humana Inc, $20.06 million
• Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO, UnitedHealth Group, $13,164,529
• Angela F. Braly, President/ CEO, Wellpoint, $9,094,771
• Dale B. Wolf, CEO, Coventry Health Care, $20.86 million
• Jay M. Gellert, President/ CEO, Health Net, $16.65 million
• William C. Van Faasen, Chairman,
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3 million plus $16.4 million in retirement benefits
• Charlie Baker, President/ CEO, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, $1.5 million
• James Roosevelt, Jr., CEO, Tufts Associated Health Plans, $1.3 million
• Cleve L. Killingsworth, President/CEO
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3.6 million
• Raymond McCaskey, CEO, Health Care Service Corp
(Blue Cross Blue Shield), $10.3 million
• Daniel P. McCartney, CEO, Healthcare Services Group, Inc, $ 1,061,513
• Daniel Loepp, CEO,
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, $1,657,555
• Todd S. Farha, CEO, WellCare Health Plans, $5,270,825
• Michael F. Neidorff, CEO, Centene Corp, $8,750,751
• Daniel Loepp, CEO,
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, $1,657,555
• Todd S. Farha, CEO, WellCare Health Plans, $5,270,825
• Michael F. Neidorff, CEO, Centene Corp, $8,750,751
http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/post/2446099.aspx
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"](How many freaking CEOs does Blue Cross Blue Shield have anyway I wonder?)[/COLOR]
Insurance Company CEO Compensation 2006-2007
Insurance Company Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
2007 Total Compensation 2006 Total Compensation
Aetna Ronald A. Williams $23,045,834 / $19,802,476
Cigna H. Edward Hanway $25,839,777 / $21,014,486
Coventry Dale B. Wolf $14,869,823 / $13,034,126
Health Net Jay M. Gellert $3,686,230 / $6,066,913
Humana Michael B. McCallister $10,312,557 / $5,798,613
UnitedHealth Group Stephen J. Hemsley $13,164,529 / $15,549,028
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007)
Larry C. Glasscock (2006) $9,094,271 / $23,886,169
http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/pages/insurance_company_ceo_compensation_2006_2007
I'm afraid this won't get done because Obama is cowtowing to the very same people who have held up health care reform for the past century. Really, if republicans and the AMA and insurance companies had such great ideas on how to fix it, how come they haven't done anything? In my opinion they shouldn't get to have any input. Now they are using scare tactics, just like they have in the past, crying socialism. It worked in the past. I PRAY it doesn't work now. If we don't get it done, then the system will spiral even worse out of control than it is now. People here love to say we have the best system in the world, and they're right, IF you have money, or if you're lucky enough to have good insurance form your job. but even if you have good insurance, it isn't a guarantee that you will get the care you need. They can always deny your claim. Which they do a lot more often that most people realize.
Personally, I think we should base our system on France's system. France has the best system in the world, while we are number 37.
... hypothetically speaking of course.
And I am asking for opinions here because many times we all look at things from different viewpoints and come up with interesting ideas.
I am also asking the Gov't and have written my "representatives" already.
I am still waiting for a reply.
They are still in the process of writing the legislation. That's probably why they haven't gotten back to you. There will be different proposals on the table, and by the time they finish, who knows what it will look like. I'm with Bill Maher on this. It's all well and good that Obama wants to be inclusive and reach across the aisle, but maybe he should be a little more like Bush in order to get certain things done. Like health care. Like energy.
Preventative medicine will help lower costs
... and therefore, the doctors income - no real incentive for them in that regard.
Another thing that is a major problem is the cost of care in the last few months of life. We need to find a way to reduce those costs.
Just kill them sooner?
I'm afraid this won't get done because Obama is cowtowing to the very same people who have held up health care reform for the past century.
BS
republicans and the AMA and insurance companies... In my opinion they shouldn't get to have any input.
Hmmm, really?
They can always deny your claim. Which they do a lot more often that most people realize.
What makes you think that won't happen even more if/with Gov't oversight?
Personally, I think we should base our system on France's system. France has the best system in the world, while we are number 37.
yeh - France - :headshake
by the time they finish, who knows what it will look like. I'm with Bill Maher on this. It's all well and good that Obama wants to be inclusive and reach across the aisle, but maybe he should be a little more like Bush in order to get certain things done. Like health care. Like energy.
Well if we don't know what it'll look like nor who it will cover nor IF it will cover everyone or just some or IF it will save money .... what exactly are we for?
I must say it was nice to hear in Obama say in his speech yesterday that if you are happy with your plan, or your doctor or your company ....you may keep them. Thats great, but at what cost? I just cannot see how this is not going to cost more than it already does and that means that I, as a productive employed citizen will be paying more. How much more is a major issue to me.
... and therefore, the doctors income - no real incentive for them in that regard.
If we do it right, doctor's income could actually go up.
Just kill them sooner?
I didn't say that.
BS
He is asking everyone to the table. Since the AMA and insurance companies have been the biggest opponents of health care reform over the past century, what could they possibly have to offer this time? They don't want a public option, but without a public option, there is no true reform.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=7838800&page=1
Hmmm, really?
Yes. REALLY. If republicans wanted to do it, they were just in power for years. They had their chance. All they are doing is trying to block true reform. Same with AMA and insurers. They have all had time to do it. Plenty of time. They haven't done it, because they aren't interested in true reform. They like the status quo.
What makes you think that won't happen even more if/with Gov't oversight?
I suppose it could, but the government isn't trying to make a profit, and that is the difference. insurance companies HAVE to make a HUGE profit in order to pay all the bloated executive salaries.
yeh - France - :headshake
France does have the best health care system in the world, according to the WHO.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Well if we don't know what it'll look like nor who it will cover nor IF it will cover everyone or just some or IF it will save money .... what exactly are we for?
I must say it was nice to hear in Obama say in his speech yesterday that if you are happy with your plan, or your doctor or your company ....you may keep them. Thats great, but at what cost? I just cannot see how this is not going to cost more than it already does and that means that I, as a productive employed citizen will be paying more. How much more is a major issue to me.
It
should cover everyone. If it doesn't, Obama shouldn't sign it.
And you have to look at the cost if we DON'T reform health care. If we don't, it will take over, and the costs will continue escalating at an astronomical rate.
I really think it's a shame we aren't even debating a single payer system. I think a majority of people really want that.
One thing no one has brought up, is this is tied to wages. Wages have been stagnant for most people for decades, while rising for those at the top. Health care costs have risen dramatically more than wages. If wages had kept up, the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is. (It would still be a problem though.) No one wants to raise wages though. No one wants to do health care. So we have this problem, and we will continue to have it if nothing gets done, only it continue to get worse. It's the same with energy.
And gee, I'm sorry if you will have to pay more. I don't see how, unless you are above a certain income. There are plenty of productive citizens who are without insurance, through no fault of their own. It's just too damn expensive for some people. And some people had insurance, and still got screwed by their provider. So?
Forgive me, but I don't think you are sorry to hear that I'll have to pay more at all. It would seem that in your perfect world we'd all make about the same and have all the same benefits and the whole country would be full of "equality."
I really think it's a shame we aren't even debating a single payer system. I think a majority of people really want that.
Would that be a majority of whom? People that have nothing and don't care what they get as long as it s given to them or a majority of those who have worked hard and earned all that they have?
The last thing I want is another bloated inefficient Gov't program with someone else other than me and my doctors having any more say in the care, treatment and/or health decisions of me and my family.
GIve it up. It is the same old mis-informed tired arguement.
Forgive me, but I don't think you are sorry to hear that I'll have to pay more at all. It would seem that in your perfect world we'd all make about the same and have all the same benefits and the whole country would be full of "equality."
Would that be a majority of whom? People that have nothing and don't care what they get as long as it s given to them or a majority of those who have worked hard and earned all that they have?
The last thing I want is another bloated inefficient Gov't program with someone else other than me and my doctors having any more say in the care, treatment and/or health decisions of me and my family.
What makes you think anyone other than your doctor would make those decisions? With insurance companies, pencil pushers make decisions about your health. They deny coverage. With Medicare they don't.
And sorry, but there are plenty of wealthy people who would like a single payer system as well. Or who don't mind paying more so that everyone is covered.
With insurance companies, pencil pushers make decisions about your health. They deny coverage. With Medicare they don't.
You are completely mis-informed. Medicare denies coverage on a daily basis. Like most insurance programs they require pre-approval and they are among the worst.
And sorry, but there are plenty of wealthy people who would like a single payer system as well. Or who don't mind paying more so that everyone is covered.
Really? Who are those? Hollywood talking heads?
You are completely mis-informed. Medicare denies coverage on a daily basis. Like most insurance programs they require pre-approval and they are among the worst.
I don't think Medicare is going to let someone die of cancer when there is treatment available. You certainly don't hear stories about people going into bankruptcy or losing their home and life savings because Medicare wouldn't treat them. You DO hear those stories about private insurance.
Really? Who are those? Hollywood talking heads?
I hardly think Donnie Deutsch or Warren Buffet are Hollywood talking heads, and I've heard both of them say that. In fact, Donnie Deutsche said the other day on Morning Joe the best way to pay for health care would be to get the top 100,000 people to pay an additional $100,000 in taxes.
I don't think Medicare is going to let someone die of cancer when there is treatment available. You certainly don't hear stories about people going into bankruptcy or losing their home and life savings because Medicare wouldn't treat them. You DO hear those stories about private insurance.
I hardly think Donnie Deutsch or Warren Buffet are Hollywood talking heads, and I've heard both of them say that. In fact, Donnie Deutsche said the other day on Morning Joe the best way to pay for health care would be to get the top 100,000 people to pay an additional $100,000 in taxes.
I just want the bottom 60% to pay thier fair share.
I just want the bottom 60% to pay thier fair share.
What is their "fair" share?
When you make BILLIONS of dollars you can certainly afford to pay a LOT more %-wise than if you are living paycheck to paycheck. Honestly, what do you think those people do with all that money? They can never spend it all. Since this country (and the people of this country) helped them become successful, they should certainly return the favor by investing back into this country, and those citizens. But they don't. They screw us by taking jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets, and they move their offices offshore so they get out of paying taxes, and they get subsidies from the government to offset things that, really, THEY should be paying for, not our taxes, and they quit paying for benefits for their employees, and all the other tricks of the trade they use to get out of giving back.
And you know, if wages had kept up with the cost of living, this wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is. But they haven't. Millions of people today are living on LESS than people lived on during the 70s. Pathetic. And we expect them to be able to afford isurance?
"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money."
- Everett Dirksen
What is their "fair" share?
When you make BILLIONS of dollars you can certainly afford to pay a LOT more %-wise than if you are living paycheck to paycheck. Honestly, what do you think those people do with all that money? They can never spend it all. Since this country (and the people of this country) helped them become successful, they should certainly return the favor by investing back into this country, and those citizens. But they don't. They screw us by taking jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets, and they move their offices offshore so they get out of paying taxes, and they get subsidies from the government to offset things that, really, THEY should be paying for, not our taxes, and they quit paying for benefits for their employees, and all the other tricks of the trade they use to get out of giving back.
And you know, if wages had kept up with the cost of living, this wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is. But they haven't. Millions of people today are living on LESS than people lived on during the 70s. Pathetic. And we expect them to be able to afford isurance?
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.... I no longer give a shit. Everyone needs to feel the pain. Everyone needs to pay.
They have also been talking about rewarding doctors for preventative treatment on patients ...
It's not the doctor's responsibility to take care of your body, it's *yours*. We need to given *you* an incentive to stay healthy -- by making you pay for your own health.
Another thing that is a major problem is the cost of care in the last few months of life. We need to find a way to reduce those costs.
It's physically impossible. If it costs less to extend your life, then you will live longer .. which increases the costs. It either costs an infinite amount of money to keep you alive, or someone must declare it's time for you to die. Who do you trust with that responsibility?
Here is a list of a few executive salaries for 2006-7
You're just trolling now. Capitalism is founded on people keeping what they earn. If you don't like it, you're free to attack capitalism. But don't go posting this crap pretending it has anything to do with health care.
I'm afraid this won't get done because Obama is cowtowing to the very same people who have held up health care reform for the past century.
That would be me. And I thank him for it.
Really, if republicans and the AMA and insurance companies had such great ideas on how to fix it, how come they haven't done anything? In my opinion they shouldn't get to have any input.
Now I'm confused. You want the government to take over health care, yet you admit they have no clue how to run it. What exactly are you arguing?
Donnie Deutsche said the other day on Morning Joe the best way to pay for health care would be to get the top 100,000 people to pay an additional $100,000 in taxes.
I'll take that bet: $100,000*100,000 = $10 billion. There are a quarter billion people in the states, so that gives us .. $40 per person per year. Problem solved.
France does have the best health care system in the world, according to the WHO.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
I recommend you read that link, it's quite informative. Especially this gem:
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.
So the WHO posted a questionable report, then just gave up altogether. But wait, why does a page on "photius.com" have a "geography.org" header? Maybe we should visit
the actual press release. Sure enough, near the top, they report that the US is number 37. But if you keep reading ...
Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden.
US is first, France is missing.
Fairness of financial contribution: ... Colombia was the top-rated country in this category, followed by Luxembourg, Belgium, Djibouti, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Japan and Finland.
France and US are both missing.
Let's see if Google can tell us what's so great about France. How about
this one?
The working population has twenty percent of their gross salary deducted at source to fund the social security system.
How much health care could you buy for 20% of your income? If you put that in a 401K, you think it might cover your retirement? Boy, I bet those doctors are well paid.
However, 56 percent of physicians work in private practices because of the difficult working conditions in hospitals.
Yikes. Well, how about
this one:
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
That's not so bad. Unless it's on top of the 20% social security tax.
Just one more:
Hospital facilities, although greatly expanded since World War II, are still considered inadequate. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations.
While the US system may be troubled, but France is certainly not the utopia you make it out to be.
This rubs our noses in the underperformance of the welfare state, and in its costliness -- for those of us who weren't with it enough to know already.
Socialism does not work; socialized medicine does not work. Reject both, for ever. Vote out anybody caught trying to vote it in. The Democrats are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
At Bitman: :notworthy: :thumb:
I'll take that bet: $100,000*100,000 = $10 billion. There are a quarter billion people in the states, so that gives us .. $40 per person per year. Problem solved.
How much is that per the estimated 46 million uninsured?
Think how much more we could save if male vanity drugs like Viagra weren't paid for (I would be willing to offset this savings by PAYING for birth control pills.)
I don't know about your area, but down here you can get BCP at the public health department and a pretty big discount.
It's physically impossible. If it costs less to extend your life, then you will live longer .. which increases the costs. It either costs an infinite amount of money to keep you alive, or someone must declare it's time for you to die. Who do you trust with that responsibility?
Someone whose profit potential is not increased by my death.
Insurance companies pay their shareholders out of the money they take in as premiums, but don't pay out in claims. And they are primarily beholden to their shareholders.
They complain that they couldn't compete with a program with no profit motive. That sounds like a plus to me.
I don't know about your area, but down here you can get BCP at the public health department and a pretty big discount.
YOu can get VIAGRA for FREE from Medicare.
Makes sense, huh? It shows that old pasty men are in charge. Always will be.
Now excuse me, I have to go buy a 10 dollar box of tampons. :lol:
Good job of posting some excellent links Bitman. Lotta good info there.
Hope you don't wait over a year to post again.
Someone whose profit potential is not increased by my death.
And who would that be? Your immediate family would love to keep you around, but the rest of us would rather use the space you take up for ourselves.
*You* are the only person who can make that decision correctly, and you can only make it if you directly control your own health.
The rest of your post was a rag on capitalism, which is not relevant here. I'm happy to grant insurance companies all the profit they can make, but only where health insurance is the right thing to do, and only where these companies can compete.
:joylove:
Thanks but I've got a greedy reason for posting. I'm genuinely curious as to why the only two options I hear about are corporate insurance and national insurance. Personal responsibility is the only way to keep costs under control; any kind of government plan is fundamentally broken. Yet many other countries have some form of socialism, so I wonder -- What am I missing?
Over here (Australia) we have both options. Many people have private health insurance, but there's also a pretty good public system. When I say pretty good, that's in comparison to some other systems out there. For people with private insurance, there are tax breaks, although that's all about to change by the looks of things. Anyway, we'll see how it goes, but for now we have both.
Personal responsibility is the only way to keep costs under control; any kind of government plan is fundamentally broken. Yet many other countries have some form of socialism, so I wonder -- What am I missing?
Because there is an inherent understanding around the world that medicine is a different beast. If someone wrecks their car and has no insurance, boo hoo for them we say, now you have no car. You must suffer the consequences of your actions, and rightly so. If someone is hurt and has no insurance, as a society we (and most others) say we can't simply let them die for their mistakes, those consequences are too great for what is essentially a sin of greed (not wanting to shell out for insurance--and I know people will jump in and say "it's not that they don't
want to, they just can't afford it; but unless they're completely homeless and unemployed, the reality is they could "afford" it, just at a drastically reduced standard of living that understandably no one wants to endure.)
It is a reality that we are going to end up providing at least a base level of care for the people who choose not to take personal responsibility. So many countries have decided to remove the choice from their hands, and force "responsibility" on them in the form of mandated programs and taxes. Is that a better system than we have? I don't know, I've never experienced a socialized program, and really what everyone wonders in these scenarios is "will it be better for
me?" As a middle-class family who already shells out a pretty decent but not absurd amount for our coverage, I suspect our personal situation is going to stay pretty much the same no matter what the system is. It's the people at either extreme who will feel the effects of it.
If someone wrecks their car and has no insurance, boo hoo for them we say, now you have no car. You must suffer the consequences of your actions, and rightly so.
What if wrecking their car involves injuring not only themselves, but also other people and their property?
Conversely, if someone decides to engage in risky behaviors - they are not hurting others - they are only hurting themselves.
*You* are the only person who can make that decision correctly, and you can only make it if you directly control your own health.
Don't worry. There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government beaurocrat over a health insurance company.
I wasn't ragging on capitalism; jut pointing out that there are some areas where market pressure isn't in the right direction.
What if wrecking their car involves injuring not only themselves, but also other people and their property?
That's precisely why the government mandates auto liability insurance. You have your choice of private companies, but other than that it is a direct example of enforced socialism.
I agree that is why auto insurance is mandated - not so much the socialism part though. Also, I don't think that transfers to Health insurance though.
Don't worry. There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government beaurocrat over a health insurance company.
I wasn't ragging on capitalism; jut pointing out that there are some areas where market pressure isn't in the right direction.
On the contrary most government run single payer(governemnt run) plans DO NOT allow for opt outs or selectively going outside the plan to your own doctor. They control by making it illegal for the Doctor to treat outside the plan sometimes and continue to participate in the plan for the balance of his practice.
Lets not get distracted by the thousands of pages of details that are in these proposals. There is only one thing to consider. If the real objective is to control costs-and I believe that is NOT the real objective-then we need to look at the federal governments track record of 'controlling costs': medicare/medicaid costs 100's of percent higher than initially projected; education spending out of control for declining performance, $800 toilet seats and $140 screws, etc.
Or on a larger scale the overall success of centrally controlled governments at providing a decent quality of life for their citizenry- USSR, Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and how many others.
Bottom line --with the 'awful' healthcare system we have here-you can count on one hand the number of people leaving the US to get better health care elsewhere. And those are invariably for experimental treatments. And when residents of only those moderately socialist places like France, Scandinavia, Canada-with their government run programs need superior care, they come here.
On the contrary most government run single payer(governemnt run) plans DO NOT allow for opt outs or selectively going outside the plan to your own doctor. They control by making it illegal for the Doctor to treat outside the plan sometimes and continue to participate in the plan for the balance of his practice.
First, I don't know about "most", but it is definitely not the case for all single-payer plans.
Second, there is no single payer plan being proposed for the US.
First, I don't know about "most", but it is definitely not the case for all single-payer plans.
Second, there is no single payer plan being proposed for the US.
Are doctors who accept medicare allowed to treat medicare participants outside of medicare? NO!. Same in England, Canada, etc. And those are the systems advocates here look to as models of government plans.
In fact, they ARE proposing a single-payer in practice. By artificially creating a lower rate schedule people will opt for lower direct out of pocket and eventually dry up private carriers.
If they thought they could get the votes for an openly stated single-payer plan they would go right for it, because the outcome will not provide lower
overall costs-its impossible when the government runs things-they would go right for it. But the words 'single paper' scare people too much so they put it in the details while denying it publicly.
Whoson is basically correct. If that plan makes it through the legislative process. The question remains will the historically powerful lobby of the health care insurance industry have the strenght to convince Congress to vote against it? This process of introducing the "alternative' government plan may encourage companies who currently provide insurance to their employees to drop it. The costs of such insurance for private companies is second only to payroll. Will the companies continue to pay for it or in more recent discussion allow employees to be taxed on it? What will be the penalty for those companies that drop their plans and let the people just go and apply for the government sponsored plan? Obama floated this during the election. No one knows. And given the previous process of how things have been ramrodded through Congress without having the time to read all of the details in massive bills we may never know til it is to late. The fallout will be felt in all sectors.
I agree that is why auto insurance is mandated - not so much the socialism part though.
You are giving $1000+ a year to your car insurance company to pay for someone else's car wreck. You will get no refund when you stop driving, even if you've never had a wreck in your life. How is that not socialism?
Because when State Farm gives us a bad deal we can switch to Progressive.
And that's one of the biggest problems with the health care industry, that
I've bitched about specifically before. The advent of employer-provided healthcare killed any real competition between the insurance companies--you just have to go with whoever your employer chooses. If anything, your employer should contribute to your health savings fund on your behalf, but you should have control of which insurance company you choose. That one tiny change right there would fix HUGE numbers of problems.
I agree, to a great extent, but unfortunately corporations are often the only ones big enough to negotiate good deals with the insurance companies, and (I think) it's harder for them to kick people out of the corporate plan than it is for them to boot sick individuals.
Why can't the Gov't repeal the law that doesn't allow them to do so. That in itself would ... oh nevermind.
I agree, to a great extent, but unfortunately corporations are often the only ones big enough to negotiate good deals with the insurance companies,
Very true. And that fits the capitalistic model. Volume pricing will always get a better deal than you can get on your own.
and (I think) it's harder for them to kick people out of the corporate plan than it is for them to boot sick individuals.
True, but they can charge you higher premiums based on your individual case to offset the standard and set fee the employer pays for your insurance. The employer certainly is not going to pay more. And each year the insurance company can and does increase premiums to the employee with little change or in many cases less coverage.
For a side by side comparison of all the plans floating around congress, select all in each of the two boxes. It will come up as a PDF file.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfmUmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... I no longer give a shit. Everyone needs to feel the pain. Everyone needs to pay.
You mean everyone but the uber rich, right? Because you
always defend them, no matter how wrong they are.
You mean everyone but the uber rich, right? Because you always defend them, no matter how wrong they are.
Bull shit. They should pay the same percentage as I have to pay, 33%. Eveyone should pay the same.
Bull shit. They should pay the same percentage as I have to pay, 33%. Eveyone should pay the same.
I disagree. I think the more money you have, the higher a percentage you should pay. I know we will NEVER agree on this subject though, so I'm dropping it now.
I disagree. I think the more money you have, the higher a percentage you should pay. I know we will NEVER agree on this subject though, so I'm dropping it now.
Good, but don't post bull shit that I support the uber rich. They, and you, and everyone else should pay the same percentage, what ever that is...
There's no plan that will affect the ability of the wealthy to self-finance their own treatment. But if I'm on a health plan, I'd trust a government bureaucrat over a health insurance company.
I don't understand your point ... You support a plan where only the wealthy can choose their only treatment, while the middle class is stuck with the federal standard treatment? I'd prefer a system where
everyone can choose their treatment.
automotive insurance
This automotive comparison really doesn't work. The government mandates
liability insurance, which covers your damage to other people's property.
Comprehensive insurance covers damage to your own property, and is totally optional. Health insurance is like comprehensive. And yes, I really believe it should be optional.
You are giving $1000+ a year to your car insurance company to pay for someone else's car wreck. You will get no refund when you stop driving, even if you've never had a wreck in your life. How is that not socialism?
No, you're paying $1000/yr for your own wrecks. I pay $350/yr for mine. It might be a kind of socialism, but it's arguable -- only people with cars pay car insurance. Conversely, people who have no children still pay for public schools.
Very true. And that fits the capitalistic model. Volume pricing will always get a better deal than you can get on your own.
No, it's not true at all. Negotiation may be able to get a good deal (depending on the skill and drive of the negotiators) but only competition can get the
best price. (And there's no guarantee the government negotiators will be any good.)
And wait, there's another gaping hole in this meme -- Who is this single seller we're having such a hard time getting good prices from?
One more thing -- The USA is already running an annual deficit. Every dollar a health plan would require must come from at least one extra dollar in taxes.
I don't understand your point ... You support a plan where only the wealthy can choose their only treatment, while the middle class is stuck with the federal standard treatment? I'd prefer a system where everyone can choose their treatment.
Me too, but I don't expect medical care to be free any time soon. The next closest thing would be single payer, which is a non-starter at this point. So my choices are going to be made through a health plan of some sort. And if someone is going to be in charge of deciding what treatments I can get, I don't want it to be someone who gets to keep any money they don't use to pay for my treatment.
And if someone is going to be in charge of deciding what treatments I can get, I don't want it to be someone who gets to keep any money they don't use to pay for my treatment.
That is the system we already have. If you pay for insurance that is what you get now. Same in an HMO. Same for any plan the Federal government is going to offer.
That is the system we already have. If you pay for insurance that is what you get now. Same in an HMO. Same for any plan the Federal government is going to offer.
Yes, yes, yes, and probably not.
We don't know yet exactly what the government plan is going to be, but I don't think it is a big stretch to hope that it isn't going to be paying shareholders out of the money they don't spend on medical costs.
Yes, yes, yes, and probably not.
We don't know yet exactly what the government plan is going to be, but I don't think it is a big stretch to hope that it isn't going to be paying shareholders out of the money they don't spend on medical costs.
No, they will be paying for it out of our taxes. And if you think this is going to be better I have bridge in Arizona to sell you.
... it isn't going to be paying shareholders out of the money they don't spend on medical costs.
No, they will be paying for it out of our taxes.
The Federal plan will be paying shareholders? So they'll have both tax funding and investors? Like I said, nobody knows what it will look like at this point, but IMHO that's unlikely.
Meaning the share holders, us the US public, you know the portion that pays income tax, will be paying for it.
And the latest news is that the major hospital associations will be chipping in a huge portion in savings for the federal plan as well. Guess who is going to pay for thier missing bit? All the rest of those who pay for their health care now, not the portion who get it for free, as they do now. Guess what, costs are not going to go up for the rest of those who pay. You think the CEO's and hospitals are just going to cut their profits? Don't count on that. They will be protected under any new plan.
Meaning the share holders, us the US public, you know the portion that pays income tax, will be paying for it.
So how does post 238 have anything to do with the post it quotes?
I was saying that I didn't want the person making the decision to be able to profit by not treating me, and you respond by saying they are funded by taxes?
So how does post 238 have anything to do with the post it quotes?
I was saying that I didn't want the person making the decision to be able to profit by not treating me, and you respond by saying they are funded by taxes?
I am was merely pointing out that we are the share holders. You don't want profit makers to make health care decisions for you, I would suspect that is because you think they make decisions based on their ability to make profit. And yet somehow you think anything the government is going to offer up is not going to be motivated by the same thing, money. And in their case it will be cost cutting based on saving them money. How is that different? It is not. They can save money based on a desire to have more for themselves, or they can try to save money based on not spending it on you so more people can have a share of your benefit. And I can't see how you would be ok with the government, or their representatives making health care decisions for you, as in a federal healthcare insurance program will do for you. As I said before if you think it is going to be better, you are sorely mistaken.
U.S. House May Include Surtax on Wealthy in Health-Care Package
Share
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan.
The tax would be similar to, yet much smaller than, a surtax proposed in 2007 by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a person familiar with the committee’s talks said. That plan would have added at least a 4 percent levy on incomes exceeding $200,000, and was projected to reap as much as $832 billion over 10 years.
Two people familiar with closed-door talks by committee Democrats said a House bill probably will include a surtax on incomes exceeding $250,000, as Congress seeks ways to pay for changes to a health-care system that accounts for almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy. By targeting wealthier Americans, a surtax may hold more appeal for House Democrats than a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits.
“The surtax is obviously more attractive to Democrats in the House because it’s more progressive, which they find attractive in and of itself,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on policies affecting low- and moderate-income families.
Supporters on the Ways and Means Committee include Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who backs including a surtax among revenue-raising measures in a health- care package, Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl said.
Republicans in Congress, and some Senate Democrats, are likely to fight moves to increase tax rates, said Clinton Stretch, who analyzes tax legislation at Deloitte Tax LLP, a Washington consulting firm.
Republican Opposition
“This will be a point of discomfort for moderate or conservative Democrats” in the Senate, he said. “It will be an anathema for Republicans.”
The possibility of raising taxes on top earners surfaced last month as a revenue option for members of Rangel’s committee, and the people familiar with the talks cautioned that no agreement has been reached. A Senate plan to tax the value of employee benefits that exceed coverage for federal workers may generate as much as $418.5 billion over 10 years, though talks are focused on proposals that would raise considerably less.
Rangel’s 2007 plan would have added a 4 percent tax on incomes exceeding $200,000 and an extra 0.6 percent levy on those making more than $500,000. A House plan this year may include lower rates and higher income thresholds, a person familiar with the plan said.
Tax Increase
A surtax proposal would force President Barack Obama to decide whether he is willing to add the levy on top of higher income-tax rates for top earners that he wants to take effect in 2011. Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011.
Obama hasn’t commented on the possibility of a surtax, and the White House had no comment on specific proposals. The president has proposed limiting itemized deductions for high- income taxpayers.
Obama has said he doesn’t want to tax health-insurance benefits, while refusing to rule out that possibility if it helps seal approval for an overall health package.
Congressional Democrats have said they may need to raise taxes by at least half a trillion dollars to pay for the health- care revamp, in addition to savings of almost as much through steps such as reducing Medicare subsidies and cutting prices the elderly pay for medications.
‘Everything’ on Table
Matthew Beck, a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee, declined to comment about the surtax option, saying only that “everything’s on the table.”
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, the chamber’s top-ranking Republican, said his party would oppose a surtax because it would “disproportionately” affect small businesses, whose owners often include business income in amounts taxed on their individual returns.
“With unemployment nearing double digits, we need to help small businesses grow and create jobs, not squeeze the life out of them with even higher taxes,” Steel said.
According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, about 4.3 million of 150 million U.S. households filing tax returns will earn more than $200,000 this year.
A surtax would be levied on adjusted gross income, before deductions for items such as mortgage interest and charitable gifts. Regular income taxes are assessed after such write-offs.
Different Objectives
Eugene Steuerle, vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a non-profit federal budget watchdog group, said the surtax and a levy on benefits reflect “very different objectives.” A surtax would make the tax code more progressive, and cutting tax incentives for employer-provided insurance is intended to discourage unnecessary use of medical services, he said.
Mark Weinberger, vice chairman of New York-based Ernst & Young LLP, said that while Republicans won’t back higher tax rates, House Democrats at this point don’t need bipartisan support.
“Strategically, what Democrats have to do is just move the ball forward,” Weinberger said. “Whatever revenue raisers they have in the House or Senate bills will change throughout the process.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3wUXb42NPX0I am was merely pointing out that we are the share holders.
And our dividends are the health care, which is also the product we get as the consumers.
They can save money based on a desire to have more for themselves, or they can try to save money based on not spending it on you so more people can have a share of your benefit.
So, if it's underfunded, a public plan devolves into a private plan without a profit motive (which would be on top of the underfunding issue for a private plan) that can't kick you out. Sounds good to me.
No, you're paying $1000/yr for your own wrecks.
You do not get your money back if you have no wrecks. On the flip side, if I have a wreck that causes one million dollars in medical damage, it gets paid for even though I have not paid in a million dollars into my auto insurance policy. Everyone with a car is paying for everyone's wrecks.
This automotive comparison really doesn't work. The government mandates liability insurance, which covers your damage to other people's property. Comprehensive insurance covers damage to your own property, and is totally optional. Health insurance is like comprehensive. And yes, I really believe it should be optional.
The automotive comparison does work if you allow for the possibility of
high-deductible, catastrophic insurance coverage. This is a type of plan that exists in almost all private insurance companies these days, and is favored by more libertarian types. The end result is you pay for all your own small-time medical needs, the only time insurance kicks in is when your procedure costs more than (for example) $20,000.
Health insurance already is optional--and guess what, we're still not letting people die in the waiting room because they can't pay. We never will. That is an ethical boundary we as a society will not cross, so we might as well create a payment system that can cover it.
Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?
Sugar, every single one of those is a case of a patient who died due to general hospital negligence. None of them were allowed to die intentionally due to lack of insurance. The point is no one is getting turned away from emergency care simply because they have no insurance. You get treated in the ER regardless of your insurance coverage. In my experience they don't even bother asking for it until you're leaving.
They are still dying. And in one of those situations, the husband was on the phone BEGGING for an abulance to come get his wife because they were refusing to treat her. I believe she died while he was on the phone with them. In addition, other patients were also calling 911 about the situation.
And they DO ask for insurance before they treat you. I had to go to the emergency room last year, and they asked me for it. I have taken my ex to the emergency room twice, and both times they asked him for it as well. If you're obviously illegal they might not ask, I don't know. I do believe it's easier for illegals to get treatment in some places than it is for the people stuck in the middle. For example, I actually know people who have trouble getting treatment, because they make too much to be on medicaid, but they don't make enough to afford insurance. It is freaking outrageous to not do something about the situation in health care. It's all great for those who can afford insurance, but for those who can't?
And the cost of many treatments is just way too high. It's freaking ridiculous. On one statement from a doctor last year, he was charging over $1000, and I only saw him for about 15 minutes. That's $4000 an hour. I seriously doubt he got that much from my insurance, but still.
Oh, and it was consultation. He didn't actually DO anything.
Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?
You ain't seen nothing yet....
And our dividends are the health care, which is also the product we get as the consumers.So, if it's underfunded, a public plan devolves into a private plan without a profit motive (which would be on top of the underfunding issue for a private plan) that can't kick you out. Sounds good to me.
In your dreams...
I have seen you post on here for years. You really can't be that stupid.
You think that there is no profit motive?
You think they can't kick you out for anything"\?
You think it will not be underfunded?
You think it will me more efficient?
You think we are going to save taxpayers (shareholders) money?
:lol2:
Fucking Demoncratically controlled Congress is going to bankrupt this country....
In health bill, billions for parks, paths
Supporters cite prevention, but add-ons’ critics see pork
WASHINGTON - Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.
The add-ons - characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation’s health “infrastructure’’ - appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.
Critics argue the provision is a thinly disguised effort to insert pork-barrel spending into a bill that has been widely portrayed to the public as dealing with expanding health coverage and cutting medical costs. A leading critic, Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, ridicules the local projects, asking: “How can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?’’
But advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.
“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.
The Senate health panel’s bill does not specify how much would go to the community projects. A Senate staff member said the amount of spending will be left up to the Obama administration. A House version of the bill caps the projects at $1.6 billion per year and includes them in a section designed to save money in the long run by reducing obesity and other health problems.
It is not clear yet how the money would be allocated. The legislation says that grants will be awarded to local and state government agencies that will have to submit detailed proposals. The final decisions will be made by the secretary of Health and Human Services.
The proposal was inserted at the urging of a nonprofit, nonpartisan group called Trust for America’s Health, which produces reports about obesity and other health matters. Part of the group’s proposed language for the community grants was inserted into the Senate bill. It called for “creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment.’’ The group provided examples of grants for bike paths, jungle gyms, and lighting, though the Senate bill doesn’t list those specifics.
Jeffrey Levi, the group’s executive director, said that “it is easy to satirize’’ the projects, but they are needed to improve America’s health.
“We will see a return on this investment if you use this money strategically for proven, evidence-based programs,’’ Levi said in an interview, citing efforts to stop smoking and to promote physical activity. “We will prevent or reverse chronic diseases such as heart disease. . . . It will pay for itself.’’
While many may think the healthcare bill strictly aims to increase coverage, Levi said that is a mistaken impression. “This isn’t just about health insurance,’’ he said. “This bill is about creating a healthier country.’’
The group says that a modest community project can lead directly to improvements in public health. In a recent report, the group cited two examples from Massachusetts that it said were effective: Shape Up Somerville, which helped elementary school children lose weight by promoting physical activity, and the Physical Activity Club in Attleboro, which also helped children lose weight.
The idea of using the healthcare bill as a vehicle for preventing diseases has bipartisan appeal. President Obama has called for “the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that’s one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.’’ Enzi, too, has said that “reducing healthcare costs has to begin with promoting healthier behaviors.’’
But there is disagreement about the best way to do that. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who is working closely with Kennedy on the healthcare bill, has criticized the current healthcare system for focusing on “sick care’’ and has called for more investment in a variety of measures that would help prevent diseases, including the community grants, restricting junk food in schools, and encouraging children to be more active.
“We spend 75 cents of every healthcare dollar treating people with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, and only 4 cents on prevention,’’ Harkin said in a statement. “But the majority of these diseases can be prevented through lifestyle and environmental changes.’’
However, it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of a park or pathway, leading some critics to say such funding is an example how the healthcare legislation has spiraled out of control.
Enzi has said that instead of paying for pathways, it would be more effective to encourage lower insurance premiums for individuals who can prove they have taken steps to improve their health. He said that construction grants belong in other bills.
Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate health committee, has unsuccessfully pushed an amendment that would specifically prohibit the use of funds for sidewalks, streetlights, and other infrastructure projects.
Kennedy spokesman Coley said such proposed amendments are counterproductive, stressing that the projects would be modest and are not intended to replace larger ones that can be funded in other bills. Nonetheless, he said, the projects “may be a very cost-effective and long-lasting intervention.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/09/in_health_bill_billions_for_parks_paths/You think that there is no profit motive
In fact, there's a spend-your-budget motive.
You think they can't kick you out for anything?
As I've said, we don't know what the final form will be, but the primary issue this is supposed to address is the practice of kicking people out when they get sick.
You think it will not be underfunded?
I don't know. I hope not. But if they have to make those choices, I want it to be based entirely on triage, and not how much the corporation gets to keep.
You think it will me more efficient?
Quite likely. Our current system is the least efficient, so there's plenty of room for improvement. Of course, the spend-your-budget motive will work against efficiency, but the tendency towards underfunding will work against that.
You think we are going to save taxpayers (shareholders) money?
I want to save patients' money, at the worst time in their lives. An overall improvement across the entire tax base, due to decreasing the reliance on ERs, would be a welcome side effect, but not the primary issue from my perspective.
In fact, there's a spend-your-budget motive.
As I've said, we don't know what the final form will be, but the primary issue this is supposed to address is the practice of kicking people out when they get sick.
I don't know. I hope not. But if they have to make those choices, I want it to be based entirely on triage, and not how much the corporation gets to keep.Quite likely. Our current system is the least efficient, so there's plenty of room for improvement. Of course, the spend-your-budget motive will work against efficiency, but the tendency towards underfunding will work against that.
I want to save patients' money, at the worst time in their lives. An overall improvement across the entire tax base, due to decreasing the reliance on ERs, would be a welcome side effect, but not the primary issue from my perspective.
Some individuals may be saved money, because it will be paid for on the backs of many many others. There is no other way. Where do you think the hospitals are going to save the gobberment 150 billion dollars? What? you think they are just going to cut that from their income and profit? No, they will pass it on to others. NPR has done a great 2 day expose on the number of lobbyists in DC all getting their bit of pie from this bill. Be careful what you wish for. It is never as it seems.
Some individuals may be saved money, because it will be paid for on the backs of many many others.
Ummm, yeah. That's the point.
Where do you think the hospitals are going to save the gobberment 150 billion dollars? What? you think they are just going to cut that from their income and profit?
Even if there is no savings in the hospital, the insurance comanies will no longer take their cut. A big savings there.
NPR has done a great 2 day expose on the number of lobbyists in DC all getting their bit of pie from this bill. Be careful what you wish for. It is never as it seems.
I certainly don't expect any bill to make it through the lobbyists unscathed.
Even if there is no savings in the hospital, the insurance comanies will no longer take their cut.
Ok. Please explain the details of that thinking and how you think they will no longer get a cut. Thanks.
Edt: None of the bills in Congress eliminate Insuance programs or create a single payer system.
They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.
They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.
Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.
I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.
Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?
Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.
I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?
Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?
I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.
I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?
According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it. Note this is just one plan being floated. But it is a comon theme among the schemes coming up with ways to pay it.
I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.
According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.
According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it.
And how would the insurance companies take a cut if companies fire them, and fund the public option instead?
According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.
It was floated (a new payroll tax), and I would have been fine with that as well, but IMHO, a tax would have to be considerably higher than
3% to oppress someone making $1 million.
Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?
Aren't people still going to have to pay premiums that they can afford? Isn't THAT the whole issue, or at least part of it, that people can't afford paying so much? If so, it really isn't FREE, is it?
And how would the insurance companies take a cut if companies fire them, and fund the public option instead?
Another insurance company will take their bite. You still pay for it. Or maybe not. I have heard that only the rich will pay for your health care so you can get it for free. If that happens the socialists will be proud.
It was floated (a new payroll tax), and I would have been fine with that as well, but IMHO, a tax would have to be considerably higher than 3% to oppress someone making $1 million.
No, the amount that at which people will be taxed is much lower.
Another insurance company will take their bite.
How will an insurance company take a bite from someone on the public option?
How will an insurance company take a bite from someone on the public option?
Any insurance provided by the government will be provided by an insurance company. You do understand that part, right? Just like Medicaid is now.
OK Merc, you REALLY need to go watch Bill Moyers latest episode. He interviews an insider of an insurance company. A very high up insider. Someone who believed in what he was doing up until very recently. If this doesn't bring you to your senses, nothing will. This should
REALLY PISS YOU OFF!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.htmlOK Merc, you REALLY need to go watch Bill Moyers latest episode. He interviews an insider of an insurance company. A very high up insider. Someone who believed in what he was doing up until very recently. If this doesn't bring you to your senses, nothing will. This should REALLY PISS YOU OFF!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
I don't support insurance companines. I have been an insider in this system for over 30 years.
WTF then? What DO you support? I am really confused now.
WTF then? What DO you support? I am really confused now.
I don't support insuance companies that is for sure. I don't support taxing only one segment of our society to pay for free health care to those who don't generally pay income taxes. I don't support creating a system where the federal government is going to encourage companies to dump their benefits and force people to flood an government plan.
I do support a system that will provide affordable health insurance to the under/un insured. I support lots of change.
I don't support the current plans of how they are going to pay for it.
I would support any plan where every single person who earns any amount of money pays into the plan. For example if you set an amount of 4%, every single person will pay 4% of all income into the plan. You make $1000 a month you pay 4%. You make 1million a month, you pay 4%. I do not support free health care for anyone but very few members of our society.
I do support a system that will provide affordable health insurance to the under/un insured.
...
I would support any plan where every single person who earns any amount of money pays into the plan. For example if you set an amount of 4%, every single person will pay 4% of all income into the plan. You make $1000 a month you pay 4%. You make 1million a month, you pay 4%.
But that's where the math doesn't add up. 4% of everyone's income is not enough to pay for the overall costs of healthcare. Not counting any other medical costs, my one child's occupational therapy costs more than 10% of our annual income (that includes the portion that insurance currently pays, because in your scenario this money is paying for 100% of people's healthcare.) And relatively speaking, we're pretty high on the income scale, considering the number of people who make significantly less than we do.
When you raise the flat rate high enough to actually cover what healthcare costs, it is by definition no longer affordable for the poor. Everyone may pay into the plan, but it will have to be a sliding percentage or the books will never balance.
Any insurance provided by the government will be provided by an insurance company. You do understand that part, right? Just like Medicaid is now.
Medicaid is run by the Federal and state governments. Some states subcontract to private companies.
Medicare offers the option to go to a private insurance company, if available.
I don't know how the new plan will work, but it doesn't seem to be the case at present that "Any insurance provided by the government [is] provided by an insurance company."
Medicaid is run by the Federal and state governments. Some states subcontract to private companies. Medicare offers the option to go to a private insurance company, if available.
I don't know how the new plan will work, but it doesn't seem to be the case at present that "Any insurance provided by the government [is] provided by an insurance company."
I have worked in 9 states. Everyone of them use a contracted insurance company to execute the plans. Those insurance companies are making millions off of your tax dollars now. And they will mak billions under any of the Demoncratic plans on the table now.
So exactly which members of society do you support having free health care Merc?
But that's where the math doesn't add up. 4% of everyone's income is not enough to pay for the overall costs of healthcare. Not counting any other medical costs, my one child's occupational therapy costs more than 10% of our annual income (that includes the portion that insurance currently pays, because in your scenario this money is paying for 100% of people's healthcare.) And relatively speaking, we're pretty high on the income scale, considering the number of people who make significantly less than we do.
When you raise the flat rate high enough to actually cover what healthcare costs, it is by definition no longer affordable for the poor. Everyone may pay into the plan, but it will have to be a sliding percentage or the books will never balance.
I used 4% because that is the number that was floating around in Congress. I understand your costs and I understand that the math will not add up. How come no one in Congress hears that? Because they plan to shift services. Some of those services you get now may not be available to those on the National Plan. I have no idea. To date there are still very little details other than the various general plans floating around. As we have seen from the last few major bills that have been pushed through I doubt we will actually see any details until it is voted on and passed.
So exactly which members of society do you support having free health care Merc?
The Severely disabled. We need much better mental health services and need to stop using the prisons for dumping grounds for the mentally ill. Every single swinging person that can walk and talk should work for their benefits.
And there you have it. These fucks don't care what gets done, only that it gets done. The American public will get just what they think they want.
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.
“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”
Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.kYDWV9ercFor anyone who cares here are more details of how the Dems are going to Rahm through your health care future.
“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small business owners,” the Washington-based group’s president, Thomas Donohue, said in a statement. “Since when does our great free-market country punish success?”
Awaiting Cost Estimate
Lawmakers are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to determine how much the bill will cost. The nonpartisan agency said in a partial and preliminary analysis today that the plan would run to more than $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce the number of uninsured by roughly 37 million. The agency said that by 2019 some 17 million people -- about half of them illegal immigrants -- would lack coverage.
Eventually, the House and Senate must craft a compromise measure, and conservative lawmakers in both chambers have balked at taxes outside the health-care system.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUVZeh_GVBYMI wonder when they are going to start to have auto dealers and auto repair shops start to pay for our auto insurance...
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.htmlI don't have a problem with people making over a million dollars a year being taxed to help pay for it.
I don't believe Obama will support something that will end up hurting small business owners.
If republicans won't get on board and offer any REAL solutions, the dems have no recourse than to do it without them. And I would rather have the dems do it on their own than have it watered down by republicans who won't vote for it anyway.
I am a small business owner. He is going to attack my profits.
[COLOR="Red"]57 cents of every dollar earned would go to the government!?!?!?[/COLOR]
Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.
New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htmAs I stated. They are going to bankrupt this country....
Budget umpire: Health care bills would raise costs
Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — "the curve is being raised."
Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99FQJL80Massachusetts has been held out as an example of what the greater country is striving to achieve. About 3 or 4 years ago they inacted a health program that will cover up to 97% of their citizens. As in the proposed national plan, they have made having health insurance mandatory, through business or personal means, with incomes up to about 66k being subsidized to some means through taxes. The problem is they are about to bankrupt the process and are straining the budget to near busting. Why? they can't control costs. So now they are looking at a new (not so new) solution. I can see that this is where we may all end up at the national level.
Mass. Panel Backs Radical Shift in Health Payment
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/health/policy/17masshealth.html?ref=health
After that we will need to have some form of care rationing. This is the best proposal out there but it will need to happen if we are going to make this work. It is a solution we may all need to get use to for our future. A radical change from a country based on free choice and cafe health care:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?ref=magazineWow. This is incredible...
O'S BROKEN PROMISES
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. [email]betsy@hospitalinfection.org[/email]
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F07172009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fos_broken_promises_179667.htm[COLOR="Red"]57 cents of every dollar earned would go to the government!?!?!?[/COLOR]
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm
Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...
They need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.
Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...
State taxes differ, you should know that.
I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...
State taxes differ, you should know that.
:rolleyes:
the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying
State taxes differ, you should know that.
And as Happy Monkey pointed out,
I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p
the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying
It is an accurate description of merc's position though.
Obama: Top Income Earners are just Lucky
July 17, 10:02 AM · Rick Robbins - Louisville Economic Policy Examiner
In an interview with CBS News, President Barack Obama noted that increasing taxes on the wealthy is a ‘good idea’ when it comes to finding a way to pay for his proposal to nationalize the healthcare industry. As noted in my previous article, increasing taxes is nothing new for Obama or any other Democrat – it is simply what they do. However, it was somewhat disturbing to hear how Obama described the wealthy. Here are a couple of statements from his interview:
I think the best way to fund it is for people like myself, who have been very lucky and are in the top -- not just 1 percent, but top half percent -- of the income ladder to pay a little bit more.
The general notion that those of us who are the best off can pay a little bit more upfront to help reform a system that will save us money over the long term, I think that's a good idea.
First off, the latter statement is certainly reminiscent of Obama’s ‘spread the wealth around’ comment that he made to Joe the Plumber during the presidential campaign. Of course in this case he is saying that the wealthy should pay more so that the poor will save money. But as the CBO has just reported, there is no guarantee that the current healthcare reform proposals will do anything to actually save money and are more likely to increase costs instead.
Obama’s first statements were much more disturbing though. He implies that wealthy people, like himself, have merely been ‘lucky’ to achieve their status in life. Perhaps that is true in Obama’s case - who used the Chicago political machine to advance his career, used his career and Senatorial earmarks to advance his wife’s career and get her a $200,000 pay raise and used his racist reverend to develop the title of one of his best-selling books. Being lucky and/or having the right connections seems to have benefited Obama quite nicely.
However, most wealthy people are not just lucky. Instead they are hard-working and/or brilliant entrepreneurs, creative and/or persistent salespeople, dedicated former students who were able to graduate from the best universities, researchers who develop products that enhance all of our lives and a countless number of small-business owners. Sure there are some people in the upper tax brackets who are just lucky like heirs to mass fortunes like those in the Kennedy family, lottery winners and actors. But a survey of the wealthiest Americans would certainly find more people who achieved their status by working for it than those who got there just by luck.
That does not seem to matter to Obama and the Democrats though – mainly because they view our money as their (as in the government’s) money. Therefore, Obama proposes to spread that wealth, to level the playing field and to make the ‘lucky’ feel a little bit unluckier. Obviously by now we have all figured out that Obama knows very little about economic theory but once again here he seems to be forgetting a very core principle of a capitalistic society – incentives matter.
All of the ‘unlucky’ wealthy people I mentioned above had an incentive to get where they are today. Certainly one of those incentives was the accumulation of wealth to provide financial security for themselves and their future generations. Currently that incentive is still fairly strong because the top combined federal and state income tax rates are under 50% in all states. However, if Obama and the Democrats get their way, in over 30 states the combined top tax rate will be over 50%.
The psychological impact of knowing one will get to keep less than half of what he/she earns would have to be very disheartening and very discouraging. As a result, people will work less hard, be less creative and lack the dedication they once had. And for the small business owners, some of them will be unable to employ more or maintain current levels of workers, and some may even be forced to go out of business entirely. There is a major cost in raising taxes just as there is a major benefit in lowering them – as Reagan showed us in the 1980s.
Maybe we will all get lucky and Obama and the Democrats will not ram these tax increases down the throats of the American people like they did their massive stimulus bill and budget plan. However, there is really nothing that can be done to stop them because they currently have the votes. Only public opinion against these plans may cause them to change their views, but the Democrats seem to have figured out that they have only until November 2010 to push through most of their high spending and high taxing agenda. They may suffer at the polls in the coming elections for advancing their socialistic agenda, but Americans will suffer for generations to come as a result of their actions.
Rick Robbins
http://www.examiner.com/x-6996-Louisville-Economic-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Obama--Top-Income-Earners-are-just-LuckyThey need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.
That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.
And as Happy Monkey pointed out, I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p
You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.
You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.
I didn't say state taxes didn't matter, I said they had nothing to do with the federal government or with federal taxes. If a state govt. raises taxes to balance their budget, that is a STATE ISSUE, and the federal government has no say in the matter, as far as I now. So you can't blame that on Obama. New York has apparently raised all kinds of taxes on their citizens, and other states probably are not far behind.
That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.
If someone is only making minimum wage, they cannot afford to pay for insurance, so it falls on everyone else. I am going to state, yet again, my opinion about such things:
IF CORPORATIONS WERE FORCED TO PAY AN
ACTUAL LIVING WAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE FORCED TO PLAY FAIR BY THE RULES, PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE AND HEALTH CARE. Cut the wages from the top and raise the ones at the bottom, then make insurance mandatory. At the same time, cut costs that are ridiculous.
Another problem is some people get better rates because they get to buy "in bulk" so to speak, as a part of something, like a corporation or a union. I say the cost should be the exact same for everyone. No more discount buying. This (price) is what it is for whoever wants this plan. Period. That should help make it more affordable for some people.
The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want
affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim. After all, that is what you are paying for, and it's just WRONG that insurance companies get away with denying claims for people after they have been paying for years. And, then those "profits" from not paying those claims goes into the pockets of sharefholders.
Personally, I don't think the system will ever be fixed the way it is now. Health care should NOT be about PROFIT. As long as it is, we will continue having problems. THAT is why I support a single-payer system. (not necessarily government run, government pays for it)
The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim.
From what I hear, this aspect may be improved. I think it will be harder for them to drop people, but we'll have to wait until the final version comes out of the joint committee.
I didn't say state taxes didn't matter, I said they had nothing to do with the federal government or with federal taxes. If a state govt. raises taxes to balance their budget, that is a STATE ISSUE, and the federal government has no say in the matter, as far as I now. So you can't blame that on Obama. New York has apparently raised all kinds of taxes on their citizens, and other states probably are not far behind.
So wait, you are giving Obama a pass because NY state already has high taxes, and now that Obama is raising them that is not Obama's (Demoncrats) problem? WTF? Higher taxes is higher taxes for everyone, those in high tax states will be penalized more as more of their income goes to pay for those who don't. That is BS.
...but we'll have to wait until the final version comes out of the joint committee.
That much is certainly true.
I'm not really happy the insurance industry is having so much influence on the bill. Or big pharma.
Had a funny conversation with my dad today. For the last 6 months he's taken every opportunity to turn the most tenuous of unrelated subjects into "well, if you think X is bad, just wait until the government is running your healthcare."
I generally don't rise to the bait, because he's my father and I know it's pointless. But today, the topic meandered into how he is self-employed and chooses not to have medical insurance at all, and I pointed out that there are people who don't have that option because they have a chronic medical condition which is by definition more expensive than any plan could ever be, and he said, "Exactly, and the government thinks they're going to make me pay for it! I'm going to have to pay for the other people--"
"Yes, that's what insurance is, Dad."
"--like people with AIDS, there's an expensive disease, their medication costs $4000 a month, can you even imagine it? That's what they want me to pay for!"
"Well, yes, I can imagine it, Dad. That's about what ABA therapy costs."
"What? You're not paying that much, are you?"
"No, because we can't afford it." (Technically, our insurance did just start covering it, and our kid isn't a good candidate for it anyway, but that's not the point and I didn't mention that to him. :)) "I was just pointing out, the government doesn't just want to help the guy with AIDS, they want to help your grandson get therapy, too."
"Well..." [abrupt change of topic.]
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the country.
--Robert Duvall in
The Handmaid's TaleOk, this is rich. Who does he think is going to do the work and does he think they are going to work for free? :lol:
Budget chief: Docs fees not paid for in Obama bill
Jul 21 04:14 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior administration official says billions of dollars to raise fees for doctors treating Medicare patients are not covered by President Barack Obama's pledge to pay for health care legislation.
Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday that's because the administration always assumed the money would be spent to prevent a cut of more than 20 percent in doctor fees.
The Congressional Budget Office said last Friday the higher payments cost $245 billion over 10 years. It said including the money in the overall bill would result in deficits totaling $239 billion.
On Friday, a few hours earlier, the president declared: "I've said that health-insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it."
Ok, now it is becoming worisome that this guy has no frigging clue about what he is doing with health care....
Maybe everyone is not so happy...
Cardin Town Hall Meeting On Health Care Gets Angry
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=88729Matt Miller in the
NYT-
An alternative strategy for Congress would be the new “fitness club” model offered by some doctors, in which members pay $65 a month for same-day or next-day access to primary care services. This would involve no insurance companies, so it would save administrative expenses.
We could then pair one of these primary care plans with high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic care, but limit total annual out-of-pocket payments to, say, 15 percent of family income. For a member of Congress whose family had no other income, that limit would be $26,000. If this kind of plan were extended to other Americans, a family earning $25,000 a year would have a limit of $3,750.
This kind of hybrid plan would honor the values of both parties even as it cut the cost of covering each politician by perhaps one-third. It would give members the incentive to shop for less expensive health services, thus encouraging doctors and other providers to compete to offer better value. At the same time, members would know they are protected in the event of a costly illness. Those who wanted greater coverage could pay for it out of their own pocket.
This is interesting stuff and a damn site simpler than many of the ideas being floated.
An interesting opinion piece in the local paper.
Sawyer: Canadians visit Maine for care
W. Tom Sawyer Jr. | Saturday, July 18, 2009 at 12:30 am
Contextual linking provided by Topix As a former Maine state senator, former mayor of Bangor, a small business owner who provided health insurance for our employees and their families, a past board member of Maine Blue Cross & Blue Shield, and a current corporator for Eastern Maine Medical Center, I've spent a lot of time discussing health care and government's role in its delivery.
As Congress debates implementing a "public option," I can't help but wonder where Americans will go.
In Maine, our health care facilities are frequented by many Canadians who cross the border to access our responsive and more advanced health care delivery system.
Consider a few statistics:
-- The breast cancer mortality rate in Canada is 9 percent higher than in America.
-- The prostate cancer mortality rate is 184 percent higher.
-- The colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher.
Despite promises, the truth is that preventative medicine suffers under socialized medicine. For example, nine in 10 middle-aged American women like my wife, two adult daughters and my mother have all had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-quarters of Canadians.
Nearly all American women have had a pap smear compared to only one in six Canadians. Nearly one-third of all Americans have had colonoscopies compared to fewer than one in 20 in Canada.
While the prep drink the night before is awful, my three procedures since turning 50 have helped keep me well and alive. Thanks to annual testing, early detection and timely treatment, my 88-year-old father, two uncles and best friend all remain prostate cancer survivors.
Waiting time also increases under socialized medicine due to Rationing. Currently, 827,000 people are waiting for some kind of medical procedure in Canada. It would appear Canadians enjoy greater "access" than Americans - "access to a waiting list" that can take months of utter terror awaiting the actual medical procedure.
I was able to detect, biopsy and have surgically removed a cancerous facial melanoma in only four months seeing physicians in Maine and Georgia last winter.
Americans also have better access to new technologies than patients in Canada. An overwhelming majority of American physicians identified CT scans and MRI's as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The U.S. has 34 CT scanners per every million Americans compared to only 12 scanners in Canada and 27 MRI machines per million compared to six machines across the border.
I understand Bangor has more MRI machines than the entire province of New Brunswick, our Canadian neighbor.
If Canadians are forced across the border to seek the quality care they need to treat often preventable diseases, where would Americans go if we are stuck with socialized medicine? Mexico? I don't think so.
Most of my Maine neighbors oppose a Canadian-style, nationalized health care system. Once all Americans have a better opportunity to fairly compare the pros and cons, I expect we'll all want to avoid painfully long waits for medical procedures, lack of access to tests and equipment, and having some bureaucrat "solve" our medical needs.
Our current system is expensive and demands strategic changes to high drug costs for instance, but it's the best system in the world.
I urge Congress to take a long, hard, look at Canadian and European health care systems before making any substantial changes to our existing world class system. The law of untended consequences, based on my own experience with public policy, is too great a threat.
W. Tom Sawyer Jr. lives in Richmond Hill during the winter and in Maine during the summer.
http://savannahnow.com/node/754347 The prostate cancer mortality rate is 184 percent higher.
That's just because Canadian men won't let anyone mess around down there. They're proud like that. :lol:
eta: or, it could be a thousand other contributing factors as alluded to in my joking point.
The Obama administration is not looking out for you, but they are looking out for the drug companies as they change health care.
PhRMA, which represents the nation's drug companies, said it had taken part in two meetings with senior White House officials in the Roosevelt Room. Participants, according to Tauzin, included White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, along with the CEOs of some major drug companies. Both meetings were closed to the public.
In an interview, Tauzin said most of the "real negotiations" took place with the Senate Finance Committee. At its meetings with the White House, the drug industry reported on progress made with the Senate and got a briefing from Obama officials "about how they saw" healthcare reform unfolding, Tauzin said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,7434392.storyJohn defines this perfectly.
July 22, 2009
Arrogance
By John Stossel
It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August.
Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, "to reinvent the nation's health care system".
Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.
Politicians and bureaucrats clearly have no idea how complicated markets are. Every day people make countless tradeoffs, in all areas of life, based on subjective value judgments and personal information as they delicately balance their interests, needs and wants. Who is in a better position than they to tailor those choices to best serve their purposes? Yet the politicians believe they can plan the medical market the way you plan a birthday party.
Leave aside how much power the state would have to exercise over us to run the medical system. Suffice it say that if government attempts to control our total medical spending, sooner or later, it will have to control us.
Also leave aside the inevitable huge cost of any such program. The administration estimates $1.5 trillion over 10 years with no increase in the deficit. But no one should take that seriously. When it comes to projecting future costs, these guys may as well be reading chicken entrails. In 1965, hospitalization coverage under Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual price tag was $66 billion.
The sober Congressional Budget Office debunked the reformers' cost projections. Trust us, Obama says. "At the end of the day, we'll have significant cost controls," presidential adviser David Axelrod said. Give me a break.
Now focus on the spectacle of that handful of men and women daring to think they can design the medical marketplace. They would empower an even smaller group to determine -- for millions of diverse Americans -- which medical treatments are worthy and at what price.
How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies -- putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.
Will the American people say "Enough!"?
continues:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.htmlWill the American people say "Enough!"?
We did. That's why we're reforming the system.
We did. That's why we're reforming the system.
:lol2: yea, you keep believing that...
Reform like having secret meetings with the wolf guarding the hen house?
It didn't help the White House when the Congressional Budget Office last week said the bills moving through Congress would add to the nation's long-term costs, not reduce them. Obama has been emphatic that he will not sign a bill that adds to the government's deficit.
Meanwhile, unemployment is at 9.5 percent and rising.
Talk of Obama inheriting an economic mess from George W. Bush is fading, and the American public is now grading the new president. His approval rating on handling the economy has been slipping as impatience grows.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obamaReform like having secret meetings with the wolf guarding the hen house?
Secret meetingsSecret meetings
I never saw anything like that for Cheney's meetings with the energy industry.:headshake
We didn't believe in reform back then. :lol:
Obama is going to end up with a "meet the new boss" problem. He needs to be better than the previous criminals.
Democracy Now!
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, didn’t the President actually make a big issue of this during his campaign, actually saying—I think it was on his website even, his campaign website—that the White House is the people’s house and the people have a right to know who visits?
MELANIE SLOAN: Yes, he did. And, in fact, transparency has been sort of a totem of this administration, at least that’s what they claimed. But then we’re finding the actual transparency is a little disappointing.
And, of course, they’re release these names last night, because they want to avoid the distraction at the President’s press conference on healthcare.
But we have another Freedom of Information Act request and a lawsuit outstanding for the information regarding coal executives’ visits to the White House. And the White House has not responded to that.
Also, there is another case—two cases that we have before the Court of Appeals regarding Secret Service visitor records. These cases were started under the Bush administration for visits by Christian conservative leaders to the White House and also by a lobbyist named Stephen Payne. Courts previously held that the Secret Service had to provide that information. That case is going up on appeal, and so far the Obama administration is taking the exact same position that the Bush administration took, claming these records are presidential records, not federal records, and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.Secret meetings
Fail. In a big way...
CREW said in a statement that Craig's letter "in no way" fulfills the group's request, which was for the visitor logs themselves.
"Releasing some records because it is politically expedient to do so is not transparency," the group said.
And so, the Democrats continue to demonstrate why sensible guys like me don't vote for Democrats. To be continued... no end in sight...
And so, the Democrats continue to demonstrate why sensible guys like me don't vote for Democrats. To be continued... no end in sight...
On the issue of transparency:
[INDENT]On the release of the names of participants in WH meetngs, Obama released the names w/o stalling until a court order...a reversal of Bush policy. While I would have hoped for full compliance with the FOIA request, there are issues of executive privilege regarding WH documents that deserve further court review...releasing names is not one of those issues.
On the issue of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests in general, the Obama directive is a reversal of the Bush directive....with a presumption of releasing information (unless there are serious and not contrived national security issues), rather than withholding information.
On the issue of
signing statements, the Obama directives identifies the limited circumstances when such statements will be used...another reversal of the Bush policy. Bush used signing statements to circumvent enacted legislative intent more than twice all previous presidents combined.
On Congressional transparency, the Democratic ethics/lobbyng/earmark reform enacted when they assumed the majority goes farther than anything enacted by the previous Republican majority. I would like to have seen stronger reform, but in comparison to pre-2007, it is a vast improvement.
Most recently,
Pelosi's directive for all House members to post all staff and office -related expenses on-line was an action the previous Speaker refused to implement.[/INDENT]
While all the above may not go far enough for some (including me), in every case, there is greater transparency in both the executive branch and the legislature than the previous Republican president and Congress...an indisputable fact.
UG....I'm curious why you think that is bad or why sensible people should not support such greater transparency in government?
added:
UG...I forgot the
DOJ issues and your laughable attempt to rebut. Official findings in four or five cases of illegal, improper or unethical acts by the Bush DOJ....and the best you could come up with in your last best response was books by Rush Limbaugh's brother and Brent Bozell, with unattributed allegations and the standard partisan gibberish?
A trial lawyer power grab that may unleash a flood of Medicare lawsuits.
Just before the House leadership's 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment--but don't be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.
The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants. In the simplest scenario, Medicare has paid the bills of someone injured in, say, a car accident, and then learns that the beneficiary has successfully sued and obtained damages from the other driver. Sometimes at this point Medicare (i.e., the government) demands that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement toward the cost of the health care. Under some conditions, however, it is also free to file its own lawsuit to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up covering the same medical bills twice). It might file suit directly if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.
For some time now, the federal government has been stepping up its pursuit of money from these defendants. The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government--without asking permission--and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a "qui tam" procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
It gets worse. Language in the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on "any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means." This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a "statistical" sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury.
A few other highlights of the provision:
--It would knock out a significant current barrier to litigation by doing away with a rule that restricts the filing of a Medicare suit until after a previous "judgment," that is to say, after the success of an earlier lawsuit establishing responsibility for the injury.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/medicare-republicans-reform-bill-opinions-contributors-walter-olson.htmlMore evidence of a non-transparent Obama Administration:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090725/D99LCTJO0.htmlWWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......
While Americans worry over government insurance plans, longer waits for treatment, and "healthcare rationing," a more sinister agenda lurks in the shadows of the healthcare bill now before the House of Representatives. Today's Medicare recipients could be the first to experience our government's new solution to America's "useless eaters."
Section 1233 of HR 3200, the healthcare reform measure under consideration, mandates "Advance Care Planning Consultation." Under the proposal, all senior citizens receiving government medical care would be required to undergo these counseling sessions every five years. Further reading of the law reveals that these sessions are nothing more than a not-so-veiled attempt to convince the elderly to forego treatment. HR 3200 calls outright for these compulsory consultations to recommend "palliative care and hospice." These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death. These are, of course, reasonable and beneficial options for terminally ill patients and their families.
But this legislation doesn't stop there. Section 1233 requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." But, under the terms of the section, the federal government can compel more frequent end-of-life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the Medicare recipient, a change that the bill does not confine to fatal illness, but which encompasses broad and abstract conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/useless_eaters.htmlAnother Blow to the money dump for health care:
For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.
A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.
But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.
WWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/useless_eaters.html
Why not just call it what the other wing nuts are calling it...Obama's Suicide Bill.
Here is the provision:
[INDENT]''Advance Care Planning Consultation
''(hhh) (1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
''(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
''(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable 19 powers of attorney, and their uses.
''(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
''(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
''(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
''(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
''(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
''(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
''(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
''(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
''(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
''(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
''(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
''(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
''(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
''(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
''(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
''(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
''(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
''(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
''(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination 21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
''(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
''(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
''(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an
actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
''(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
''(ii)
effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
''(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
'(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
''(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
''(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; ''(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
''(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
''(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.''.
[/INDENT]
[COLOR="Red"]
Please point out where it says[/COLOR] (or any section in the bill)..as you highlighted....
The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment..
Simply ignoring the subsection that states:
...effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
The
individual's preferences seems quite clear to me. I dont know how that translates into
"government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment."
What is wrong with providing consultation for advance care planning for the terminally ill?
Damn dude, do you really believe everything you read w/o even bothering to confirm its validity?
Get a grip, Merc. You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare) that might support you position only makes you look more ignorant of the facts and gives you less credibility than you already have, at least IMO.
Why did you leave out the rest of it? Maybe you aren't familar with the term
"actionable medical order".
`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.
(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.
(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
I really doubt that the government would ever get any provision passed that would begin to have a documented trail of withholding care, it will be done more quitely through rationing.
You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare)...
Ummm... that would be BS. Few links are partisan. Where is the transparency? Why the secret meetings with members of the industry? Why not just come out and tell everyone about them from the beginning? Why no normal trail of photo ops with the visits? Remember the Energy meetings with Cheney? What double standards... And you support this numbnut?
Why did you leave out the rest of it? Maybe you aren't familar with the term "actionable medical order".
What part of:
[INDENT]`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;[/INDENT]
dont you understand?
Like I said, really doubt that the government would ever get any provision passed that would begin to have a documented trail of withholding care, it will be done more quitely through rationing.
Ummm... that would be BS. Few links are partisan. Where is the transparency? Why the secret meetings with members of the industry? Why not just come out and tell everyone about them from the beginning? Why no normal trail of photo ops with the visits? Remember the Energy meetings with Cheney? What double standards... And you support this numbnut?
Hey,...IMO, you are obsessed and I thinks it amusing if not a little frightening.
Obama identified participants...Bush/Cheney did not. An indisputable fact.
I dont particularly want the press at every meeting. I want participants to be able to have open and honest discussions w/o it being misrepresented by many of the wing nut editorials you post.
Maybe you can defend the two consecutive CBO reports that state no money will be saved over the 10 year projection to make and save money.
How about the estimates that we still will not have covered the uninsured.
Obama identified participants...Bush/Cheney did not. An indisputable fact.
I dont particularly want the press at every meeting. I want participants to be able to have open and honest discussions w/o it being misrepresented by many of the wing nut editorials you post.
Well your guy fails big on that one. They only released the names after being threatened by a FOIA request and it was delayed. It is about what Obama is doing. He promised a change. Secret meetings are not part of that promise. What secret business deals do they have to hide?
In fact, the CBO staff also stated that their analysis excluded estimates of potential savings.
I have some problems with several of the proposals..but I dont judge a book after reading only one chapter and I dont make final judgments on draft legislation that is far from final.
And I certainly dont base my opinion on mischaracterizations by partisan editorials.
Well your guy fails big on that one. They only released the names after being threatened by a FOIA request and it was delayed. It is about what Obama is doing. He promised a change. Secret meetings are not part of that promise. What secret business deals do they have to hide?
Again..what part dont you understand.
Obama released the names....Bush did not. I know you cant or wont accept the difference.
I am for transparency as much as anyone, but I understand that it does not mean every minute of every discussion should be subject to press scrutiny. I hope it never comes to that.
Again..what part dont you understand.
Obama released the names....Bush did not. I know you cant or wont accept the difference.
I am for transparency as much as anyone, but I understand that it does mean every minute of every discussion should be subject to press scrutiny. I hope it never comes to that.
Again..what part dont you understand. It is not about what they finally have done after being pressed. What deals were made with the industry? Release the notes. Tell us what was discussed, what was the agenda, what were the topics. Show us the notes of the meetings. What do they have to hide?
In fact, the CBO staff also stated that their analysis excluded estimates of potential savings.
I have some problems with several of the proposals..but I dont judge a book after reading only one chapter and I dont make final judgments on draft legislation that is far from final.
And I certainly dont base my opinion on mischaracterizations by partisan editorials.
I never really considered the CBO to be a partisan editorial, but if that is how you see them, what ever.
The evidence is that there is as much of a possibility that we will go bankrupt under the proposal as there is that they don't know? What kind of forcast is that? So you are willing to take that chance with our economy in the shape it is in? You are willing to take a chance with our childrens future? I am not.
We are not reading one chapter, we are reading the elements that need effective change. Not a the typical Demoncratic Rahm Rod and Pelosi push without adequate public comment and opportunity to have input and effective change in the Bill.
I'll just wait for your next string of "snips and posts" to find out about the deals.
You're guys in the media seem to have all the facts. :eek:
I never really considered the CBO to be a partisan editorial, but if that is how you see them, what ever.
Neither do I, but I also consider what they said that they did not include in their analysis...the potential savings.
Ahh...the 'whatever" defense again.
I guess that means we're done with this go round.
I'll just wait for your next string of "snips and posts" to find out about the deals.
You're guys in the media seem to have all the facts. :eek:
"You're" Guys?
We will never know about any deals unless Obamy and his Demoncratic cronies tell us. Will we?
Looking forward to the "snips of the day" that tell me the government is planning to take over my life. ;)
I'll just wait for your next string of "snips and posts" to find out about the deals.
You're guys in the media seem to have all the facts. :eek:
So you can't defend the estimates? You are ok with them bankrupting us? Ok.
Looking forward to the "snips of the day" that tell me the government is planning to take over my life. ;)
You can let them take over your life if you want. You have free choice in that much.
More ideas about care for the elderly. I am not sure that I completely disagree with some of it. It is the only way that the system as proposed may survive. This actually refers to an earlier post I made on the issue.
NCPA: White House (advisor) Has Ideas On How To Ration Health Care
July 22, 2009
Presidential Health Advisor's Writings Support Less Care for the Elderly
DALLAS, TX (July 22, 2009) - On the cusp of President Obama's news conference tonight, the National Center for Policy Analysis points to evidence that the President's health care reform plan may result in denying care to a significant number of Americans, especially the elderly.
"Clearly the Administration does not consider doctors the best judges of the type of health care people need," said NCPA President John C. Goodman. "The obvious end game: Washington will tell doctors how to practice medicine and dictate what kind of health care patients receive." Goodman's full statement appears in an entry he posted today on this subject at his health policy blog.
The NCPA cites two scholarly articles in which the President's health advisor Ezekiel Emanuel outlined how health care rationing could be carried out. Emanuel, special advisor for health policy to the director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, says young adults should be given preference over seniors because younger people have more years of life ahead of them. He also says that young adults should be given preferential care over very young children because society already has made an investment in their education.
In the medical journal The Lancet, Emanuel writes that if health care has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people....Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
In a different article written more than 10 years ago for the Hastings Center Report, Emanuel said health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." Emanuel wrote, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
As a part of a better solution to health reform, the NCPA is taking an active role in promoting consumer-driven health care options by supporting a national petition drive to educate citizens.
The "Free Our Health Care Now" petition has already been signed by over 620,000 people opposed to a government nationalization of our health care system:
http://freeourhealthcarenow.com/
http://www.ncpa.org/media/ncpa-white-house-has-ideas-on-how-to-ration-health-careMerc...I ask this in all sincerity
Why do you think other members would be inclined to engage you on the issue when for the most part, all you do is snip and post, and mostly from partisan editorials and sites (the ncpa being the latest)...day after day...hour after hour?
To others...is it just me? Am I missing a reason to continue to discuss the issue with Merc, given they style of discussion (?) that is presented.
Is it worth responding to every snip and post when all you get in response is dodging and weaving?
Merc...I ask this in all sincerity
Why do you think other members would be inclined to engage you on the issue when for the most part, all you do is snip and post, and mostly from partisan editorials and sites (the ncpa being the latest)...day after day...hour after hour?
Your opinion on the issue is not really important to me. What you state is opinion. You are a partisan hack of the Obamy Administration and the Demoncrats. I am interested in the details of this reform process that is most likely going to come one way or another. It is very important that we keep an eye on the process and details. I am interested in exposing the double standards that the Demoncrats in Congress have shown in the last 2 years, and most importantly in the last 7 months. And if no one else is interested that is ok, but be careful what you wish for because once the deal is done by Congress it is pretty much what you have to live with. The devil is in the details on this issue and very few are looking at those details. This is another Rahm it through and Pelosi Push with very little chance for input by anyone other than the Demoncrats special interest groups and the deals they may have made behind closed doors in the White House. Who knows because they are covering up the details of those discussions. I fully support an overhaul of the system but not on the terms of any one party with a grip on power, be it Demoncrats or Republickins.
House Democrat’s Health Care Reform Bill Is a 1,018-Page Nightmare
Goodman: Bill Contains All the Bad Ideas from Previous Versions
DALLAS, TX (July 15, 2009) – The Democrats’ health care reform bill under consideration in the
House of Representatives creates a new government-run health plan that will undercut the private
market and force as many as 119 million people to lose their private health insurance and be forced into
a Medicare-like plan, according to National Center for Policy Analysis President John C. Goodman.
“Americans who desperately need health care relief won’t get it in this bill,” said Goodman.” This
legislation is going to create a financial and medical nightmare for Americans. Of course, members of
Congress will be able to hold on to their Cadillac health care plans because this reform won’t apply to
them,” he added.
The bill, which could reach the floor as early as next week, requires employers to pay the
government for health reform – either by purchasing government-approved insurance for their
employees, or (more likely) by paying a tax and sending their employees over to the government-run
Medicare-like plan.
“This bill has ALL the bad ideas from previous versions, plus a cost of one trillion dollars, and NO
long-term solutions that will control costs or improve quality,” added Goodman. “This bill contains
1,018 pages of new regulations that will REQUIRE you to buy as much health insurance as the
government mandates, even before you buy groceries, gas, or pay your rent. If you don’t buy
government-approved insurance, you will be taxed.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/71509NewHCBill.pdf
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research
organization established to develop alternatives to government regulation by relying on the private
sector.Which Dem crafted this language? I bet it was Pelosi... :lol:
The proposed health-insurance bill from the House of Representatives refers to mentally disabled people as "retarded" -- a term advocates, relatives and physicians find outdated and offensive.
The bill refers to: "A hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate-care facility for the mentally retarded . . ."
The phrase could cause more problems with groups for the developmentally disabled, who were angered when President Obama referred to his poor bowling skills on "The Tonight Show" as "like the Special Olympics." Obama later apologized.
all over the news and this from the NYPost.
To others...is it just me? Am I missing a reason to continue to discuss the issue with Merc, given they style of discussion (?) that is presented.
Is it worth responding to every snip and post when all you get in response is dodging and weaving?
Perhaps you may find your answer in the fact that no one else has bothered to participate in the last 28 posts. ;)
You should visit the other parts of the Cellar outside of Politics, Redux. You'll find lots more entertainment and less frustration.
:lol:
I was just scrolling past the last dozen posts or so and landed on this. Too true.
DALLAS, TX (July 1, 2009) - The proposal by Congress and the Obama Administration to impose excise taxes on soft drinks and increase them on alcohol to fund health care reform and energy technology development won't accomplish their goal of changing unhealthy behavior or increasing revenue, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis. Instead, according to the NCPA report, it will inflict a burden on the poor.
"Although there are claims that excise taxes are more efficient than other taxes, the evidence shows that these taxes are often ineffective, inefficient and unfair," said Sean Shurtleff, NCPA Policy Analyst and author of the report. "Low income families spend more of their money on products subject to excise taxes than higher income families, making excise taxes very regressive."
Proponents of an estimated tax of 3 cents per 12 ounces on soft drinks believe the tax will eventually discourage people from consuming them. Unfortunately, excise taxes fail to produce the desired behavioral changes, as peoples' consumption is relatively insensitive to price changes, and people are generally reluctant to give up certain products, including soft drinks and junk food, Shurtleff points out.
On the other hand, if the price of a product rises high enough to discourage consumption, an excise tax hike will not produce the expected revenue increase to fund health care and energy programs. Instead of consuming the products that have been taxed, people may begin substituting less expensive products for them. For instance, soda drinkers may turn to cheaper sugary drinks, Shurtleff found.
"There is little if any benefit that will come from imposing excise taxes on various products," said Shurtleff. "In fact, it will be a disadvantage to the poor who spend a larger portion of their income on the very products that may be taxed. A better approach is to balance the budget and reallocate resources from other programs toward priorities like health care and energy development."
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18152Your opinion on the issue is not really important to me. What you state is opinion. You are a partisan hack of the Obamy Administration and the Demoncrats. I am interested in the details of this reform process that is most likely going to come one way or another.....
If you honestly believed that, you would expose the partisan hacks on the right as well, rather than snip and post them and highlight portions of those snips that has no basis in fact.
Consider the
recent example I called you out on:
[INDENT]T
he bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.[/INDENT]
There is no such provision in the House bill.
You dont want an honest debate.
You want to troll with your never ending snips and pastes, with little regard to the accuracy and/or context of those snips.
And you simply want to attack Obama and the Democrats, which is your right.
Perhaps it gives you pleasure or, in your own mind, you score a point....whether its to bitch about the cost of a night in NY for the president, accusing a newly elected senator of being a pedophile (WTF was that all about?) or trivializing the discussion(s) at every opportunity.
Perhaps you may find your answer in the fact that no one else has bothered to participate in the last 28 posts. ;)
You should visit the other parts of the Cellar outside of Politics, Redux. You'll find lots more entertainment and less frustration.
I think you're right...it is time for me to wander around the Cellar more.....and limit poking Merc with a stick to the occasions when his snips contain bullshit that is so thick it permeates beyond the walls of the politics forum and wreaks throughout the Cellar....like the example above.
But its so easy to debunk him on those occasions, its not very challenging any more.
On the other hand, I still enjoy engaging the Urbane Guerilla. Now there is a challenge!
With all the utter madness that I read in his posts, at least UG expresses himself in his own words, often in a very creative (albeit not factual) manner. He's an original and not a parrot for every wing nut editorial writer or blogger that one encounters with Merc's ceaseless snips.
You dont want an honest debate.
But yet you refuse to defend him. And so far you have debunked nothing.
The Repulickins are not in charge. The Demoncrats are the ones in charge and they are the ones with the power. Most of what the Repubs are saying at this point are really insignificant.
But yet you refuse to defend him. And so far you have debunked nothing.
I made my point.
Any dwellers who care to follow the crazy ass threads with your multiple snips and pastes, with little or no thoughts of your own, other than snarky and inane one line comments (I would hardly call them discussions in most instances), can decide for themselves.
I made my point.
Any dwellers who care to follow the crazy ass threads with your multiple snips and pastes, with little or no thoughts of your own (I can hardly call them discussions in most instances), can decide for themselves.
So you refuse to defend his practices or those of the Demoncrats? that speaks volumes as to your intentions and confirms you to me nothing more than a political hack, as I mentioned earlier. What are you Demoncrats afraid of?
Looks like Obamy and the Dems maybe playing an end around on the deals they made behind closed doors in the White House.
All these actions -- the White House meetings, the strung-out negotiations, the muzzling -- have been taken with one aim: To buy silence. President Barack Obama is committed to a public option. Liberal Democrats intend to make the private sector fund their plans. They figure by the time they drop a bill that contains odious elements, it'll be too late for any industry player -- big or small -- to cut a Harry & Louise ad.
Industry players this week got a glimpse of how they will be treated. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman dismissed the $80 billion drug deal, claiming it did not have House support, and moreover that the White House "told us they're not bound to that agreement."
Mr. Waxman detailed his own demands, which, needless to say, made $80 billion look piddling. The Obama administration is already backing off the pharma and hospital deals. An anonymous White House official claimed this week that neither were set in stone, and, for the record, had been inked solely with Mr. Baucus. That's the same Mr. Baucus who has been losing clout with each day this process goes on.
The question is just how long it is going to take for America's health-care CEOs to realize they are being taken for a ride, both by Congress and their own lobbyists. Americans are wary enough about ObamaCare to maybe appreciate some straight talk from corporate America. If only corporate America can find the smarts to give it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718217595120225.htmlSo you refuse to defend his practices or those of the Demoncrats? that speaks volumes as to your intentions and confirms you to me nothing more than a political hack, as I mentioned earlier. What are you Demoncrats afraid of?
I said on more than one occasion....any time you to cease with the partisan snips and pastes and actually offer your own thoughts and opinions, I'll be ready. ;)
And every time, you turned me down. I understand, its just not your style to "discuss" on a discussion board. You would rather troll (by most forum standards, snipping and pasting w/o commentary is trolling).
I said on more than one occasion....any time you to cease with the partisan snips and pastes and actually offer your own thoughts and opinions, I'll be ready. ;)
And every time, you turned me down. I understand, its just not your style to "discuss" on a discussion board.
Sure, go ahead and defend their positions and then we can "discuss". To date you have failed to do anything of the such. You wear rose colored glasses. Why don't you start with how your guys are going to pay for it and how it will be self sustaining in 10 years.
Talk about a power move by the Demoncrats, this is amazing. How can this be defended?
Russell Sullivan, the top staffer on Finance, and Jon Selib, Baucus’ chief of staff, met with a bloc of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former Baucus aides.
“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_144/news/35773-1.htmlI certainly support health insurance reform. It is how this reform is coming about that I have a problem with.
This was a good editorial in the NYT today which gives us a snapshot of some of the plans in the works.
Editorial
Health Care Reform and You
The health care reform bills moving through Congress look as though they would do a good job of providing coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. But what would they do for the far greater number of people who already have insurance? As President Obama noted in his news conference last week, many of them are wondering: “What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?”
Many crucial decisions on coverage and financing have yet to be made, but the general direction of the legislation is clear enough to make some educated guesses about the likely winners and losers.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF REFORM? The House bill and a similar bill in the Senate would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance with specified minimum benefits or pay a penalty. They would require all but the smallest businesses to provide and subsidize insurance that meets minimum standards for their workers or pay a fee for failing to do so.
The reforms would help the poorest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid. Some middle-class Americans — earning up to three or four times the poverty level, or $66,000 to $88,000 for a family of four — would get subsidies to help them buy coverage through new health insurance exchanges, national or state, which would offer a menu of policies from different companies.
IS THERE HELP FOR THE INSURED? Many insured people need help almost as much as the uninsured. Premiums and out-of-pocket spending for health care have been rising far faster than wages. Millions of people are “underinsured” — their policies don’t come close to covering their medical bills. Many postpone medical care or don’t fill prescriptions because they can’t afford to pay their share of the costs. And many declare personal bankruptcy because they are unable to pay big medical debts.
The reform effort should help ease the burdens of many of them, some more quickly than others. The legislation seems almost certain to include a new marketplace, the so-called health insurance exchange. Since there will be tens of millions of new subscribers, virtually all major insurers are expected to offer policies through an exchange. To participate, these companies would have to agree to provide a specified level of benefits, and they would set premiums at rates more comparable to group rates for big employers than to the exorbitant rates typically charged for individual coverage.
Under the House bill, the exchanges would start operating in 2013. They would be open initially to people who lack any insurance; to the 13 million people who have bought individual policies from insurance companies, which often charge them high rates for relatively skimpy coverage; and to employees of small businesses, who often pay high rates for their group policies, especially if a few of their co-workers have run up high medical bills. By the third year, larger businesses might be allowed to shift their workers to an exchange. All told, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 36 million people would be covered by policies purchased on an exchange by 2019.
IS THERE MORE SECURITY FOR ALL? As part of health reform, all insurance companies would be more tightly regulated. For Americans who are never quite certain that their policies will come through for them when needed, that is very good news.
The House bill, for example, would require that all new policies sold on or off the exchanges must offer yet-to-be-determined “essential benefits.” It would prohibit those policies from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions and would bar the companies from rescinding policies after people come down with a serious illness. It would also prohibit insurers from setting annual or lifetime limits on what a policy would pay. All this would kick in immediately for all new policies. These rules would start in 2013 for policies purchased on the exchange, and, after a grace period, would apply to employer-provided plans as well.
WHO PAYS? Current estimates suggest that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Under current plans, half or more of that would be covered by reducing payments to providers within the giant Medicare program, but the rest would require new taxes or revenue sources.
If President Obama and House Democratic leaders have their way, the entire tax burden would be dropped on families earning more than $250,000 or $350,000 or $1 million a year, depending on who’s talking. There is strong opposition in the Senate, and it seems likely that at least some burden would fall on the less wealthy.
Many Americans reflexively reject the idea of any new taxes — especially to pay for others’ health insurance. They should remember that if this reform effort fails, there is little hope of reining in the relentless rise of health care costs. That means their own premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses will continue to soar faster than their wages. And they will end up paying higher taxes anyway, to cover a swelling federal deficit driven by escalating Medicare and Medicaid costs.
WHO WON’T BE HAPPY? Healthy young people who might prefer not to buy insurance at all will probably be forced to by a federal mandate. That is all to the good. When such people get into a bad accident or contract a serious illness, they often can’t pay the cost of their care, and the rest of us bear their burden. Moreover, conscripting healthy people into the insured pool would help reduce the premiums for sicker people.
Less clear is what financial burden middle-income Americans would bear when forced to buy coverage. There are concerns that the subsidies ultimately approved by Congress might not be generous enough.
WHAT IF I HAVE GOOD GROUP COVERAGE? The main gain for these people is greater security. If they got laid off or chose to leave their jobs, they would no longer be faced with the exorbitant costs of individually bought insurance but could buy new policies through the insurance exchanges at affordable rates.
President Obama has also pledged that if you like your current insurance you can keep it.
Right now employers are free to change or even drop your coverage at any time. Under likely reforms, they would remain free to do so, provided they paid a penalty to help offset the cost for their workers who would then buy coverage through an exchange. Under the House reform bill, all employers would eventually be allowed to enroll their workers in insurance exchanges that would offer an array of policies to choose from, including a public plan whose premiums would almost certainly be lower than those of competing private plans.
Some employers might well conclude that it is a better deal — for them or for you — to subsidize your coverage on the exchange rather than in your current plan. If so, you might end up with better or cheaper coverage. You would probably also have a wider choice of plans, since most employers offer only one or two options.
WILL I PAY LESS? Two factors could help drive down the premiums for those who are insured. In the short-term, if reform manages to cover most of the uninsured, that should greatly reduce the amount of charity care delivered by hospitals and eliminate the need for the hospitals to shift such costs to patients who have private insurance. One oft-cited study estimates that cost-shifting to cover care for the uninsured adds about $1,000 to a family’s annual insurance premiums; other experts think it may be a few hundred dollars. In theory, eliminating most charity care should help hold down or even reduce the premiums charged for private insurance. When, if ever, that might happen is unclear.
In the long run, if reform efforts slow the growth of health care costs, then the increase in insurance costs should ease as well. And if the new health insurance exchanges — and possibly a new public plan — inject more competition into markets that are often dominated by one or two big private insurance companies, that, too, could help bring down premiums. But these are big question marks, and the effects seem distant.
WILL MY CARE SUFFER? Critics have raised the specter that health care will be “rationed” to save money. The truth is that health care is already rationed. No insurance, public or private, covers everything at any cost. That will not change any time soon.
It is true that the long-term goal of health reform is to get rid of the fee-for-service system in which patients often get very expensive care but not necessarily the best care. Virtually all experts blame the system for runaway health care costs because it pays doctors and hospitals for each service they perform, thus providing a financial incentive to order excessive tests or treatments, some of which harm the patients.
An earlier wave of managed care plans concentrated on reining in costs and aroused a backlash among angry beneficiaries who were denied the care they wanted. The most expensive treatment is not always the best treatment. The reform bills call for research and pilot programs to find ways to both control costs and improve patients’ care.
The bills would alter payment incentives in Medicare to reduce needless readmissions to hospitals. They would promote comparative effectiveness research to determine which treatments are best but would not force doctors to use them. And they call for pilot programs in Medicare to test the best ways for doctors to manage and coordinate a patient’s total care.
Any changes in the organization of care would take time to percolate from Medicare throughout the health care system. They are unlikely to affect most people in the immediate future.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR OLDER AMERICANS? People over 65 are already covered by Medicare and would seem to have little to gain. But many of the chronically ill elderly who use lots of drugs could save significant money. The drug industry has already agreed to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs to Medicare beneficiaries who have reached the so-called “doughnut hole” where they must pay the full cost of their medicines. The House reform bill would gradually phase out the doughnut hole entirely, thus making it less likely that beneficiaries will stop taking their drugs once they have to pay the whole cost.
Not everyone in Medicare will be happy. The prospective losers are likely to include many people enrolled in the private plans that participate in Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage plans. They are heavily subsidized, and to pay for reform, Congress is likely to reduce or do away with those subsidies. If so, many of these plans are apt to charge their clients more for their current policies or offer them fewer benefits. The subsidies are hard to justify when the care could be delivered more cheaply in traditional Medicare, and the subsidies force up the premiums for the beneficiaries in traditional Medicare to cover their cost.
Reformers are planning to finance universal coverage in large part by saving money in the traditional Medicare program, raising the question of whether all beneficiaries will face a reduction in benefits. President Obama insisted that benefits won’t be reduced, they’ll simply be delivered in more efficient ways, like better coordination of care, elimination of duplicate tests and reliance on treatments known to work best.
The AARP, the main lobby for older Americans, has praised the emerging bills and thrown its weight behind the cause. All of this suggests to us that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26sun1.html?_r=1It sounds pretty good to me.
Sounds all puppies and roses, counterpoint?
In the UK where everyone (citizens, resdients?) gets free Health care, you can also have private insurance or pay for private treatment, you may get the same treatment from the same specialist, but queue jump by paying privately, or stay in a nicer facility.
I like this 'system', everyone gets care, if you can afford it you can pay for convienence/speed/ not mixing with the hoi polloi, the actual standard of treatment is equally good.
The bit they are leaving out is that all young working people will be required to buy health insurance. It will be mandated by law. The most recent estimates are it will be between 7% and 10% of their income. I personally think that is great. If you want health care you should pay some percent into the system whether you make a $100 a week a $100,000 a week. You want it, you pay for it.
Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.
Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.
I would say that's common.
Stop trying to insure young people! :D
Yes, especially when you consider that young people are more likely to have only part-time jobs, thus not qualifying for employer-provided health insurance.
Mandatory health insurance is also what will make possible one of the best parts of the bill- the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" as a factor.
I agree, the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" is one of the good things. The other problems with the current House Bill are huge. In the end, if passed as written and signed by the president, it will end health care as we know it in the US. Some say hey that is great! But there are huge unintended consequences that are looming out there associated with this bill. Those issues are not being addressed by this.
Among them:
Long term payments for catastrophic care.
Reimbursement for health care providers.
Payment of educational loans for physicians and other specialty providers.
Costs of medical malpractice.
Control of frivolous lawsuits.
Overhead costs associated with giving care at lower rates.
Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.
Payment for specialty services and care.
Incentives for providing care for less cost and competition by monopolies of large health care organizations.
Long term payments for the elderly in nursing facilities.
Long term care of patients in physical rehab for catastrophic injury.
Care of patients with significant chronic disease, i.e. dialysis, mental health, pediatric disease, research.
Transplant costs.
Long term costs associated with 10 years of this plan to the taxpayer.
Access to care for all these new patients.
Destruction of the private insurance industry.
Lack of incentives for expensive research into rare and fatal disease.
Who decides what costs are standard procedures and what they will pay?
Who prioritizes the lists for care as the waiting list grows?
In the end you are basically going to give up your freedom of choice in your care.
The list goes on and on.
It all comes down to cost. It all is addressed by how this potentially bankrupting bill is going to be paid for.
They have put the cart before the horse.
As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.
Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.
Why would younger people pay more?
Merc is just thinking of himself as "young." :lol:
As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.
Every time you say this, I hear the ominous background music:
duh duh DUHHHHHH
And I get all scared and stuff. :unsure:
Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.
The notion that "younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people pay" seems a bit far fetched to me.
As I understand the proposals, they include some form of community rating to spread the cost more equitably, probably lowering the cost of some older workers (and women) who have historically been overcharged. I dont see any scenario where younger workers will pay twice as much.....particularly since many older workers are more likey to have family coverage as opposed to individual..
Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.
They are among the large gorillas in the room. These costs do not go away. The problem is in the system costs. Very little of that has been proposed, other than a plan to reduce payments. How do you run an expensive business on less?
Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.
The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion*
By Ron Paul
Published 07/28/09
Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House
leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government
healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there
are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of
legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions.
The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on
abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions
regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply
troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding
abortions.
Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I
have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which
forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.
The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is
unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this
is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds
instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited
role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at
the time, at the expense of the rights of others.
Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine
their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing
the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with
every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current
politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different
people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom
of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues
altogether.
Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is
the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a
just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in
order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that
naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class
warfare with wealth redistribution programs.
Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from
patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help
the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more
responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever
could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal
with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the
rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes,
red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.
The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to
subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions
is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither
constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.
Merc is just thinking of himself as "young." :lol:
Nawwww. I am an old guy. :D
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.
Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.
Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.
Or anything else, really. What's new?
Money is fungible, and far more people support access to abortions than actually have them, so people can feel free to decide that any money going to abortions wasn't "theirs".
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.
Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.
And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.
And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.
If a private insurance company can compete with the public option, then it will be more efficient. If not, it was draining money from the system without providing added value, and we're the better for losing it.
If there are gaps in the public option, private insurance will be happy to fill them, as in England.
Under the current patchwork of state regulations, insurance companies profits are based, in part, on a flat rate percentage of premiums. If they get 15 percent return on premiums, there is no incentive to lower those premiums, in fact, the reversal is true....increase profits by raising premiums.
Because of the way health insurance works, insurers haven't been paying much of a penalty for failing to contain costs. Insurers typically keep around 15 to 25 percent of the premiums they collect to cover administrative and marketing costs, plus profit (the exact percentage varies according to state regulations, if any). The rest goes to pay for health care for customers.
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-insurance-9-07/premiums-and-profits/0709_health_profit_1.htm
death camps for Jews[/COLOR] wasn't "theirs".
I think Nazis used that argument, and the world agreed for years.
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.
Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.
Do you really think it is going to change? All you are doing is exchanging one insurance provider for another under different rules. Rationing care is a part of every program of insurance, whether it is privately run or publically run.
The elimination of a graduated premium, as contained in the House version, means that you cannot be charged more if you have a preexisting condition. Most say, GREAT! But in reality the costs will have to be the same across the board for everyone's premiums. Eventually even private insurance will have to do this. So what happens is they guy who is unhealthy gets to have his premium reduced, the guy who is healthy has his premium go up. Numerous organizations are attempting to figure out what that number is but no one knows for sure. One thing is for sure and that is that it will go up every year. Remember you will be mandated to buy insurance, so if you actually are lucky enough to make money were you get little to no help from the government, where does that money come from? Your pay. Current estimates are between 4 and 10% of your income. Most employer sponsored plans pay between 50-80% of your health insurance and you pay the rest. No one knows what is going to really happen with private insurance, but one thing is sure that in the House version they will pretty much have to offer what the public plan is offering 5 years out.
The bill as fashioned is to cover the under and uninsured. The problem is that it is not fashioned to cover all the people from businesses that may eventually dump their private insurance and tell people to get it on the public plan with employers paying the estimated 8% penalty as a cheaper option. Then costs for the public plan may soar out of control. There is no language in the bill which adresses reimbursement. So if the costs for the new plan goes up, and they cut all reimbursement to a Medicare/Medicaid rate many health care providers will go out of business. Malpractice rates continue to climb every year. Malpractice for an OB doc is between 80 and 120,000 dollars a year. If you run an office there is a lot of overhead. No one could survive the market if all rates were reduced to M/M standards. There are a lot of unanswered questions and left unanswered will lead to unintended consequences.
So what happens is they guy who is unhealthy gets to have his premium reduced, the guy who is healthy has his premium go up.
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? You spread the costs of the sick people around to everyone. The advantage for the healthy person is that they know that if they get sick, there will be someone there to catch them when they fall.
I know I've paid a hell of a lot more into the system than I've gotten out of it. The only reason I have insurance is so that if I get sick, I don't lose my house.
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? You spread the costs of the sick people around to everyone. The advantage for the healthy person is that they know that if they get sick, there will be someone there to catch them when they fall.
I know I've paid a hell of a lot more into the system than I've gotten out of it. The only reason I have insurance is so that if I get sick, I don't lose my house.
It is and I agree. But when the system does not allow for those with unhealthy habits or preexisting disease your heathly person/family premium will rise to cover the decrease in the other persons. It is the only way it will work. Right or wrong.
Do you really think it is going to change? All you are doing is exchanging one insurance provider for another under different rules. Rationing care is a part of every program of insurance, whether it is privately run or publically run.
I want it to be a rule that denying care doesn't profit anyone, and any rationing is based on necessity and triage. A public plan is closer to that ideal than the current system.
I want it to be a rule that denying care doesn't profit anyone, and any rationing is based on necessity and triage. A public plan is closer to that ideal than the current system.
A public plan is still going to be administered by an insurance company. Your care will still be rationed.
Administered. They'll be paid to run it; they won't get to keep any health budget they don't spend.
Closer to the ideal. Not ideal.
Administered. They'll be paid to run it; they won't get to keep any health budget they don't spend.
Closer to the ideal. Not ideal.
Think about it. You think that a private insurance company is going to do this for little to no income and reimbursement? They are going to make millions.
But people who will not have to pay for it really could care less, as long as they get their care it matters not to most who or how much the government pays them.
Whatever their income is, I don't want it to be increased if they deny coverage.
With their health care plans in a holding pattern — and no George W. Bush to kick around anymore — Democrats are casting about for somebody to blame.
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn says that Republicans have “perfected ‘just say no.’” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said insurance companies are chalking up “immoral profits.”
But even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly, most Democrats in Congress know the truth: It’s their own colleagues who are slowing down progress in both the House and the Senate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25494.htmlThis is good.
Those are nothing more than general goals of the Obama Admin. The Dems are wheeling and dealing with the lobbyists and there is no promise that any of that will actually come to fruition.
Opinion bit from The WSJ.
GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors
By BY BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.
When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.
In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.
Continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320421050552730.htmlFolks, you are going to be hoodwinked by backdoor deals the Dems are making with lobbyists...
snip:
The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.
At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.
A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.
Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.
Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign contributions from the health-care sector than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
David Donnelly, national campaigns director for the Public Campaign Action Fund, which favors public financing of political races, said the heavy industry contributions cast doubt on the Blue Dogs' motives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.html?hpid=topnewsHow influence is directed to get what the industry wants in health care reform.
Sorry this is so big.
http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com/images/blog/infographics/finance_committee/baucus_sfc_health.htmlThis is great. From the link above. How all the parties, dems, repubs, etc are in on making deals. It is in a Google Map format but with peoples names and their key positions, and the companies with a finger in the pie.
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/projects/2009/healthcare_lobbyist_complex/#democrats
The map shows only ten of the thirteen committee Democrats, as OpenSecrets.org does not report any staffers turned health care lobbyists for Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Jeff Bingaman or Bill Nelson. These ten Democrats are connected to a total of 20 former staffers turned health care lobbyists. Sen. Baucus leads all of the committee Democrats with five health care lobbyist connections and Sen. Chuck Schumer and Tom Carper both have three connections.
These 20 staffers represent approximately 91 different organizations, often overlapping in the clients they handle. The overlap usually occurs when the health care lobbyists are employed at the same firm. This can be seen clearly with David Castagnetti, Sen. Baucus’ former chief of staff, and Kelly Bingel, Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s former chief of staff. Both Castagnetti and Bingel work for Mehlmen Vogel Castagnetti Inc. and handle nearly all the same clients.
The organizations represented by these 20 health care lobbyists include some of the biggest opponents to center piece of President Obama’s health care plan: the public option. These include the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, PhRMA, and various pharmaceutical, medical device and insurance companies. The Senate Finance Committee is seen as the biggest obstacle to the public option.
When it comes to money from the health care and insurance industries, [Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, leads the pack. For senators who have not run for the presidency, which requires raising exhorbitant amounts of money, Sen. Baucus is ahead of other committee Democrats with Sens. Schumer and Kent Conrad following close behind. See the table below:
In the interest of fairness:
The money from the health and insurance industries into Republican committee member campaigns is relatively high. The insurance industry is the top contributor to Sen. Grassley’s campaigns over his career. Pharmaceutical companies are the top contributors to Sen. Hatch’s campaigns. In fact, every Republican committee member has a health or insurance industry as their one or more of their top five career contributors.
Keep in mind that the Republickins control no committees, neither majority in Congress, nor any other area where they can control the outcome of legislation.
An interesting perspective from a patient.
snip
Patient-as-person will be a lost concept under the new health-care plan, where treatments will be based not upon individual patient needs, but upon what’s best for everyone. So cancer drugs for seniors might take second place to jungle gyms and farmers’ markets—so-called preventive care—which are covered under both the House and Senate versions of the health bill.
The stimulus package passed earlier this year allocated $1.1 billion for hundreds of “Comparative Effectiveness Research” studies. This project will compare all treatment options for a host of diseases in order to develop a database to guide doctors’ decisions. Research of this sort typically takes years. But the data will likely be hastily drawn conclusions that reflect the view of the government agencies that fund the studies: Cheap therapies are just as good as expensive ones.
In order to finance health-care reform, Democrats in Congress have proposed cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. Yet in his press conference last Wednesday, President Barack Obama denied that Medicare benefits would be cut. He has surrounded himself with advisers who believe otherwise.
Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574306693989102298.htmlThe AARP debunks the lies and distortions in the Merc's
WSJ OpEd by the political hack Betsy McCaughey, who first spread the lies about "Obama's suicide program" on Fred Thompson's radio show last week and continued in this most recent op ed.
It debunks the Merc's
patient's op ed as well, re: comparative effectiveness research.
The patient who wrote the op ed could be well-intention just not well informed...the same cant be said about McCaughey who has a blatant partisan political motivation.
AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey “rife with gross, cruel distortions.”
WASHINGTON—AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.
“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions.
“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research. She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’ In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.
“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.
“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives. While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.
“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.
“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests. Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.
“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care.
“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions. It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives—both physical and financial—that different treatments can mean for them and their families.
“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families. Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden—emotional, physical and otherwise—on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort. Either way, it should be their choice.
“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.
“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.
AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics
http://www.aarp.org/aarp/presscenter/pressrelease/articles/mccaughey_statement.html
But of course the AARP is now in the back pocket of the Demoncrats. I wonder who they are giving their money to?
New AARP chief gave big to Obama
By Jeffrey Young
Posted: 03/12/09 12:47 PM [ET]
Incoming AARP CEO A. Barry Rand contributed $8,900 to President Obama's campaign committees, federal records show.
Rand, a retired senior executive at Xerox Corp., Avis Group and Equitant Inc. and the current chairman of Howard University's board of trustees, gave the maximum $4,600 to Obama's election campaign and an additional $4,300 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising entity of Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
No way they don't have a blatant partisan political motivation in this one, right? :rolleyes:
The AARP has it's own insurance program so they figure to gain greatly in any deals they make with the Demoncrats on this Bill. Of course they are going to support it.
AARP is deeply imbedded in the Insurance Compaines back or in reality front pockets. They are essentially married to what ever the insurance companies can do to make a max profit.
More about the AARP and their partisan Insurance interests:
Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Arthur Laupus joined AARP because he thought the nonprofit senior-citizen-advocacy group would make his retirement years easier. He signed up for an auto insurance policy endorsed by AARP, believing the advertising that said he would save money.
He didn’t. When Laupus, 71, compared his car insurance rate with a dozen other companies, he found he was paying twice the average. Why? One reason, he learned, was because AARP was taking a cut out of his premium before sending the money to Hartford Financial Services Group, the provider of the coverage.
Laupus stumbled onto something that many members of the world’s largest seniors’ organization don’t know: The group, formerly called American Association of Retired Persons, collects hundreds of millions of dollars annually from insurers who pay for AARP’s endorsement of their policies.
The insurance companies build the cost of these so-called royalties and fees, which amounted to $497.6 million in 2007, into the premiums they charge AARP members, according to AARP’s consolidated financial statement for that year.
AARP uses the royalties and fees to fund about half the expenses that pay for activities such as publishing brochures about health care and consumer fraud -- as well as for paying down the $200 million bond debt that funded the association’s marble and brass-studded Washington headquarters.
In addition, AARP holds clients’ insurance premiums for as long as a month and invests the money, which added $40.4 million to its revenue in 2007.
continues:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a4OkPQIPF6KgThe AARP advocates for seniors.
Betsy McCaughey advocates for the Hoover Institute....a conservative think thank that wants no government role in health care or any segment of the economy.
So you dont like the AARP?
I wouldnt expect you to.
That doesnt change the fact that McCaughey is spreading "gross distortions" about the health reform proposals, and particularly the impact on seniors.
[INDENT]
McCaughey claims end-of-life counseling will be required for Medicare patients
The truth-o-meter says.....
LIAR
The health care bill current before Congress mandates that seniors be given euthanasia counseling every fives years
Snopes says.....
FALSE
McCaughey's Euthanasia Claims
FactCheck says..... :bs:
FALSE
[/INDENT]
They must be "agents" of the Democratic party as well, huh?
You want to spread McCaughey's distortions and lies...that's your right.
Just as it is my right to call it the bullshit that it is.
And as i have said on more that occasion, debunking your partisan op eds (
and as griff noted recently elsewhere, your O'Reilly tactics of ignoring context) is hardly a challenge.
Your obsession with Democrats is something I think you have to deal with on a personal level and I wish you well.
The AARP advocates for seniors.
Oh, that and thier insurance largesse that keep that 8 story building on K Street running and those multi-million dollar salaries going.
Betsy McCaughey advocates for the Hoover Institute....a conservative think thank that wants no government role in health care or any segment of the economy.
I can't say I don't disagree with her. But she is correct on many levels.
That doesnt change the fact that McCaughey is spreading "gross distortions" about the health reform proposals, and particularly the impact on seniors.
I doubt there are that many "gross distortions". She may have stretched the truth a little, sort of like AARP and how they overcharge seniors to keep the coffers padded. But I can see how you would not care for her opinion pieces.
They must be "agents" of the Democratic party as well, huh?
No, but you
most certainly are one.
And as i have said on more that occasion, debunking your partisan op eds (and as griff noted recently elsewhere, your O'Reilly tactics of ignoring context) is hardly a challenge.
But yet you can't defend the actions of the Demoncrats in Congress and how they are spending away our future and thowing money at problems that have no sure fix. Tax and spend, tax and spend.
Your obsession with Democrats is something I think you have to deal with on a personal level and I wish you well.
I am more concerned with my future, and as the Demoncrats have shown us I need to be concerned with the future of my great great grandkids as well. Becasuse they sure as hell don't care. The Dems are in power, they get the blame.
Well there you have it. The Demoncrats sold out to the big Pharmacy lobbyists. But they held the line on some other issues that were needed.
In the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. The decision was a setback for the White House, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines like the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin.
The provision giving the federal government the right to negotiate for better drug prices under Medicare has long been a goal of Democrats who say it could lower costs for seniors. Critics argue that is unlikely unless Congress also limits the drugs than can be sold, thereby giving the government the ability to play one company off against another.
That has long been viewed as politically unfeasible under Medicare, because it would limit the choice that seniors now enjoy.
But including restrictions in the government health insurance option would place it in line with Medicaid, the government program for the poor, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and many private plans that limit drug choice.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99PPHV80&show_article=1WASHINGTON (AP) - A bipartisan group of senators agreed tentatively Tuesday on a plan to squeeze an additional $35 billion out of Medicare over the next decade and larger sums in the years beyond, according to congressional officials, a step toward fulfilling President Barack Obama's goal of curbing the growth of health care spending.
Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative. In addition to saving money, the proposal is aimed at turning the program for those age 65 and over into one that more clearly rewards quality, officials said
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NPQFO0&show_article=1
I wonder what they will do as more doctors choose not to care for these patients because reimbursement rates are already less than required to run a practice. No one can run a practice today on Medicare alone or even with it being a majority of the patients. Could be pretty gloom for a few years for those seniors on medicare.
No one can run a practice today on Medicare alone
We have a family friend who is a dentist, and he runs not one but three quite profitable practices on nothing but Medicare patients. In two of his three areas he is in fact the only dentist in the county who will take Medicare, and he laughs at the business opportunity being squandered by the other dentists. It's all about keeping overhead costs low and being willing to do the paperwork.
But wouldn't a dental practice be easier to predict and control costs? There are only so many options in dentistry and if it gets complicated, like a bone infection or something, they'd pass the patient on to an MD or surgeon.
I can see a huge savings potential in streamlining paperwork, although that may make fraud easier. They should put UT in charge of designing a fraud-proof electronic tracking and payment system.
We have a family friend who is a dentist, and he runs not one but three quite profitable practices on nothing but Medicare patients. In two of his three areas he is in fact the only dentist in the county who will take Medicare, and he laughs at the business opportunity being squandered by the other dentists. It's all about keeping overhead costs low and being willing to do the paperwork.
He is definately not in the majority as you point out. Most people in the Medical profession, not Dental, could not survive on that.
According to him, it's not that they couldn't, it's that they don't want to. Average salary for a dentist is $250K per year, but a huge percentage of them, especially the younger ones, would rather just work 2 days a week and live on $100K instead. And if they're only working 2 days a week, it's not hard to find enough patients to fill the appointment slots without accepting Medicare.
The hard truth is that people on Medicare are a hassle, not just from a claims perspective but on an individual perspective as well. Poorer people tend to be less educated, less likely to show up for their scheduled appointments, less interested in working to maintain their own health, more likely to have badly-behaved children in the waiting room, etc. That is why doctors don't want to deal with them.
The hard truth is that people on Medicare are a hassle, not just from a claims perspective but on an individual perspective as well. Poorer people tend to be less educated, less likely to show up for their scheduled appointments, less interested in working to maintain their own health, more likely to have badly-behaved children in the waiting room, etc. That is why doctors don't want to deal with them.
That may be part of the reason but the biggest reason is because of ever decreasing reimbursements, and
that is the biggest reason.
That may be part of the reason but the biggest reason is because of ever decreasing reimbursements, and that is the biggest reason.
How do you know? Clod just told you that she talked with family friend who is a dentist, and who illustrated the "biggest reason (times 2, even)" many don't want to deal with medicare. :eyebrow:
How do you know? Clod just told you that she talked with family friend who is a dentist, and who illustrated the "biggest reason (times 2, even)" many don't want to deal with medicare. :eyebrow:
I am not disputing her experience with the one person she had contact with. I fully believe her.
I am talking about the main reason there are so many Docs that do not accept Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, and a few other state run programs.
*shrugs*
cite
My 30 yrs working in health care. Gimmie a minute and I will pull something out of cyber air.
The primary reason physicians cease to accept new Medicare patients is the rate of payment; secondary reasons include complexity of the Medicare program, intensity of treatment needed for elderly patients, and personal preference.
http://www.unmc.edu/ruprihealth/Pubs/PB2004-5.pdf
"The decline in physicians providing charity care and treating Medicaid patients is a sign of the financial pressures facing physicians," said Paul B. Ginsburg, Ph.D., president of HSC, a nonpartisan policy research organization funded exclusively by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "With substantial pressure on payment rates from private insurers, physicians may place a lower priority on treating the uninsured and Medicaid patients."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicaid/2-12-05Physicians.htm
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/22/10
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/12/when-primary-care-refuses-to-accept.html
http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/articles.details/articleID/369.htm
This study shows that the acceptance had stablized during a 10 period but the threat to declining acceptance was still a threat (in the conclusions).
http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/811/
Potential Impact of Obama Care
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208383695408513.html
I could go on but why...
So I just choose whose first-hand account I most believe?
I just thought of my choices in the matter: level-headed Clod, or the guy who so hates the Obama administration that anything and everything even remotely related to anything and everything they do is SUSPECT and EVIL and GOING TO KILL US ALL.
Just sayin'
I just thought of my choices in the matter: level-headed Clod, or the guy who so hates the Obama administration that anything and everything even remotely related to anything and everything they do is SUSPECT and EVIL and GOING TO KILL US ALL.
Just sayin'
Hmmmmmm... ok, I find it hard to believe that I ever said anything among the likes of "GOING TO KILL US ALL!"
A bit of an overstatement, but hey, like I said, what eva... :rolleyes:
I was employing hyperbole, as I often see in your cited articles. :lol:
OK, I'll quit now!
I was employing hyperbole, as I often see in your cited articles. :lol:
OK, I'll quit now!
Yea, I know that sillyperson. I was giving it back to you...:rolleyes:
Some interesting observations about the Calif Insurance Exchange program and the plans that are being proposed in Congress:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124925648163600125.html
It will be interesting to see if the legal mandate, as proposed, that every single person enters the exchange if they do not already have insurance, whether or not that will have enough people to support it without the pitfalls that have helped the Calif plan become a complete failure. As usual, there are very little details about how the Federal Health Plan is going to work so we will not know until the law is already passed.
(As a side note, I just realized I've been saying Medicare this whole time, but I meant Medicaid. Poor people, not old people. Old people don't have any teeth left, so they don't need dentists. :lol:)
(As a side note, I just realized I've been saying Medicare this whole time, but I meant Medicaid. Poor people, not old people. Old people don't have any teeth left, so they don't need dentists. :lol:)
I knew that when you were talking about kids, etc.
Another good op ed with some things to think about as Congress rushes through this change.
Obama’s More-for-Less Health Care Doesn’t Add Up: Caroline Baum
Commentary by Caroline Baum
Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama has been exhorting lawmakers to use the August recess to read health- care-reform bills currently before Congress.
In other words, if the president had gotten his way, members would have voted first and read second legislation to revamp one-sixth of the U.S. economy. No wonder public support for both Obama and his health-care plan is eroding, according to recent polls.
Yes, people are resistant to change, as the president noted, especially when it comes to something as important as their doctor. But maybe something else is at play: the growing realization that the numbers don’t add up.
I listened to Obama’s July 29 town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, hoping to understand how the government plans to deliver more for less, to cover most of the 46 million uninsured Americans while lowering premiums, limiting out-of-pocket expenses and requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care.
I heard Obama say a lot of people will get a lot more without anyone getting less.
I heard him say two-thirds of the cost of covering everyone in America can be paid for “by money that is already in the health-care system.”
I heard him say he favors a public option to increase competition and keep costs down.
I heard him say he “will not sign a health-care bill that is not deficit neutral” and that doesn’t lower health-care inflation over the long term.
Let’s see how some of these claims stack up:
1. Mind Your P’s and Q’s
Obama wants to insure more people and lower the total cost of care. In economic terms, he wants to control price (P) and quantity (Q). What makes Obama think he can repeal the law of supply and demand?
To achieve higher Q and lower P, the supply curve has to shift outward, to the right. How does the government plan to increase the supply of health care? By making it less attractive to young men and women with a passion for medicine and a desire for independence?
Obama says he wants to encourage medical students to become primary-care physicians via financial incentives, reversing the trend toward specialization, which is where the money is.
Easier said than done, says Paul Feldstein, professor of health-care management at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine. “It takes a long time to produce more doctors.”
Once the government starts to dictate budgets and salaries in an effort to control costs, medicine becomes a less attractive profession.
Rationing is inevitable, Feldstein says, and there are only two options: with price and free choice or with regulation. Surely Obama spent enough time at the University of Chicago to understand his P’s and Q’s.
2. Inefficiencies of Scale
Obama says his advisers have identified $500 billion to $600 billion of inefficiencies in the system that would pay for reforms. When was the last time the government wrung inefficiencies out of anything? Medicare is plagued with waste and fraud.
Health-care reform is long overdue. We need a system that offers wider choice, proper incentives (eliminating fee-for- service) and subsidies for those who can’t afford it.
We don’t need something that fails to cut costs and eliminates choice. Plan B anyone?
3. Enhanced Competition
Obama says the government needs to offer a public health- care option to encourage competition. This line of thinking leads “to the uncomfortable conclusion that the government must be a player in every industry,” says Cliff Asness, president of AQR Capital, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Connecticut, who debunks this and other health-care myths in a paper posted on his Web site.
How do other industries manage to be highly competitive without Uncle Sam’s interference?
Unless the public wants health-care outcomes akin to those of the nation’s schools -- another sector offering a “public option,” Asness points out -- Obama needs a better plan and a more convincing argument.
4. Measuring the Right Stuff
Obama has accused opponents of his health-care plan of “scaring everybody” with intimations of rationing. He scared back, telling his Raleigh audience last week that “if we do nothing, I can almost guarantee you your premiums will double.”
The high cost of health care is another myth skewered by Asness, in his paper, and Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate in Economics, in an interview in the Atlantic.
The gist of their arguments: This ain’t your father’s health care. Innovations in diagnostic and surgical procedures cost money but allow for better and less invasive treatment.
What about the accusation that the U.S. spends more money on health care and boasts life-expectancy rates well below those of most developed countries?
A red herring. There’s a big difference between health and health care. If you eat too many Big Macs, smoke and drink, that’s a lifestyle choice.
Once you suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with cancer, the survival rates in the U.S. -- especially for cancer -- are second to none. For all the hoopla over Canada’s socialized medicine, the cross-border flows aren’t south to north.
“The low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health-care system,” according to a new study by University of Pennsylvania professors Samuel H. Preston and Jessica Y. Ho.
What’s the prognosis if ObamaCare is enacted?
“People have to get less or pay more,” Feldstein says.
As a group the elderly are the largest consumers of health- care services. If you want to cut costs, you have to go where it’s being spent.
The Eskimos had an efficient way of rationing: in some cases they simply sent the elderly out to sea on an ice floe. It’s not what Gram and Gramps envisioned for their golden years.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ah.vuAG5B4iUWhite House finally confirms it made a back door deal with the Drug Industry over preserving income. Frankly I don't think they should get any "deal" and neither should the Insurance Industry.
August 6, 2009
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaperthe more things change the more they stay the same.
Apparently Peggy Noonan is terrified of her own reflection.
She could get surgery for that...
False:
Healthcare Reform will be deficit neutral and $6 billion surplus in 10 yrs
During a town hall meeting, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri, tried to reassure constituents that his party's health care reform bill would cost less than expected.
"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, which has been one of the important factors for the president and congressional leaders, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus," Carnahan told an audience on July 20, 2009, at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis.
The audience laughed in response. (To see for yourself, fast forward this video to the 7-minute mark.)
It's a claim that's been repeated by many Democrats since the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number crunching for Congress, released its cost estimate for the health care bill on July 17.
In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.
Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.
We were perplexed: How could Carnahan proclaim a $6 billion surplus if the budget office was projecting a deficit?
The confusion comes down to an accounting question about how to treat $245 billion in the House bill that would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors don't face the potential of a 21 percent cut in fees.
In 1997, Congress agreed that, should Medicare reimbursement rates grow faster than the economy, they would be cut. But instead of following its own rules, Congress has put off those cuts year after year with a Medicare "fix." CBO considers that sum as part of the cost of the bill.
But many Democrats don't. Two days after Carnahan's town hall meeting, the House approved a bill that would require all new spending be paid for by new taxes or spending cuts to other government programs, a practice widely known as pay-as-you-go. That bill exempts the Medicare pay fix from these rules, which effectively reduces the cost of the health care reform bill by that same $245 billion. The pay-as-you-go bill is pending in the Senate.
But in the meantime, CBO will continue to include it as part of the legislation's price tag until the pay-as-you-go rules are put into law.
Back to Carnahan's math: If you accept his assumption that pay-as-you-go ultimately passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, the health care bill will only cost $797 billion over 10 years. The $219.3 in spending cuts and the $583 billion in tax revenue total $802 billion, so that leaves $5.3 billion extra. (That's not quite $6 billion, but it's in the ballpark. We can assume this is the result of rounding.)
Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."
So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit. Only when Carnahan added some optimistic assumptions did the math work the way he claimed. We find his claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/russ-carnahan/carnahan-misquotes-cbo-about-cost-health-care-refo/From
here.
I think this is another example of how the '%70 of the country who are covered by insurance' does not mean 'fully covered'. I'm guessing the $3000 limit on giving birth was not in the large print. I think the only way to have a baby for $3000 in this country is to squat and drop in a potato field with a midwife and a horse blanket.
The individual health insurance market can be a scary place for Americans who turn to it for health coverage. If they're accepted to a plan at all, patients often find that their coverage isn't quite what they were promised, and limits and restrictions lead to high medical bills for covered services that aren't really covered. That's how Sarah Wildman ended up with a $22,000 bill from the hospital where her daughter was born, despite having what she thought was good health insurance with a maternity rider.
Pregnancy on the individual health insurance market requires an additional rider that must be purchased before the pregnancy begins. Without this rider, the fetus becomes a pre-existing condition. Prenatal care, delivery, hospitalization, and any complications are not covered. Not a cent.
Wildman discovered that her maternity rider covered her daughter's birth, but with a limit of $3,000. That is not a typo. Her story ended with the company covering 90% of the bills, but, she suspects, this is only because she happened to be writing a story about it.
It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.
It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.
So they're basing their coverage on the lowest possible cost, even though a majority of women still use hospitals.
If the bill was $22,000, there may have been complications, which would possibly have required a switch to the hospital.
I just wonder if anyone told this woman up front "we're only going to cover $3000 because we're assuming that you'll use a midwife."
So it's the insurance company's fault this woman bought and paid for something and had no idea what it was? I'm sure no one told her specifically how much of
anything they would cover... I bet it's just all in writing, in a big book they gave her but she never opened.
The "maternity" coverage we purchased didn't cover my labor, delivery, or hospital stay. It was a sham.
Then why did you purchase it? Duh.
Most people, insured people, have no idea how insurance works until they use it and find out what is not covered. My wife has become an expert on this criminal industry over the years and how they don't work for you. All the while my employer is tooting their horn over what great coverage we have and how much better it is going to be while they raised our rates $3000 a year.
This could certainly be a good change if inacted:
Like many other people, Ms. Krinsk thought that her prescription information was private. But in fact, prescriptions, and all the information on them — including not only the name and dosage of the drug and the name and address of the doctor, but also the patient’s address and Social Security number — are a commodity bought and sold in a murky marketplace, often without the patients’ knowledge or permission.
That may change if some little-noted protections from the Obama administration are strictly enforced. The federal stimulus law enacted in February prohibits in most cases the sale of personal health information, with a few exceptions for research and public health measures like tracking flu epidemics. It also tightens rules for telling patients when hackers or health care workers have stolen their Social Security numbers or medical information, as happened to Britney Spears, Maria Shriver and Farrah Fawcett before she died in June.
“The new rules will plug some gaping holes in our federal health privacy laws,” said Deven McGraw, a health privacy expert at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. “For the first time, pharmacy benefit managers that handle most prescriptions and banks and contractors that process millions of medical claims will be held accountable for complying with federal privacy and security rules.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/09privacy.html?hpwWhether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."
Looks like Rahm it Through's plan may have backfired on this one...
Georgia Democrat yells at local doctor over health care
Tensions are running so high at town hall meetings that Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, yelled at a local doctor concerned about health care after mistaking him for an "astroturf" political operative looking for a fight.
Mr. Scott became visibly agitated when one of his constituents, a practicing doctor, asked a few questions about health care reform during a town hall meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a road project, but was opened up for questions near the end. That's when Dr. David Hill stood up to speak.
Dr. Hill asked Mr. Scott why he was going to vote for a health care plan similar to that implemented in Massachusetts "that is shown not to work" and if he supported a government-provided health care insurance option.
The congressman replied by accusing the doctor of "hijacking" his event.
"I'm listening to my constituents, OK?" Scott said, "These are people who live in the 13th Congressional district, who vote in this district. That’s who I’ve got to respond to … So what you’ve got to understand, those of you who are here, who have taken and came and hijacked this event we dealing with here, this is not a health care event."
"You chose to come and to do it on your own," he yelled. "Not a single one of you had the decency to call my office and set up for a meeting." He went on, in a threatening voice, "You want a meeting with me on health care, I'll give it to you!"
The outburst is yet another example of how confrontational town hall meetings have become over recent weeks, as constituents are becoming more forthright in asking their elected representatives challenging questions. These actions and other forms of protest have been encouraged by limited government advocacy groups opposed to the stimulus package, the Democrats favored health care reforms and other big spending government proposals.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/aug/08/georgia-democrat-rages-against-local-doctor-over-h/Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan
WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?hpw
You can bet some deal lucrative to the big Pharm had to be done to get them on board.
what would you like to see happen instead Merc?
On the big Pharm or on the overall plan?
On Pharm I would like to see them not have secret meetings at the White House and make behind the scenes deals that favor bussines as usual where they make huge profits on everyone who can pay or has insurance.
In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?
In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?
I completely support widening affordable access to healthcare and figuring out a way to support the under or uninsured. The problem I have with the approach is the way they plan to pay for it. If the majority of the population wants it, everyone needs to pay into it. Either through some sort of flat percent of every income, regardless of income, or through user taxes in sales tax or something similar to a VAT. The approach they are Rahming through Congress is fraught with missteps and pitfalls, combined with back door deals with the industry. If you go back years, I have always said we have a health insurance crisis. The current plan in Congress may eventually bankrupt this country and place the burden of paying for it on a minority of taxpayers.
Wow..
The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.
Barbara Wagner
(Paul Carter/Register-Guard)The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.
What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?
Keeping my previous response in context, and my 30 plus years in the business of healthcare, I am not at all confident that the government can successfully implement a program of government sponsored insurance or a single payer plan (I fully understand that this is currently not on the table but there is no doubt that this is where Obama and many other liberal democrats want to go in time). Nor any plan which encourages the mass migration of those with private insurance, or employers who provide insurance to employees to a government run plan.
People cannot draw parallels between countries the size of Sweden, France, the UK, or other small economies and populations and extrapolate those plans to a country the size of the US with ease. The US is much more complex in its relationships with business and insurance as we now know it. But given what we have seen about the potential back door deals the Obama administration is making with various special interest groups, I am futher discouraged that implementation of a national coordinated effort to provide insurance to some 30 million people can actually work. I believe that care will continue to be rationed but to a greater degree than it is now with a greater emphasis on cost containment spread over a greater number of people. This form of rationing is slowly creeping into the care of Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programed patients. Various more expensive techniques and procedures are not offered to these patients because the insurance will not pay. A procedure that can cost 1/10th the cost in a free-standing surgical center is passed over for a much more expensive procedure which the insurance company will pay for in a hospital. That is detrimental to the system as a whole increasing costs for the patients and other insured people, not to mention the public whom ultimately is paying for it all. The current government run program is broken and fiscally inefficient. What makes anyone think they can expand it by 1000 fold and do a better job?
The issue of illegal aliens must be addressed to eliminate a weakness and further drain on any national program for the uninsured.
The issues of reimbursement fro providers must be addressed, and they are not.
The issues of payment for catastrophic care must be addressed and they are not.
The issues of chronic expensive care and treatment of rare and complex disease needs to be addressed.
The issue of how all this is going to be paid and by whom has not been exposed to the fullest in any plan and those issues must be on the table with adequate time for debate. I do not believe, as history has shown us in this Congress, that this will happen.
What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.
What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.
Yessir, that's the acid test: if they have developed a public insurance plan that cuts costs AND works well, they can demonstrate faith to the public by signing up for it.
What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.
Yessir, that's the acid test: if they have developed a public insurance plan that cuts costs AND works well, they can demonstrate faith to the public by signing up for it.
What we have here is an Administration and Congress that is pushing an ideology, ideas, and a play to solidify political power cloaked in supposed good intentions at the expense of the science, facts, and fiscal responsibility.
It's Bush's fault - The R's did nothing when they had control and people are pissed. They want it and now the D's have to figure out how to give it to them.
Whether it costs a shitload or not is a whole nother story.
BTW - How many illegals will be covered under whatever new plan is developed and at what cost? I've heard partisan crap on it, but don't want to go that route. Still I'm curious.
BTW - How many illegals will be covered under whatever new plan is developed and at what cost? I've heard partisan crap on it, but don't want to go that route. Still I'm curious.
My guess: however many can get and keep fake social security numbers.
An
amusing argument from someone scared of rationing:
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Hopefully,
Hawking will never move to the U.K. - they'd kill him!
My guess: however many can get and keep fake social security numbers.
Would they have to? I have no idea how all that works. I'm a natural born citizen and have no experience in the illegality of who what & how all that happens.
Hopefully, Hawking will never move to the U.K. - they'd kill him!
Not on purpose... but accidents do happen.
1,
2,
3,
4Now where have I heard this before.... hmmmmmmm....
In a Tight Spot, Pelosi Calls Health Care Critics 'Un-American'
Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
Wow..
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1
But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.
A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.
The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo.
So, going by averages, if you take the drug for 6 months until you die, you have gained 2 months at a cost of $24,000.
Including the death option in the same letter as the denial was insensitive, but I can see where someone would want the information. I heard John Wayne tried to commit suicide during his final months.
Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
She may have a less cynical view of America. I'd like to agree with her that shouting out a town hall meeting to make sure nobody gets heard is unamerican, or that pretending that living wills are death panels is uinamerican, but I'm not sure I can.
I heard this am that almost 10 million of the uninsured in America are not Americans at all. I believe it was about 20% of the total number uninsured. I dunno how I feel about this. I don't even know if this is a true statement. That does seem like a large percentage though.
She may have a less cynical view of America. I'd like to agree with her that shouting out a town hall meeting to make sure nobody gets heard is unamerican, or that pretending that living wills are death panels is uinamerican, but I'm not sure I can.
Eh... no different than how all the Demoncratic supporters acted when Bush was in office. Hell, they could just do the same thing they did and close their town hall meetings to invitation only with pre-printed signs supporting what ever it was they were talking about. It does not change the fact that a large percentage of people are very concerned with the changes Congress is Rahming through on this health plan.
I heard this am that almost 10 million of the uninsured in America are not Americans at all. I believe it was about 20% of the total number uninsured. I dunno how I feel about this. I don't even know if this is a true statement. That does seem like a large percentage though.
There is a huge disparity in the numbers reported. Since your mother and father could both be illegal aliens but because momma got across the border before she birthed her child the child is technically not counted by many as "illegal". This is a common event.
Here is a study of the issue.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdfSo, going by averages, if you take the drug for 6 months until you die, you have gained 2 months at a cost of $24,000.
Including the death option in the same letter as the denial was insensitive, but I can see where someone would want the information. I heard John Wayne tried to commit suicide during his final months.
Any way you look at it, it is a form of rationing care. It happens now and will have to happen to a greater degree under any government run plan.
. Hell, they could just do the same thing they did and close their town hall meetings to invitation only with pre-printed signs supporting what ever it was they were talking about.
So I guess we'll never know whether Democratic supporters would have behaved the same.
So I guess we'll never know whether Democratic supporters would have behaved the same.
Yea, well if you support something why would you feel a need to protest against it? Do we really know what the individuals who are protesting party affiliation? Or is that an assumption?
Like I said we saw the same thing when people protested again the Repubs but they just controlled the environment better. Which of you were the ones saying that protest
IS the democratic way, right, and responsiblity of all Americans?
Now where have I heard this before.... hmmmmmmm....
In a Tight Spot, Pelosi Calls Health Care Critics 'Un-American'
Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
I would suggest that the demonizing is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
[INDENT]- are like a single payer European or socialist style program
- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats
- mandate government funded abortion on demand
- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records
- and still the best...provide for death panels or forced euthanasia.[/INDENT]
I particularly like how Sarah Palin described it:
[INDENT]The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.[/INDENT]
Jebus, why does she gotta start everything out with "I love America more than anyone" or some such crap?
Like I said we saw the same thing when people protested again the Repubs but they just controlled the environment better.
In other words, we didn't see the same thing, but you're assuming we would have if the situation had been different.
Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
So Pelosi is a Nazi and Franken is a
pedophile......demonizing much?
Who's next?
I would suggest that the demonizing is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
are like a single payer European or socialist style program
Not yet, but that is the long term goal.
- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats
Already occurs with all government run and private health insurance programs.
- mandate government funded abortion on demand
Yea, I haven't seen that in the currently proposed bill. But I don't really care that much about the issue.
- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records
Actually the current Bill is unclear because it does command "Reporting". It does not say what information will be excluded. I suspect HIPPA will prevent most PII from being transmitted.
- and still the best...provide for death squads or forced euthanasia.
Yea, I don't think most people believe that one.
I particularly like how Sarah Palin described it:
Palin is not the spokes person for the majority of people who oppose the Congressional plan to Rahm this bill through to approval.
So Pelosi is a Nazi and Franken is a pedophile......demonizing much?
Who's next?
I guess turn around is fair game. I think she act like a Nazi dictator, but that is a personal opinion.
In other words, we didn't see the same thing, but you're assuming we would have if the situation had been different.
No, I am saying we saw many of the same behaviors of those who opposed 8 years of Bush and the Republickins in charge. And now that the Dems are getting a taste of the same thing it is suddenly "un-American". Funny, I am sure I have heard that some where...
I guess turn around is fair game. I think she act like a Nazi dictator, but that is a personal opinion.
Thanks, Merc.
You made my point about demonizing.
Thanks, Merc.
You made my point about demonizing.
Why you are very welcome!
Nancy's Nazi Shock: Did She Forget the Bush Years?
By John Leo
Nancy Pelosi is shocked by the presence of some swastikas at protests against Obamacare. Who ever heard of such a thing? Well, any mildly alert American old enough to remember the anti-war protests of 2003-2007. Images of George Bush with a Hitler mustache and a Nazi uniform was everywhere at swastika-choked marches and rallies. "Stop the Fourth Reich-Visualize Nuremburg," said one sign at a Hollywood march. "The Fuhrer already in his bunker," said another. Lots of Nazi regalia appeared at protests in Pelosi's San Francisco as well.
On far-left Internet sites, where basic Bush-Is-Hitler commentary became too familiar to attract attention, Bush aides were quickly assigned Nazi roles; Tom Ridge was the new Himmler and Colin Powell became Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop; Ari Fleisher, Karen Hughes and Karl Rove were all Josef Goebbels figures. Some thought Vice President Cheney was the most important Hitler figure - he commands "storm-trooper legions," said famous crackpot Lyndon LaRouche.
One fevered lefty connected Bush to Nero as well as Hitler, saying "Nero burned Rome, Hitler burned the Reichstag and Bush burned the World Trade Center."
An even more inventive commenter managed to link Rove to Josef Mengele, the depraved Nazi doctor nicknamed the Angel of Death: "Bush made up stories about John McCain, just as Josef Mengele conducted medical experiments on children in Auschwitz." What?
Donald Rumsfeld was the new Rommel. The Action Coalition of Taos, New Mexico, however, thought Rumsfeld was the real Hitler, since, like Adolf, he had a mountain retreat. In an op-ed published in Florida, Air Force veteran Douglas Herman, disagreed, saying Rumsfeld was more like Goering, because both men had been fighter pilots.
Mainstream commentary featured Nazi references too. Both Senator Robert Byrd and billionaire Democrat George Soros said Bush reminded them of Herman Goering.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Al Gore used the term "brownshirts" (Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams assigned to respond to criticism of Bush and the Iraq war.
Vanity Fair magazine nominated Richard Perle for the Goebbels role, running photos of both men under the headline "Separated at Birth?"
New York Times columnist Frank Rich managed to work in a reference to a famous Nazi filmmaker. He said a Showtime program on 9/11 was so favorable to Bush that it is "best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl."
The Rev. Andrew Greeley, sociologist and novelist, depicted Bush as a Hitler figure who carried American over to "the dark side."
Federal appeals judge Guido Calabresi offered a comparatively mild Nazi reference, saying the Bush's rise to power was reminiscent of the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, with the Supreme Court pushing him into the presidency with the Bush v. Gore decision.
Bush reminded the left of non-Nazi villains as well. He was depicted as Attila the Hun, serial killer Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Ahab, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ and Frankenstein's monster (on the cover of the British edition of book by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman).
As far as we know, Nancy Pelosi never complained about any of this. Maybe she didn't notice.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
John Leo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He edits Minding the Campus, the Institute's web site on America's universities, and is a contributing editor to the City Journal.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.htmlStill waiting on the link that "...Franken is bigger pedophile than MJ ever was".
Keep waiting. MJ is dead.
The "death panels" are already here
Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal results
By Mike Madden
Aug. 11, 2009 | The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they're ready to operate, but the bureaucracy -- or as Palin would put it, the "death panel" -- steps in and says it won't pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl's family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent -- but the patient dies before the operation can proceed.
It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama's healthcare reform plans are. Except that's not the future of healthcare -- it's the present. Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.
That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."
Coverage of Palin's remarks, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's defense of them, over the weekend did point out that the idea that the reform plans would encourage government-sponsored euthanasia is one of a handful of deliberate falsehoods being peddled by opponents of the legislation. But the idea that only if reform passes would the government start setting up rationing and interfering with care goes beyond just the bogus euthanasia claim.
Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty.
"You're asking us to decide that the government is to be trusted," Gingrich -- who may, like Palin, be running for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012 -- told ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday. But as even a quick glance through news coverage of the last few years shows, private insurers are already doing what reform opponents say they want to save us from. (The insurance industry, pushing back against charges that they're part of the problem, said last month that "healthcare reform is far too important to be dragged down by divisive political rhetoric." The industry has long maintained that its decisions on what to cover are the result of careful investigations of each claim.) Here is a look at a handful of healthcare horror stories, brought to you by the current system. It took Salon staff less than an hour to round these up -- which might indicate how many other such stories are out there.
-- In June 2008, Robin Beaton, a retired nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, found out she had breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy. Two days before her surgery, her insurance company, Blue Cross, flagged her chart and told the hospital they wouldn't allow the procedure to go forward until they finished an examination of five years of her medical history -- which could take three months. It turned out that a month before the cancer diagnosis, Beaton had gone to a dermatologist for acne treatment, and Blue Cross incorrectly interpreted a word on her chart to mean that the acne was precancerous.
Not long into the investigation, the insurer canceled her policy. Beaton, they said, had listed her weight incorrectly when she bought it, and had also failed to disclose that she'd once taken medicine for a heart condition -- which she hadn't been taking at the time she filled out the application. By October, thanks to an intervention from her member of Congress, Blue Cross reinstated Beaton's insurance coverage. But the tumor she had removed had grown 2 centimeters in the meantime, and she had to have her lymph nodes removed as well as her breasts amputated because of the delay.
-- In October 2008, Michael Napientak, a doorman from Clarendon Hills, Ill., went to the hospital for surgery to relieve agonizing back pain. His wife's employer's insurance provider, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthCare, had issued a pre-authorization for the operation. The operation went well. But in April, the insurer started sending notices that it wouldn't pay for the surgery, after all; the family, not the insurance provider, would be on the hook for the $148,000 the hospital charged for the procedure. Pre-authorization, the insurance company explained, didn't necessarily guarantee payment on a claim would be forthcoming. The company offered shifting explanations for why it wouldn't pay -- first, demanding proof that Napientak had tried less expensive measures to relieve his pain, and then, when he provided it, insisting that it lacked documentation for why the surgery was medically necessary. Napientak's wife, Sandie, asked her boss to help out, but with no luck. Fortunately for the Napientaks, they were able to attract the attention of a Chicago Tribune columnist before they had to figure out how to pay the six-figure bill -- once the newspaper started asking questions, the insurer suddenly decided, "based on additional information submitted," to cover the tab, after all.
-- David Denney was less than a year old when he was diagnosed in 1995 with glutaric acidemia Type 1, a rare blood disorder that left him severely brain damaged and unable to eat, walk or speak without assistance. For more than a decade, Blue Cross of California -- his parents' insurance company -- paid the $1,200 weekly cost to have a nurse care for him, giving him exercise and administering anti-seizure medication.
But in March 2006, Blue Cross told the Denney family their claims had exceeded the annual cost limit for his care. When they wrote back, objecting and pointing out that their annual limit was higher, the company changed its mind -- about the reason for the denial. The nurse's services weren't medically necessary, the insurers said. His family sued, and the case went to arbitration, as their policy allowed. California taxpayers, meanwhile, got stuck with the bill -- after years of paying their own premiums, the Denney family went on Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid system.
-- Patricia Reilling opened an art gallery in Louisville, Ky., in 1987, and three years later took out an insurance policy for herself and her employees. Her insurance provider, Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, wrote to her this June, telling her it was canceling her coverage -- a few days after it sent her a different letter detailing the rates to renew for another year and billing her for July.
Reilling thinks she knows the reason for the cutoff, though -- she was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2008. That kicked off a year-long battle with Anthem. First the company refused to pay for an MRI to locate the tumors, saying her family medical history didn't indicate she was likely to have cancer. Eventually, it approved the MRI, but only after she'd undergone an additional, painful biopsy. Her doctor removed both of her breasts in April 2008. In December, she went in for reconstructive plastic surgery -- and contracted a case of MRSA, an invasive infection. In January of this year, Reilling underwent two more surgeries to deal with the MRSA infection, and she's likely to require another operation to help fix all the damage. The monthly bill for her prescription medicines -- which she says are mostly generics -- is $2,000; the doctors treating her for the MRSA infection want $280 for each appointment, now that she's lost her insurance coverage. When she appealed the decision to cancel her policy, asking if she could keep paying the premium and continue coverage until her current course of treatment ends, the insurers wrote back with yet another denial. But they did say they hoped her health improved.
-- Additional reporting by Tim Bella
I must say we're all fascinated over here with this debate. British officials and diplomatic staff are walking a very fine line between countering the blatant lies without actually getting involved in your debate.
The comment about Stephen Hawking was particularly amusing. The claims that patients over the age of 60 (or was it 65?) not being allowed heart bypasses was also, by the way, a complete lie.
The gap between recovery rates for American cancer patients and British cancer patients was exaggerated, though we don't have as good a record on survival rates. Whether that is due to budgetary concerns or cultural differences in how and when we access medical care is an argument for people with greater expertise than I.
There are occasions when the system fails, or when the regulatory body does something stupid (as with the case of Lutin treatment for age-related macular degeneration). But then again...the regulatory body is not a private profit making company and when a suficient case has been made that their decision was faulty a new decision can and often is taken: importantly though, it is taken for everyone. The fight for Lutin treatment has now been won, the case made and a new decision taken on allowing its use in the NHS. For every case with clinical need and likely effectiveness. In each of the cases above, where the insurance companies have been persuaded or forced to reassess their decision it is a reassessment for that individual alone. Anyone else encountering the same illogical (in healthcare terms, obviously not in profitmaking terms) decision will have to have that fight all over again.
I am amazed at just how skewed the view of the NHS is over in America. We have higher average life expectancy and pay far less for healthcare. There are certain clinical areas in which we do not shine (cancer treatment for one; though massive strides have been and continue to be made). There are also clinical areas in which we do shine (paediatric care).
Overall I think we get an excellent health service, and we get it way cheaper than you do. There is a tiny minority of people who cannot get the treatment they feel they need for their condition (for instance certain cancer drugs have been seriously limited on the basis that it is not deemed sensible to spend 80k on a single patient if the likely result is an additional 6 months of life) who seek that treatment privately and end up forfeiting their right to continued NHS treatment for that condition. They have a heavy burden and it is very sad. I wish there was something we could do for them. Top up care is not allowed under our system. Private care is allowed and does not disqualify in and of itself from NHS care: but you cannot combine private and NHS treatment for a condition or ilness.
There are gaps. But it really is not the living hell the right wing politiians claim it is.
From the Washington Post in response to the Hawking claim:
As Bookman noted, "Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."
Ever wonder what the reform debate would be like if conservatives approached it with a shred of intellectual seriousness?
and Hawking's own response:
"If it wasn't for the national health care we have in the UK...
I would have had to rely on private insurance companies...
And my illness would have been declared a pre-existing condition.
I wouldn't be alive right now..."
I like that quote, Dana. Thanks for this post.
On a much more personal note: I have chronic eczema and also have asthma. How much would it cost me per month, I wonder, for high-end corticosteroids, various prescription emolients and two different inhalers, if I had to pay for them myself? Certainly, no insurance company would be likely to help with that as they are both pre-existing conditions. This of course would likely also apply to the semi-regular anti-biotics and occasional trips to casualty for breathing difficulties that are too serious for a simple inhaler. If I were to show symptoms of skin cancer, the eczema (which increases the risk of skin cancer and also makes it harder to spot) would mean it would be entirely possible (and if that list of cases Bri posted is in anything other than a list of rarities) for an insurance company to deny coverage on the grounds of the pre-existing condition.
I spent a childhood in and out of doctors' surgeries and hospitals. I still have to seek medical help on a very regular basis. The NHS has taken care of me and continues to do so. I can, if I want to (and I do when things are bad) buy a 3 month pre-pay prescription for £27. It covers me for any NHS prescription during that period. That's it, that's all I ever have to pay. (except dental care for which we do have to pay towards the cost of treatment).
Yes and here's the catch. Most of the meaningful treatment Hawking has received will have been developed through a massive investment in research and development in the USA. Most ALS research happens in the USA.
And if you
google for british als research you will find some research being done in British Columbia, Canada, and ALS meetings held in the British Virgin Islands.
Hawking is alive because the American health system offers incentives for the discovery of new treatments.
Dani I doubt any employer-based insurance is going to deny that pre-existing condition, and via most prescription plans your copayment would be about the same. It's really the uninsured who are hosed, and some of them are covered via various medicaid situations. The current debate is mostly whether the feds should cover the uninsured differently. No proposal is anywhere close to an NHS-style solution.
The thing is, UT, that the insured of this country ARE paying for the uninsured. The homeless have heartattacks - and get coronary bypass surgery - as well as their broken bones set, psych visits and meds, all of it. Someone is paying for this ---- and it's the gainfully employed and insured of this country. It's like dept. stores passing along the cost of shoplifting loss to the buyer. Why not try to even things out and give the uninsured some less expensive pre-emptive care instead of paying for that big heart surgery?
I'm OK with it, except
...we don't want to break the system that goes for those new cures
...seems to me we do want to break the diseconomies created by insurance vs. healthco battles
...any large bureaucracy in memory makes things more expensive, not less, and so we need to have the cost-savings part of this explained better
...the house can't seem to write a bill that doesn't include circle jerks for everybody in their sight, which makes expensive bureaucracy more likely.
I see your points and agree. I am just dismayed by all the Medicare recipients out there bemoaning "government health care" when that is exactly what they have. Medicare and Medicaid pts are allowed (and encouraged) to take part in clinical trials which helps with the research end of things.
As far as large bureaucracies go---they don't get much bigger than the mighty insurance companies we have now.
.... No proposal is anywhere close to an NHS-style solution.
You get it.
Others, particularly, among the conservative talking head circuit, don't get it...either because they just dont understand the difference between proposals for universal coverage as opposed to a single payer system or more likely because they want to use "European socialism" as a wedge issue, along with the "death panel" fear-mongering.
Yes and here's the catch. Most of the meaningful treatment Hawking has received will have been developed through a massive investment in research and development in the USA. Most ALS research happens in the USA.
And if you google for british als research you will find some research being done in British Columbia, Canada, and ALS meetings held in the British Virgin Islands.
Hawking is alive because the American health system offers incentives for the discovery of new treatments.
Much of the basic R&D has been, and continues to be, underwritten by NIH to some extent. Many trials for new drugs are subsidized or underwritten by NIH.
Big government in action.
For the partisan right, the debate must now not be about what is actually proposed. That would clarify it, and thus make it less scary, and pinpoint the debate to the proper points. But the White House has overestimated its ability to manage the message and manage the issue. They should stop now before the muck gets too deep, agree that the public needs more time to digest, scrap the House bill and put together an Obama bill that is short and precise and can be more easily argued about.
For the partisan right, the debate must now not be about what is actually proposed. That would clarify it, and thus make it less scary, and pinpoint the debate to the proper points. But the White House has overestimated its ability to manage the message and manage the issue. They should stop now before the muck gets too deep, agree that the public needs more time to digest, scrap the House bill and put together an Obama bill that is short and precise and can be more easily argued about.
But i was
really looking forward to the death panels!
Palin's such a drama queen. But she luuuuuuuuuuuurves her country. :cool:
I must say we're all fascinated over here with this debate. British officials and diplomatic staff are walking a very fine line between countering the blatant lies without actually getting involved in your debate.
There is no doubt that what is being proposed here is not a NHS style plan. Yet. But what is being proposed and potentially voted on is a government run plan that will be potentially cheaper to run than many employer sponsored plans, and until we know what those costs actually will be we shouldn't be voting on them. How we will be charged and where the money will come from is not specifically dictated in the House Bill. That will come from a different committee. There is a potential, in the way the plan is being crafted, that millions more people will be shuffled to the plan unexpectedly and it is not being designed for that. There are too many holes at this point and must not allow the Demoncratic majority to Rahm it through for political points and political reasons.
Does anyone have a thought about the psycho-social impact of a single-payer plan. On one hand a single-payer plan could free up a lot people who right now are afraid to move or start their own businesses because they can't afford to leave their employer based health care. The other side would be that people missuse programs they are not paying for. As it stands now though people are already missusing ERs getting care in a really ineffective way. I'm thinking it would be a net positive for American society to cover everyone. I don't think any abuse of the system will be worse than the present suppression of potential. thoughts?
other issues
When they eventually spell out the actual plan, I wonder if it won't turn into a permanent source of income for insurance companies. The present system is paperwork heavy and seems to defy the concept of insurance, something I've always thought of as a way to spread pain in the face of disaster...
Time for some historical perspective.
Interesting Kit and along the same lines I stumbled upon this.
Someone's opinion I may or maynot agree with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6296630Interesting Kit and along the same lines I stumbled upon this.
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?
Well kit I hear what you're saying but I cannot say I have been listening to it much. In fact ever since Bush was made president the first time I've been apathetic. This hate though reverberates through my layers of apathy. Even my beloved sister thinks we are going the socialist route. So I find a page that says out loud what my core beliefs are. I am reading it and agree. I think then maybe it's time to pay attention so I posted that link.
My gut instinct is to give health care to all but I need to read more first because I have only just began to pay attention. I have the white house’s fact sheet on health care reform and not because I am taking one source of information as gods truth. It is just a starting point for me.
So I can't say anything insightful or say anything with any kind of understanding because I don't really know what's going on here.
When I try to watch a little of the news, like this morning on Meet the Press all I see is everyone contradicting everyone else.
I do in my heart think we should go for it. I think if other countries can provide medical care so can we and why not adopt THOSE models?
I think people are seeing the devil in the details but I don't understand this. If we are bombing and invading countries we are patriotic. If we want to modernize a system we are socialists.
To me it looks like Health Care reform has lost and stupid has won.
People have swallowed hook line and sinker of fear mongering about death panels, regulated care (it already is idiots!), outlawing private care ect, ect.
See post #500 SD.
Call me pessimistic, but I think its too late and this measure of improvement has been lost to all the lies, ignorance and outright stupidity.
but how dare we try spend a tiny fraction of that amount to fund healthcare for those that can't afford it
Oh it's no tiny fraction. NOT AT ALL.
The House bill starts at 1 Trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire health care spending for *everybody*, public and private, is about 2.5 Trillion. And some people think the actual cost of the House bill is 1.6 Trillion... at this level the accounting gets messy, you know...
And so far, every health care approach we've ever enacted in this country has blown its budget to smithereens. The original 1965 warning on Medicare was that, unimaginably, its costs could someday rise to 3 billion dollars. Today it's about $300 Billion and
roughly 14% of the entire US Gov budget.
We can't live with another one like that. This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.
Danger sloppy writing ahead. I think the absurd over-reaction may push the center to the left on this. We do need to remember that a lot of this is payback for the Bush abuse we haters engaged in. It would be helpful if the left acted like adults if they want to get health care legislation done.
The anti crowd is pushing on multiple issues, I wonder how much organized crossover there is. My brother bought a box of ammo for his rifle in Connecticut and recently got a call from some outfit trying to get a rise out of him cuz Obama's taking our guns! I think it is interesting that his personal information was taken from the purchase and given to some organization claiming to be protecting individual rights.
To me it looks like Health Care reform has lost and stupid has one.
I just found that typo rather amusing amidst all the insanity this issue has caused.
As you were.
thanks for pointing it out.
It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.
1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.
2. How is it going to be paid for.
3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.
I think most people agree that something must be done.
And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQwThis is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.
And that, I'm certain, could have been argued and a compromise could have been established, but the price point wasn't what the majority of the opposition was arguing. It was the concept, not the cost, of government provided health care that people have been furious over. At its core, this is disturbing -- that we are the most powerful country on Earth and will send our military to the other side of the planet at any cost under the banner of spreading democracy and goodwill, but we will fight each other so fiercely under the label of pro-American values because we do not want to extend a hand to a fellow citizen who cannot afford a life saving medical procedure. What does that say about us as a society and our culture? Our priorities? That there are groups that have risen up and gnashed their teeth, screamed some nonsense about how the constitution is being trampled upon when it was proposed that we might try to take care of our own as if it were some sinister concept that will take our country down the same path as the political group that exterminated the jews in the late 1930s. What. The. Hell.
I wonder how these same people would react if they found out that those who cannot afford a lawyer are offered public defenders paid for with tax payer money. How come no one is up in arms about giving aid to potential criminals that don't have enough or don't want to pay for their own lawyer? Public schools, a public police force, the fire department... all of these have private options. I want to see these people up in arms about UHC take such a verbal stand against those government provided services. Where's all that anger?
In the process of becoming this distrusting of each other, this afraid, we're hurting our communities. Not only that,
but we're continuing to slide into disadvantage in the global market because we can't work these issues out.
The Woodstock site is also believed to hold an edge over the US states of Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and Alabama, which all sought to attract the plant, because health-care costs for employees in Canada are half those in the US, the Journal said.
We've lost countless jobs and lives because we can't work out something considered so simple and fundamental in every other industrialized nation on this earth. I'd just want to know why it is currently considered so courageous to stand up against the ideals of UHC and in favor of such petty selfishness.
It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.
1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.
2. How is it going to be paid for.
3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.
I think most people agree that something must be done.
And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/28/how-the-us-measures-up-to-canadas-health-care-system/3783/
Here is one of the posted remarks from the article you linked to.
August 17, 2009
8:57 am
Link
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]
[I][COLOR="DimGray"][I][I]We in Canada are shaking our heads at the US paranoir over healthcare. We have universal healthcare in Canada and yes, every now and then we complain and bitch about waiting times, but man, we would NEVER give it up. Everyone is covered and you don’t go into debt when you are sick. You don’t pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. Anyone can walk in a hospital or docter office and get ALL the help they need. Sometimes you may have to wait but if your life is in danger you are rushed through. To the American people - you are being bamboozled. Canada, England and most of the Europe has universal health care. I feel sorry for Americans. You have no idea. This isn’t about socialism or communism or whatever else your politicians and insurance agents tell you. It is about giving healthcare to everyone, those with money and those without. God help you.
— Margaret[/I][/COLOR][/I][/I][/COLOR]
I have a friend in Canada. He goes to the doctor and always gets treated. Even if it is a sore throat. They take a pre-emptive approach. He seems to get better health care than I.
I have an aquaintence who could not get treated for a serious illness who moved to Canada because she could not get the treatment here. She is doing so much better now and that is because of the Canadian health care system.
3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations.
The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.
The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.
All I am saying is that our systems are bloated and inefficient and maybe if they were the size of yours they would not be so. There are way to many factors in the US system of delivery that most other contries do not have to contend with and mainly that is the outside influence of business interests, private organizations, professional organizations, drug companies, etc. And to take some small countries plans and to try to adopt it in the US would make it be doomed to failure. We need to figure it out, but we do not need to rush it and all the details need to be spelled out before the plan is implemented.
We have lots of new stories about the things that go wrong in our system...but then they sell newspapers in a way that stories about things going right simply don't.
For every scare story you can find about socialised medicine, there will be a similar scare story about your current insurance system.
[eta] meanwhile we're busy breaking our system by farming out more and more of it to private interests and thereby making it less efficient and more costly.
The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.
agreed
Well here are some news items about the Canadian system.
I'd rather take the word of real people I know like Dana and my two friends who actually use their universal health care system and like it.
anyway,,,I am done with this subject.
We have lots of new stories about the things that go wrong in our system...but then they sell newspapers in a way that stories about things going right simply don't.
For every scare story you can find about socialised medicine, there will be a similar scare story about your current insurance system.
No doubt. And I will be the first to tell you that our current insurance system is quite broken and needs to be fixed.
I'd rather take the word of real people I know like Dana and my two friends who actually use their universal health care system and like it.
anyway,,,I am done with this subject.
As long as you personally have to pay for it I would support it too.
...The House bill starts at 1 Trillion....
Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.
The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion
Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.
From your link:
Neither of the bills covers their costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting the House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. That takes into account the spending changes and revenue increases that would save about $219 billion and bring in $583 billion in new revenue over the same period. The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion, and the bill intends to pay for the provisions with spending cuts and a new tax on the wealthy.
The Senate bill approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is less close to covering its costs. According to the CBO, the bill would increase the federal budget by $597 billion in the 2010-19 period, offset by a net savings of $48 billion. Details on the reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee were not available, but it may not include a public plan option and could impose taxes on employer-sponsored coverage.
While the bills make a number of financing proposals, some health experts argue they don't go far enough to rein in costs over the long term.
"There are no substantial proposals to change the system," said Victor Fuchs, Stanford University professor emeritus of economics, health research and policy. "You cannot increase coverage and reduce costs without making substantial changes to the way we finance care and organize the delivery system."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/17/MNT4198FQ4.DTL&type=politicsSince y'all (the US) have been so forthcoming about the failings of the NHS in recent weeks, our news media has stepped up to defend it. An interesting take on the current American system, and the well-meaning and hard-working medics, doctors, nurses, dentists ,opticians et al who are desperately trying to plug the gaps by working for free:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/17/free-health-us-style-115875-21602170/
Worth also checking out the side stories about British conservatives running down the NHS and jumping on the American Right's NHS-bashing bandwagon. This has become a bit of an embarrassing story for the leader of the Opposition, who has spent the last year or so trying to convince the electorate that not only is the NHS safe in their hands, but that they 'are the party of the NHS' and that far from dismantling it they want to invest more. Now one of his own party's MEP's has come out and declared the NHS a 'sixty year mistake', whilst another has published a book which basically calls for it to be dismantled: he must be sitting somewhere with his head in his hands wondering how he can get his hardliners to shut the fuck up :P
Since y'all (the US) have been so forthcoming about the failings of the NHS in recent weeks, our news media has stepped up to defend it. An interesting take on the current American system, and the well-meaning and hard-working medics, doctors, nurses, dentists ,opticians et al who are desperately trying to plug the gaps by working for free:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/17/free-health-us-style-115875-21602170/
That story made the circuit here around 3 weeks ago. NPR did a great 2 part segment on the group.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111676259
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=111676259And to take some small countries plans and to try to adopt it in the US would make it be doomed to failure. We need to figure it out, but we do not need to rush it and all the details need to be spelled out before the plan is implemented.
I hope we get the details figured out. Our system is a complete joke.
NATION: United Kingdom
SERVICE: National Health Service (NHS)
MODEL: socialized medicine
HOW IT WORKS: All hospitals are government-owned. All doctors are government employees. Every citizen is guaranteed a basic level of healthcare. Private insurance exists to cover any gaps in the government system.
AMERICAN COUNTERPART: Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
COST: 40% as expensive as American system
NATION: Canada
SERVICE: Medicare
MODEL: single-payer system
HOW IT WORKS: Most doctors and hospitals are in the private sector. All medical bills are payed by the government. Every citizen is guaranteed a basic level of healthcare. Private insurance exists to cover any gaps in the government system.
AMERICAN COUNTERPART: Medicare (limited to age 65+)
COST: 33% as expensive as American system
NATION: Switzerland
SERVICE: private health co-ops
HOW IT WORKS: Insurance is all private, but regulation and subsidies ensure everyone receives fair and affordable coverage.
AMERICAN COUNTERPART: None, yet.
COST: 67% as expensive as American system
NATION: United States
SERVICE: private insurance
HOW IT WORKS: Insurance is expensive and tied to your employer, who takes it out of your salary. Individual insurance is just as bad, or worse. Having insurance doesn't guarantee coverage, as the profit-driven insurers have financial incentive to disqualify you from coverage if you get sick or injured so they don't have to pay for your care. Tens of millions don't have any insurance at all.
AMERICAN COUNTERPART: n/a
COST: Most expensive system on Earth.
As a family, we pay over $8,000 a year for insurance, plus copays when we use. We use it for check ups - 1 each per year for the kids, doctors and dentist, and one for me at the gyno. I'm the only one in the family on a prescribed med (birth control), which costs $20 (co-pay) every 3 mos.
I don't want to pay any more. We pay too much for what we use of it, but as responsible parents we cannot be without it.
Pharmaceutical companies make billions in profits ever year. Start there if you want to lay the blame of the uninsured at someone's feet - not mine. I have no problem with everyone having access to a basic standard of care, it makes sense all around. But I think as long as people to can choose to be professional students, or have their own struggling business instead of working for the man, or take time off to travel, paint, discover themselves etc... - they shouldn't have the right to take more from me to cover their ass when they get sick or hurt.
If everyone pays in, the same amount per human - then I'm all for it. If people who use more are expected to pay more - then I'm all for it. If it's team politics and those who support 'the war' are expected to pay more because they go to work and collect a bigger paycheck - fuck that.
The problem as I see it is that health care costs too damn much. If the average american can't afford it, it doesn't work. Start there. Throwing more money at the problem with only make the problem worse in the long run, and I'm not for that either.
A coop model seems to have a lot going for it if you could keep it small enough to keep on track but large enough to smooth out big outlays...
The problem as I see it is that health care costs too damn much. If the average american can't afford it, it doesn't work. Start there. Throwing more money at the problem with only make the problem worse in the long run, and I'm not for that either.
But surely that is the suggested plan, in effect? By providing government backed/led insurance to those who need it or want it, the government is making insurance affordable. By mandating some kind of cover then people who can't afford private insurance aren't turning up at A&E for basic healthcare and pushing up the premiums for everyone else.
From what I have been reading the Co-ops seem to be nothing more than another form of a big business getting insurance for a group, even if a non-profit, they have to make money to keep the co-op running and pay the board and president, etc. They in turn just go to regular insurance companies and get insurance for their members, hopefully at a lower price. The down side is that without real insurance reform you just put another layer between you and the doctor.
http://patients.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/healthinsurancecoops.htm
NPR had a good interview about them today with people representing both sides. I can't get the link to work.
:lol:
Talking points on health care
I don’t know about you, but I’ve reached the point where I’d rather scope out blue zircon rings on the QVC Shopping Channel than endure the braying of opposing partisans on cable about the leviathan health care plan being debated in Washington. It no longer interests me where you stand on it. What interests me now is, what do you know about it?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/16/talking_points_on_health_care/I still find this
shocking. This company treats people in hotspots all over the world. What's amazing is the level of need in Los Angeles. For a large segment of the population, America is a third world country when it comes to health care.
When Remote Area Medical, the Tennessee-based organization running the event, decided to try its hand at large urban medical services, its principals thought Los Angeles would be a good place to start. But they were far from prepared for the outpouring of need. Set up for eight days of care, the group was already overwhelmed on the first day after allowing 1,500 people through the door, nearly 500 of whom had still not been served by day’s end and had to return in the wee hours Wednesday morning.
The enormous response to the free care was a stark corollary to the hundreds of Americans who have filled town-hall-style meetings throughout the country, angrily expressing their fear of the Obama administration’s proposed changes to the nation’s health care system. The bleachers of patients also reflected the state’s high unemployment, recent reduction in its Medicaid services for the poor and high deductibles and co-payments that have come to define many employer-sponsored insurance programs.
Why are you shocked? Were you unaware that half (made up internet statistic) of Los Angeles is third word people who have invaded the US?
Why are you shocked? Were you unaware that half (made up internet statistic) of Los Angeles is third word people who have invaded the US?
I wish we could have carded the people in that stadium. I'll bet most were US citizens or legal residents. You don't have to be an illegal immigrant to be poor and uninsured or under-insured in this country.
Both the examples mentioned in the article were US citizens. One a woman who having worked for twenty years in the same company has lost her job and is unable to get treatment for a heart condition. Another a retired man whose insurance ran out before his dentures had been finished. Both Americans who've worked their whole life and have slipped through the net. One whose pre existing heart condition meant she was unable to get insurance after her employee insurance no longer covered her and the other a man who slipped into the doughnut hole.
I wish we could have carded the people in that stadium. I'll bet most were US citizens or legal residents. You don't have to be an illegal immigrant to be poor and uninsured or under-insured in this country.
No you don't, but that in no way negates my statement that half of LA is third world.
There is also the allure of something free, that brings people out of the woodwork.
I'd bet that most of the problems they treated were not serious enough to compel the patient to make the effort to go to the ER or find a clinic.
Put together free, definite time/place, and some condition people keep saying, "I ought to get that checked out" but don't bother, and you have the perfect storm.
Both the examples mentioned in the article were US citizens. One a woman who having worked for twenty years in the same company has lost her job and is unable to get treatment for a heart condition. Another a retired man whose insurance ran out before his dentures had been finished. Both Americans who've worked their whole life and have slipped through the net. One whose pre existing heart condition meant she was unable to get insurance after her employee insurance no longer covered her and the other a man who slipped into the doughnut hole.
Two out of thousands? Why do you think they picked those two? :rolleyes:
They did free acupuncture for pain. Which is great, because if people believe Qi adjustment is medicine, it can be administered by non-doctors in non-medical facilities at a much cheaper rate. Already a huge cost savings!
I am willing to buy some aromatherapy candles for the uninsured. But I will not pay for their chiropractic sessions.
...
I'd bet that most of the problems they treated were not serious enough to compel the patient to make the effort to go to the ER...
Good. ER is the most expensive care there is. Just getting people who use the ER as their primary care physician to go to a real PCP would save loads of money.
Pharmaceutical companies make billions in profits ever year. Start there if you want to lay the blame of the uninsured at someone's feet - not mine.
I have no problem with everyone having access to a basic standard of care, it makes sense all around. But I think as long as people to can choose to be professional students, or have their own struggling business instead of working for the man, or take time off to travel, paint, discover themselves etc... they shouldn't have the right to take more from me to cover their ass when they get sick or hurt.
If everyone pays in, the same amount per human - then I'm all for it.
If it's team politics and those who support 'the war' are expected to pay more because they go to work and collect a bigger paycheck - fuck that.
Why is it that one fuckin aspirin tablet in a hospital costs $27.00, yet I can buy a bottle of 100 of them at less than 10 cents a piece? Why is it that Afrin costs over $150 for a bottle in a hospital, whereas at Walmart its only $1.98.
Rectify the ridiculous costs of the care and the insurance will no longer be a problem.
Its just too easy to blame the big evil Insurance companies while the Pharma Co's are lining your politicians pockets.
: onrant: Our current leader was elected primarily on the premise of taking care of the needs of this country - specifically the needs of the lower classes - GREAT, I say. Problem is that the productive people are being screwed in the process - You cannot raise the latter by lowering the former. That doesn't work.
Yes this needs to be corrected, but they seem to be addressing the wrong end of this equation. I no longer wonder why - cuz its whats best for them - not us.
: offrant:Its just too easy to blame the big evil Insurance companies while the Pharma Co's are lining your politicians pockets.
ORLY? I blame both the motherfuckers: all in line with greed greed greed. Y'all don't see that that is what is wrong in this country? Who's stupid now?
Whatever we do, let's make sure someone isn't getting health care. In fact, I think we should line the streets with dead people who couldn't afford insurance just to make a fucking point.
Huh? Perhaps you missed my point - There is plenty of blame to go around - don't get me wrong, but the insurance costs are simply a function of what the care costs. That has to be addressed first, doesn't it?
Why is it that one fuckin aspirin tablet in a hospital costs $27.00, yet I can buy a bottle of 100 of them at less than 10 cents a piece?
...
You're not just paying for the pill. You're paying for a stocked, full service pharmacy, the person who gets the pill for you, the person who gives you the pill, prescribes the pill, bills your insurance company, cleans the floors, manages human resources for the hospital, the CEO, board members, and stockholders. You're even paying for the hospital picnic, advertizing, and support for the local girls' softball team. Sometimes a pill is not just a pill. There's certainly room to cut costs, though. Start with making all health-related companies not-for-profit.
... In fact, I think we should line the streets with dead people who couldn't afford insurance just to make a fucking point.
That would make the streets real bumpy, and they'd get smelly pretty quickly. Yuck!
As long as we are pointing fingers and talking about costs, it might be worthwhile to go back to the link that Undertoad posted back in post
152.
It shows that by far the greatest rates of waste in the US health care system are in insurance and administration of health care. Also, US doctors, especially specialists, are paid more than in any other Western nations. There are other areas, like prescription drugs, where costs are higher than they should be, but the insurance companies and overpaid doctors account for most of the high cost in our system.
This interactive graphic
overview is pretty easy to understand and very informative.
What about expensive television advertising of "new" drugs that are just like the old drugs but with a brand new patent so they cost more? Shouldn't even be legal...
You're not just paying for the pill. ... Blah blah blah ...
Then give me the option to provide something as simple as this "pill" so it is just a pill- I don't want to support the local softball team et all. I just want a pill.
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:56 PM on 17th August 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.
Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.
But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city's nearby Royal Infirmary.
She said: "I phoned up the Royal Infirmary, it's just across the road, and they said to go into a hot bath, and then to make my way over there.
"I went into the bath and realised she was going to come quickly. I didn't think I'd be able to make it out of the bath, so I phoned the maternity ward back and told them to get an ambulance out.
'They said they were not sending an ambulance and told me I had had nine months to sort out a lift.'
Today a spokeswoman for the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said: 'We are disappointed that Ms Blake was not happy with the advice and care she received and will of course investigate any complaint.
'We are pleased that both Ms Blake and her daughter are well and healthy.'
No this is probably not typical, I hope not anyway, but I was just perusing the net on lunch and happened upon this article.
Then give me the option to provide something as simple as this "pill" so it is just a pill- I don't want to support the local softball team et all. I just want a pill.
Get your wimpy post-op ass out of bed and go to Walmart and buy the pill? :p
Bring your own meds (BYOM)?
Make hospitals not-for-profit, and regulate that they can't spend money on things like softball teams?
What ideas do you have?
Yeh - that coming form one of those "overpaid" docs...
What ideas do you have?
If you had better glasses - you'd have read them.
Remember
this one? I'm still appalled. I don't think I've heard a horror story about UK healthcare that matches this one.
Edith Isabel Rodriguez, 43, died of a perforated bowel on May 9 at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital. Her death was ruled accidental by the Los Angeles County coroner's office.Relatives said she was bleeding from the mouth and writhing in pain for 45 minutes. Experts have said Rodriguez could have survived had she been treated early enough. The head of the county's Department of Health Services, which oversees the facility, has called her death "inexcusable."
County officials said Rodriguez's last minutes were caught on tape by a hospital security camera, but officials are refusing to release that video."A dozen people were in the room and nobody got up to help. The janitors came over to help clean the vomit of the victim. They did a diligent job cleaning up the vomit, but they didn't take one look at her. It's a complete moral human breakdown that I cannot understand," said L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times' Web site posted audio from two 911 calls that were released by the county Sheriff's Department under the newspaper's California Public Records Act request.In them, callers pleaded for help but were referred to hospital staff instead.A call to a sheriff's spokesman seeking comment was not immediately returned Tuesday.Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, used a pay phone outside the hospital to call 911 at 1:43 a.m.
That doesn't count Rich -That happened in LA!
As long as we are pointing fingers and talking about costs, it might be worthwhile to go back to the link that Undertoad posted back in post 152.
It shows that by far the greatest rates of waste in the US health care system are in insurance and administration of health care. Also, US doctors, especially specialists, are paid more than in any other Western nations. There are other areas, like prescription drugs, where costs are higher than they should be, but the insurance companies and overpaid doctors account for most of the high cost in our system.
This interactive graphic overview is pretty easy to understand and very informative.
I'm an occasional visitor to this thread, and a seagull poster (swoop in, skwawk a bit, and flap off...), but ...
according to some things I saw on TV a while back, health care in the US is so much more expensive than elswhere because of (a) insurance costs, (b) excessive testing for every conceivable possible cause of the symptoms, no matter how unlikely, and (c) adminstration.
Why is this? Lawyers. Litigousness. Suing the hospital and the doctor if anything goes wrong. Getting payouts that make the rest of the world gape in awe. Increasing the cost of insurance for the doctors, and causing the docs to do every imaginable test.
Sure, I want doctors to be prudent, and do *appropriate* tests before making a diagnosis. The judgement call is on what counts as appropriate. The opinion of the program I saw is that US doctors, to cover their backs liability-wise, have to do far more tests than anyone else would consider appropriate. It is a risk balancing act - do you spend $800 on a test for a disease if there is a 1 in 10,000 chance the patient has it? IMHO, the US has gone too far towards caution.
There is also administration. In Taiwan, there is a single, govenrment run health fund - everyone has their computerised card - they spend a tad over 1% (yes, ONE PERCENT) of their total health budget on administration. This was by far the best in the world, but the US was among the worst.
kthnxbai
flap flap flap
Interesting and possibly telling...
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest private philanthropy fund, sold off almost all of its pharmaceutical, biotechnology and health-care investments in the quarter ended June 30, according to a regulatory filing published Friday.
The Seattle-based charity endowment, set up by Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and his wife, sold its total holding of 2.5 million shares in health-care giant Johnson & Johnson in the quarter, according to the filing.
The foundation also sold millions of shares in major drug makers, including 14.9 million shares in Schering-Plough Corp., almost 1 million shares in Eli Lilly & Co., 8.1 million shares in Merck & Co. and 3.7 million shares in Wyeth, over the same time period. The foundation no longer holds shares in any of those companies.
Among the other health and life sciences-related investments the foundation liquidated are Allos Therapeutics Inc., InterMune Inc., Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The only life science-related holding the foundation retains is a 3 million-share stake in Seattle Genetics Inc.
linkThey did free acupuncture for pain. Which is great, because if people believe Qi adjustment is medicine, it can be administered by non-doctors in non-medical facilities at a much cheaper rate. Already a huge cost savings!
Strangely,
the US Air Force agrees with you.
If they believe it will work for pain, it will work for pain. The brain is an amazing thing.
Also, US doctors, especially specialists, are paid more than in any other Western nations. There are other areas, like prescription drugs, where costs are higher than they should be, but the insurance companies and overpaid doctors account for most of the high cost in our system.
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.
Remember this one? I'm still appalled. I don't think I've heard a horror story about UK healthcare that matches this one.
Edith Isabel Rodriguez, 43, died of a perforated bowel
I doubt you know all the facts that surround this case and neither do I.
When did she first get sick? When did she first seek care?
I'm an occasional visitor to this thread, and a seagull poster (swoop in, skwawk a bit, and flap off...), but ...
according to some things I saw on TV a while back, health care in the US is so much more expensive than elswhere because of (a) insurance costs, (b) excessive testing for every conceivable possible cause of the symptoms, no matter how unlikely, and (c) adminstration.
Why is this? Lawyers. Litigousness. Suing the hospital and the doctor if anything goes wrong. Getting payouts that make the rest of the world gape in awe. Increasing the cost of insurance for the doctors, and causing the docs to do every imaginable test.
Sure, I want doctors to be prudent, and do *appropriate* tests before making a diagnosis. The judgement call is on what counts as appropriate. The opinion of the program I saw is that US doctors, to cover their backs liability-wise, have to do far more tests than anyone else would consider appropriate. It is a risk balancing act - do you spend $800 on a test for a disease if there is a 1 in 10,000 chance the patient has it? IMHO, the US has gone too far towards caution.
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!:D
Its the lawyers faults - everything is. We no longer enforce the intent of laws, if we ever did, we enforce the letter of the law. For that we need lawyers. Who wrote the laws? Lawyers - sometimes I think laws are written a certain way just so that we need them to ... Its a sick cycle.
I have heard, however, that in states where they have capped the maximum value a malpractice suit can pay out to a victim, it has had the unintended consequence of increasing malpractice suits, because now the lawyers have to file more cases to keep the same income.
There need to be harsher, direct penalties for lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits, not just having the case thrown out.
I heard that too Clod - leads me to the same conclusion ... Fuck Lawyers
Malpractice insurance increases the cost of health care for everyone. Tort reform would address that. But there has to be something that keeps doctors accountable for their actions.
If I go in for a leg amputation and a drunk doctor cuts off the wrong leg, they should be held personally accountable.
Oh, absolutely. But somewhere between that, and the woman who falsely accuses her obstetrician of sexually harassing her, there's a line we have to find and adhere to.
Obama Goes Postal
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn’t cashed in on TARP!)
That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.
When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?
Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.
Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.
An admittedly partisan view, but Obama's quotes are a little frightening.
I have heard, however, that in states where they have capped the maximum value a malpractice suit can pay out to a victim, it has had the unintended consequence of increasing malpractice suits, because now the lawyers have to file more cases to keep the same income.
There need to be harsher, direct penalties for lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits, not just having the case thrown out.
I don't know about that. I would like to see some stats on it. The bottom line is that malpractice insurance is VERY expensive. And if you have a specialty it is even more expensive. If you want to work they have you by the balls. But the system, in this respect, has you hostage. In some cases the choice of who you can buy your insurance from is very limited.
Malpractice insurance increases the cost of health care for everyone. Tort reform would address that. But there has to be something that keeps doctors accountable for their actions.
No doubt. The National Data Bank has gone a long way to help with some of the chronic repeat offenders, but even it has some serious problems.
Fighting false health care claims, Obama repeats one of his own
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama participated in a scripted online discussion of his health care overhaul with a friendly audience of religious voters and pastors Wednesday. It ended with him bemoaning those who bear "false witness" against his plans — and then making a claim of his own that's been widely shown to be false.
"There's been a lot of misinformation," Obama said, complaining about people who are "bearing false witness."
He said the first thing he wanted to correct was the idea that the proposed overhaul would force some people into different health care plans. "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," he said, repeating one of his stock lines.
That's not true, however, according to FactCheck.org, an independent truth squad run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
"He can't make that promise to everyone," concluded FactCheck's analysis, one of several that point out that the Democrats' health care plan could lead to employers switching plans, and thus forcing their employees into different plans and perhaps to different doctors.
"Under the House bill," FactCheck said, "some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don't meet minimum benefits standards.
"Furthermore, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74035.htmlOh Canada...
Canadians visit U.S. to get care
Deal lets many go to Michigan hospitals
BY PATRICIA ANSTETT
FREE PRESS MEDICAL WRITER
Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border.
Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.
The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.
Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.
"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.
Canada eyed in the health care debate
Dany Mercado, a leukemia patient from Kitchener, Ontario, is cancer-free after getting a bone marrow transplant at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit.
Told by Canadian doctors in 2007 he couldn't have the procedure there, Mercado's family and doctor appealed to Ontario health officials, who agreed to let him have the transplant in Detroit in January 2008.
The Karmanos Institute is one of several Detroit health facilities that care for Canadians needing services not widely available in Canada.
Canada, for example, has waiting times for bariatric procedures to combat obesity that can stretch to more than five years, according to a June report in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
As a result, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in April designated 13 U.S. hospitals, including five in Michigan and one more with a tentative designation, to perform bariatric surgery for Canadians.
The agreements provide "more immediate services for patients whose health is at risk," Jensen said.
continues:
http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/Fighting false health care claims, Obama repeats one of his own
could lead to employers switching plans, and thus forcing their employees into different plans and perhaps to different doctors.
That's a pretty weak point. Employers could switch plans if healthcare is not reformed, in fact they often shop for the lowest price. Maybe he should phrase it "if you want to, you can keep whatever coverage your employer provides for you".
Yeah, it seems like many of the complaints about the reform are that it will cause things that are already happening. It's a magic reform, reaching back in time, forcing insurance companies to ration care and employers to change insurance plans even before it is enacted!
That's a pretty weak point. Employers could switch plans if healthcare is not reformed, in fact they often shop for the lowest price. Maybe he should phrase it "if you want to, you can keep whatever coverage your employer provides for you".
Eh, that might be fair. But the reality is that unless they have a government option nothing much sounds like change for the insurance companies. They must have had some pretty good deal with the White House to be so agreeable.
They like the mandate. They think that 40-50 million new customers will make up for the costs of the other reforms. And they're working to kill the public option, so they get all of those new customers.
Yea, they are laughing all the way to the bank. WOW, now that is reform! not.
Actually, the mandate is necessary in order to eliminate the concept of "preexisting conditions", which in itself is a massively good reform. Without a mandate, if the insurance companies couldn't discriminate based on health, you would be stupid to buy insurance until you were sick. Like buying auto insurance after an accident, if auto insurance wasn't mandatory.
No elements of the bill have passed.
PWP
Is the manic rushed appraoch to "reforming healthcare" motivated by something else? Is the unreported information concealed by media groupies who appear to be little more than paid democrat supporters pertinent to tax payers? consider the following:
David Axelrod, who is fond of calling the town hall protestors astroturf mobs, appears to have a few conflict of interests with the health care reform proposals being put forward by his boss, President Obama.
Axelrod headed up AKPD Message and Media - a firm that the Obama presidential campaign paid more than $340 million to place ads for the candidate. He resigned on December 31 to join the administration, and the firm is now run by his son.
The problem is, he is still owed money by the firm. And wouldn't you like to know where that money is coming from?
How about from a coalition of businesses calling themselves "Healthy Economy Now (HEN)" connected to the health care debate?
AXELROD--OBAMA--AKPD--HEN--PHARMA
"Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/
ALSO THIS:
HEN's other members, according to its Web site, are the AARP, the biggest advocacy organization for retirees; the Advanced Medical Technology Association; the Business Roundtable; Families USA; the Service Employees International Union, all based in Washington, and the American Medical Association based in Chicago. PhRMA represents 28 drugmakers, including New York-based Pfizer Inc. and London-based GLAXO SMITH KLINE PLC.
AND
Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aV3dLt6wmZH4
So despite the placations about health care costs to Americans or insuring the uninsured maybe the real motivator is simply MONEY?
No elements of the bill have passed.
So?
So you have no idea what the final product will be. And from the looks of it the Dems are continuing to make back door deals and the insurance companies will come out on top making a huge profit and decisions about your health care based on income.
So you have no idea what the final product will be.
OK...
And from the looks of it the Dems are continuing to make back door deals and the insurance companies will come out on top making a huge profit and decisions about your health care based on income.
...but you do?
The elimination of preexisting conditions is in all versions of the bill. If we're talking about what will be enacted, I'll go for that over "from the looks of it".
OK... ...but you do?
The elimination of preexisting conditions is in all versions of the bill. If we're talking about what will be enacted, I'll go for that over "from the looks of it".
No. I said I know they are making deals to maintain their profit margin.
Did anyone see Jon's discussion with Betsy McCaughey on the new heathcare bill last week on The Daily Show? The extended discussion is available at thedailyshow.com.
Sorry if this was mentioned already. I don't have time to look thru all 10 pages of this thread.
Interesting Kit and along the same lines I stumbled upon this.
Someone's opinion I may or maynot agree with.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6296630
bwahahahahaha :D
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_releases/2009-06/pfan-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? :rolleyes:
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!***
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/miscellaneous/tort-reform-not-a-panacea-for-decreasing-health-care-costs.aspx?googleid=269472No. 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.)
Hey sugarpop - a study with the group "Physicians for a National Health Program" and their conclusions might not be the most [COLOR="Red"]UN-[/COLOR]biased if you know what I mean.
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
The power of a single cartoon ... awesome.
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.
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.
[YOUTUBE]Jng4TnKqy6A[/YOUTUBE]
Can Healthcare reform happen without a gov't run system?
That's something everyone can understand better xob.
and I especially like this one kit.
That's a fantastic video Bruce. Really awesome.
Can Healthcare reform happen without a gov't run system?
No.
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?
Fascinating, Bruce. Really interesting and clear.
Thats great Bruce. I'm personally still waiting for my private illegal immigrant death squad to come visit and tell me that they accessed my bank account. :P
What really scares me is the people who think this shit up and those that actually believe it.
I'm surprised the lie that this plan is going to cost less/save money while insuring tens of millions more people which was resoundingly refuted by the CBO didn't make the top 5.
The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate.
Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.
The House bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us premium paying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost)
Thanks, Dutch.:headshake
The government will set doctors' wages.
This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
This is patently false. Here is what has been left out. What will be the rate of Medicare will be. Many physicians already refuse to treat Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates. You don't need to be a salaried employe for people who reimburse you to set your wages. Anyone who has been a contractor knows that. I am a contractor and although there is a little wiggle room on the job, it is within a narrow range. In some places that amount is set. You can choose to work for that or they will get someone else to do the job so in fact they do set the wages. The whole paragraph from Newsweek is smoke and mirrors.
This is patently false. Here is what has been left out. What will be the rate of Medicare will be. Many physicians already refuse to treat Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates. ...
In New Jersey, Medicare pays 80% of $110ish ($88ish) for a complete eye exam by an ophthalmologist. Most for-profit insurance companies pay $40 - $50 for the same service. And here's the kicker: some patients pay a $40 copay, and their insurance company contributes zilch, nada, nil, zip, zero. But we're all better off with health insurance companies running things...:cool:
In New Jersey, Medicare pays 80% of $110ish ($88ish) for a complete eye exam by an ophthalmologist.
I am looking up their rates now.
Most for-profit insurance companies pay $40 - $50 for the same service.
I am thinking that you would have a hard time proving that. My for profit insurance company pays 100% for a complete eye exam each year for each person in my family.
And here's the kicker: some patients pay a $40 copay, and their insurance company contributes zilch, nada, nil, zip, zero.
Sure. It depends on your insurance. Sort of like car insurance. Not all of them will fix cars for the same and it always depends on your deductable and what kind of coverage you have. No different with the many different kinds of health insurance.
But we're all better off with health insurance companies running things...:cool:
Damm better than having the government running anything. So far they have not been able to do a good job at any of it. :cool:
Once we can establish what the cost of a general eye exam is, which may or may not include refactory testing, which changes the cost, then we can determine what percent Medicare pays. I have the CPT codes and Medicare rates for NJ. So do you have an EOB with the phyicians charged fee on it?
I am a contractor and although there is a little wiggle room on the job, it is within a narrow range. In some places that amount is set. You can choose to work for that or they will get someone else to do the job so in fact they do set the wages.
That's between you (the contractor) and the hospital (employer). It has nothing to do with the insurance companies.
That's between you (the contractor) and the hospital (employer). It has nothing to do with the insurance companies.
True. But even in the case of insurance companies they tell the office what they are going to reimburse. There is no negotiation for that individual fee. They offer it, you take it or leave it. They set the fee schedule. There is very little choice. The office either has a contract with that company making them "in network" or not making them "out of network", which then places the burden of going after the remaining money from the patient. The relationship is the same between me and the office as it is between the office and the insurance company.
Damm better than having the government running anything. So far they have not been able to do a good job at any of it. :cool:
Yeah we would all be better off with only toll roads, our own private security detail, cooperate owned water supply, private firehouses, cooperate ambulances (oops we already do)....you're right EVERYTHING the gov't touches falls apart. We can only hope our world soon becomes the absolute property of various cooperations.
Yeah we would all be better off with only toll roads, our own private security detail, cooperate owned water supply, private firehouses, cooperate ambulances (oops we already do)....you're right EVERYTHING the gov't touches falls apart. We can only hope our world soon becomes the absolute property of various cooperations.
:lol2: You mean as long a Obamy is in charge the government is good.
Obamy? I really dislike that. It has connotations I find rather distasteful.
Obamy? I really dislike that. It has connotations I find rather distasteful.
I agree, I find him quite distasteful as well. Him and all the other politicos in D.C.
Edit: Until they change the way they do business inside the Beltway the Government will continue to be completely inept at their attempt to change the way healthcare is delivered in the US. So far all proposals pretty much are doomed to failure. Sure they may appease those people "without" or with the expectation that the government will be their new mommy, providing them with all their wants, but so far most people don't buy that notion.
:lol2: You mean as long a Obamy is in charge the government is good.
I am not dumb enough to have absolute faith in anything. Why am I talkin to you? I might as well just be :banghead:
just send him a txt instead :p
Why am I talkin to you? I might as well just be :banghead:
Because you want to have babies with me?
I have no idea. I thought you were joining the discussion. But look at how you framed the statement. It sounded to me like you are all ok with everything the government is doing now, but not so when Bush was in charge, back then the government was all evil. I see a common theme here as more people are cool with the government giving them more free shit as long as someone else is paying for it. What eva... :rolleyes:
Maybe she is happy that the government is making some kind of an attempt to resolve a pretty fucked up situation, whereas the Bush administration wasn't?
To me - the Healthcare debate/situation is very similar to when Clinton introduced it in 93. Conservatives run their propaganda to create fear and confusion. Clinton was[COLOR="Red"]n't[/COLOR] focused enough on this issue to make it happen.
What is diseartening is that Obama has waffled on the public option. The progressives came out and said no to Obama on this-- which was the appropriate response. True reform cannot happen without a gov't run system.
The conservatives for over 40+ years have had a bull's eye on rolling back the New Deal at all costs. They have chaged the tax system - so the rich get richer. Remeber privatize Social Security? They have continually deregulated since the the time of Regan. Why do you think the middle class was fooled into believing that they could afford a 350,000 home when they make 50000 a year. DEREGULATION. or maybe they believed in "Living the American Dream"- I guess.
Rich get richer again.
Is civic virtue dead or has it been dead? (To the citizens that say - why should I care about people having no health insurance?)
For those who say the government can't run anything right --I have a few friends that are veterans that go to the VA hospital for treatment and they have very minimal complaints (no one is ever happy about any system are they?). Sign a form - no money exchanged - need meds? get them in 2 days in the mail--easy. That is true "socialized" medicine in the USA. Maybe that is not efficient enough for most people?
If this does not go through will it be another in a long list of citizen complaints that assert that corporations run the USA not a government for the people by the people-----(that would be on both sides of the aisle).
Is this our last chance for "universal" healthcare?
BTW - whatever happened to reforming Caimpaign finance? Could this be needed before we have true Health Care reform? In our current system are our representatives truly held accountable to the people?
Respond to any - all - or none.
Clinton wasn't focused enough is what I meant.
Maybe she is happy that the government is making some kind of an attempt to resolve a pretty fucked up situation, whereas the Bush administration wasn't?
Yup yup. I never said that the gov't was all evil under Bush, or that I hated everything Bush did (just most of it: No Child Left Behind, banning embryonic stem cell research, "protection of marriage" wire-tapping citizens, allowing "enhanced interrigation techniques," tax cuts for the rich...)
So yeah, I am much happier that we have more liberal gov't, now if only they prove they have integrity and backbone...
For those who say the government can't run anything right --I have a few friends that are veterans that go to the VA hospital for treatment and they have very minimal complaints (no one is ever happy about any system are they?). Sign a form - no money exchanged - need meds? get them in 2 days in the mail--easy. That is true "socialized" medicine in the USA. Maybe that is not efficient enough for most people?
You left out the part where those people who get VA benifits actually had to give up something to get them, you that little government service thing. They didn't get them for nothing like the current plan central to the current debate. Like I said before, if they want a public plan make sure that everyone pays the same percent of income to make it happen. No one gets a pass, no matter how little or much you make, the same percent. There are lots of other problems with it but I will spare you and not repeat them all again.
Clinton wasn't focused enough is what I meant.
You can edit your post inside a certain time frame. Etiquette says to make a note of it in the reason box. Welcome aboard. g
Adam haz a health care?
Who is Adam?
I am thinking that you would have a hard time proving that. My for profit insurance company pays 100% for a complete eye exam each year for each person in my family.
...
How much does your insurance company pay the doctor, though? That's the question. I'll bet it's not doctor's the "regular retail" rate, nor is it as much as Medicare pays.
Once we can establish what the cost of a general eye exam is, which may or may not include refactory testing, which changes the cost, then we can determine what percent Medicare pays. I have the CPT codes and Medicare rates for NJ. So do you have an EOB with the phyicians charged fee on it?
92014. Medicare allowable is $111.83, of which they pay 80%, or $89.46. Medicare never pays for a refraction. Are you sure this is your business?
How much does your insurance company pay the doctor, though? That's the question. I'll bet it's not doctor's the "regular retail" rate, nor is it as much as Medicare pays.
You do understand that most private insurance pays much more than Medicare rates don't you? Private insurance has contractual relationships with each provider or group or hospital.
92014. Medicare allowable is $111.83, of which they pay 80%, or $89.46.
Each state is different for reimbursement amounts.
You do understand that most private insurance pays much more than Medicare rates don't you? Private insurance has contractual relationships with each provider or group or hospital.
[size=1]Psst... you do understand Spexx is a doctor, right?[/size]
Mercenary - When you said that everyone pays the same percent into the system - I had a flashback to Steve Forbes ---Flat Tax campaign.
One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.
Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.
[size=1]Psst... you do understand Spexx is a doctor, right?[/size]
I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on television. But I do work in an ophthalmologist's office, and work with insurance programs every day.
You do understand that most private insurance pays much more than Medicare rates don't you?
I don't know anything of the sort. I know that Medicare pays the highest for an annual eye exam. I also know that most for-profit insurance companies use Medicare guidelines for their cataract surgery reimbursement. Where do you get your information that for-profit insurance pays the provider more than Medicare?
...Each state is different for reimbursement amounts.
Yes, that's why I bagan with:
[SIZE="4"]In New Jersey[/SIZE], Medicare pays 80% of $110ish ($88ish) for a complete eye exam by an ophthalmologist. Most for-profit insurance companies pay $40 - $50 for the same service. And here's the kicker: some patients pay a $40 copay, and their insurance company contributes zilch, nada, nil, zip, zero. But we're all better off with health insurance companies running things...:cool:
I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on television. But I do work in an ophthalmologist's office, and work with insurance programs every day.
Ah,
that's why you were giving out such helpful advice for free... :)
... but I don't own any people. ;)
You don't really "own" your critters either. ;)
We just think of it that way.
Charlie Rangel plays the race card as his own ethics probe heats up. What an idiot.
http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel.race.2.1162895.htmlMercenary - When you said that everyone pays the same percent into the system - I had a flashback to Steve Forbes ---Flat Tax campaign.
Awesome!
One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.
Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.
I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.
I don't know anything of the sort. I know that Medicare pays the highest for an annual eye exam. I also know that most for-profit insurance companies use Medicare guidelines for their cataract surgery reimbursement. Where do you get your information that for-profit insurance pays the provider more than Medicare?
I get my information not from cataract surgery but from other procedures, GYN surgery specifically, but I was thinking of reimbursement in the larger sense. For example in bariatric surgery Medicare pays 28% less than private insurance.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m52w62k100j21n71/
. For choclear implants Medicare paid 57%, and Medicaid 46% of what private insurance paid for the surgeon. For the hospital Medicare paid 80% of what private insurance pays for outpatient services and less for inpatient services.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4532-1/index1.html . For anesthesia services the difference is huge. For GYN procedure is in our outpatient surgery center the differences are huge. Bottom line is that Medicare pays significantly less than what private insurance pay for reimbursement. Cataract surgery may be the exception, not the rule when it comes to differences between private insurance reimbursement and Medicare.
Trauma reimbursement is along the 80% of what the private insurers pay.
Trauma reimbursement is along the 80% of what the private insurers pay.
And among the most expensive care not covered because of lack of insurance and other issues. It is a huge issue in our state and the topic of much discussion as of late as we try to address the holes in care.
http://grady.healthstatgeorgia.org/files/GeogriaTraumaSystem.pdf
Deteriorating Trauma Medical Staff Support
Maintaining medical staff participation in trauma
care is increasingly difficult in both community
and academic hospitals. There are many
contributing factors:
• Reductions in resident support
• Shortage of trauma surgical specialists
• Incompatibility with private practice
• Increasing burden of uninsured patients
• Undesirable lifestyle due to trauma call
• Demise of community ED call panels
• Specialty hospital trend
• Increasing physician sub-specialization
• Malpractice market turmoil
• EMTALA changes encourage dumping
• Physician payments penalize trauma
• Managed Care does not pay its share
Inadequate Trauma Center Financing
Trauma centers collectively experience a
$1 billion loss, and with increasing costs, this
problem will worsen over time. Key factors in this
crisis:
• A disproportionate and increasing share of
patients without the means to pay.
• Cost shifting to finance Trauma Center
operations is no longer working.
• Problematic relationships with Managed Care.
• Medicare does not cover high standby costs.
• Poor reimbursement rates under state
Medicaid programs.
• Auto insurance does not pay its share.
Trauma Centers Already Under Siege
The fundamental economic threats faced by
trauma centers need to be addressed to assure
they are available in the event of a terrorist
attack. These threats are continuing and will
result in a significant portion of the nation’s
trauma centers closing unless they receive
increased support.
Without corrective action, the current rate of
closures among the nation’s 600 regional trauma
centers will increase and 10-20% will close
within 3 years. Trauma centers provide an
essential public service that affects everyone.
They treat all patients within a common system
of care, so if a trauma center closes, it closes to
all.
http://www.traumacare.com/download/NFTC_CrisisReport_May04.pdfTrauma reimbursement is set up on a "per diem" basis. The hospital charges for each thing independently. Nursing staff, medication, supplies.... The total could be somewhere in the $1,000,000 range for three weeks. However, the hospital has a "deal" with the insurance company, so they only pay out about $66,000. The hospital writes off the rest. . . or so I've heard.
The hospital writes off the rest. . .
Translated: Charges everyone else for the difference.
More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient's physician, are rejected by California's largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation's biggest state, according to data released today by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.
CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six largest insurers operating in California rejected 31.2 million claims for care - 21 percent of all claims.
ReutersFranken, of all people, actually manages to calm a mob of tea baggers and encourage rational discussion.
[YOUTUBE]SCNs7Zpqo98[/YOUTUBE]
Maybe it is just his comedic wit. Maybe he passed out pictures of him in a diaper.
Maybe it is just his comedic wit. Maybe he passed out pictures of him in a diaper.
You mean those phony photoshoped photos you keep posting?
You mean those phony photoshoped photos you keep posting?
No, the ones of him when he did the skit on SNL.
No, the ones of him when he did the skit on SNL.
The photo is a fake..
One of numerous retractions....
"Last week I posted a blog about comedian Al Franken joining the Senate (here), including a picture of Franken wearing bunny ears and a diaper.
Franken did many things on Saturday Night Live that could be embarrassing to a Senator. But apparently, that was not one of them. It turns out the picture was photoshopped.
We don’t knowingly run false pictures, so I took it down and replaced it with another goofy picture of Sen. Franken…"
http://www.regrettheerror.com/?tag=cincinnati-enquirer
...but no surprise that gullible morons like you believe it because it fits your agenda.
But still not as ignorant as your Hitler/Nazi references to another member of Congress.
One can only wonder how low you are willing to sink to perpetuate bullshit that you find on the net in you never ending quest to slime those with whom you disagree politically.
But still not as ignorant as your Hitler/Nazi comparisons to another member of Congress.
One can only wonder how low you are willing to sink to make a point.
Would that include the Hitler/Nazi comparisons made by Pelosi and other members of the Demoncratic Congress? Or do you give them a pass like you do for most of the double standards?
Would that include the Hitler/Nazi comparisons made by Pelosi and other members of the Demoncratic Congress? Or do you give them a pass like you do for most of the double standards?
I have condemned any and every reference to Hiter comparisons....but Pelosi doesnt post here.
A lame and childish justification of your actions....."they did it" so I can too.
....but Pelosi doesnt post here.
Thank Frigging God for small things. Maybe we can all have a favor and she will get hit by a bus.
Thank Frigging God for small things. Maybe we can all have a favor and she will get hit by a bus.
Another mature response rather than to own up to your own ignorant posts.
Another mature response rather than to own up to your own ignorant posts.
I am crushed by your opinions, on anything. Well not really.
I am crushed by your opinions, on anything. Well not really.
I expect nothing more from you.
Hey, I know you dont let the facts, not my opinion, get in the way of your agenda.....the Franken fake pic is just the latest example.
I expect nothing more from you.
Hey, I know you dont let the facts, not my opinion, get in the way of your agenda.....the Franken fake pic is just the latest example.
It is still pretty funny. :D
It is still pretty funny. :D
Only to morons who need an excuse to avoid manning up to the fact that it was fake
Only to morons who need an excuse to avoid manning up to the fact that it was fake
Are you just sad because the Demoncrats are failing to pass healthcare reform like they wanted it. Pelosi and her ilk don't get to shove this one down everyone's throats and Rham it through. Don't be sad. There is still hope the process works the way it should.
Only to morons who need an excuse to avoid manning up to the fact that it was fake
Fake or not it is funny as hell. I will continue to post it. :D
Fake or not it is funny as hell. I will continue to post it. :D
Like a stubborn child unwilling to admit he was wrong.
Suit yourself.
Like a stubborn child unwilling to admit he was wrong.
Suit yourself.
Well I am having fun. How about you? :D
I always have fun debunking your bullshit.
Its just not very challenging.
From the article above.
Many House members don't want to stick their necks out if it looks like the Senate is hopelessly deadlocked.
This says it all. They don't give a damm about passing healthcare reform and insuring the un-insured or under-insured, they just care about the next election and protecting their positions of power and influence.
I always have fun debunking your bullshit.
Its just not very challenging.
I am absolutely crushed.
My job is done here.
You've been exposed....again :)
My job is done here.
You've been exposed....again :)
Make it a great day! Go forth and celebrate Labor Day! and the nearly 10% unemployment on the Demoncratic Congress.
Thank Frigging God for small things. Maybe we can all have a favor and she will get hit by a bus.
That is a disgusting thing to wish on anyone just because you disagree with their politics. I'm not surprised it came from you.
That is a disgusting thing to wish on anyone just because you disagree with their politics. I'm not surprised it came from you.
Eh, it is more just a wish for her to be out of a rehlm of influence then actually to have real physical harm come to her, which I would wish upon no one. For those of you who expected different, I meant no real harm. For Redux, I could care less.
... For Redux, I could care less.
Getting under your skin, huh :D
I have no qualms at all about bashing ignorance when I see it...and will continue to do so.
Getting under your skin, huh :D
I have no qualms at all about bashing ignorance when I see it...and will continue to do so.
Hardly, hence my comments about your opinion, on anything. :D
Feel free to ignore me when I call you out for your ignorant posts. No surprise since you cant defend those ignorant posts.
Its more for the community as a whole to see...when the facts refute your baseless claims.
Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand...
A critical look at the French Health system is making the news.
French healthcare is 'badly run'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stmFeel free to ignore me when I call you out for your ignorant posts. No surprise since you cant defend those ignorant posts.
Its more for the community as a whole to see...when the facts refute your baseless claims.
And I will call you out on your double standards when it comes to the Demoncratically Congress and it's failures. I can admit when I am wrong. I still say Pelosi is a Socialist Nazi. :D
Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand...
A critical look at the French Health system is making the news.
French healthcare is 'badly run'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
Irrelevant.
It has no bearing on the proposals on the table for reform in the US, since no proposal resembles the French system.
Completely relevant. As many critics have done nothing but compare the US healthcare system to that of the one's in the UK, France, and Germany.
Completely relevant. As many have done nothing but compare the US healthcare system to that of the one's in the UK, France, and Germany.
Please cite any Democratic member of Congress or the Obama administration..or any objective observer...who have suggested the propsoals for reform should mirror anything in Europe.
It is solely the demagoguery of the Right that makes that comparison....along with "socialism" and "death panels" and "big brother making your medical decisions"
Read the last 46 pages.
Yep....demagoguery of the Right...with you leading the way with your misleading and, more often that not, completely baseless partisan editorials.
If you don't think that members of Congress and other critics of healthcare in the US have made comparisons to rates of disease and cost outcomes to that in European countries you have not been paying attention to the debate. It is not about "demagoguery" as you attempt to fend off critisim of the Demoncratic plans. Talk about fear mongering. You and Hillary Clinton have much in common, "It's a Right Wing Conspiracy!". It is about honest debate about how Congress plans to implement the most sweeping social change in US history since the social programs of FDR.
If you don't think that members of Congress and other critics of healthcare in the US have made comparisons to rates of disease and cost outcomes to that in European countries you have not been paying attention to the debate. It is not about "demagoguery" as you attempt to fend off critisim of the Demoncratic plans. Talk about fear mongering. You and Hillary Clinton have much in common, "It's a Right Wing Conspiracy!". It is about honest debate about how Congress plans to implement the most sweeping social change in US history since the social programs of FDR.
Sure...Republican members of Congress (not to mention the town hall crazies) with the never ending charges of "socialism" and "death panels to pull the plug on grandma" and "big brother making your health care decisions" is not demagoguery.
It is honest debate.
Sure...screaming "socialism" and "death panels to pull the plug on grandma" and "big brother making your health care decisions" is not demagoguery.
I am not screaming anything. And after further review I modified my stance on the Bill and EOL counseling. I never used the term "Death Pannel" nor supported such idiocy. Try again my partisan comrade.
I am not screaming anything. And after further review I modified my stance on the Bill and EOL counseling. I never used the term "Death Pannel" nor supported such idiocy. Try again my partisan comrade.
Hmmmm...you posted at least two partisan editorials from Betsy Mccaughey that I can recall on the "death panels" and other false characterizations of the current proposals....and, when challenged, you even said the "death panels" were, at worst, only a "slight" exaggeration.
Hmmmm...you posted at least two partisan editorials from Betsy Mccaughey that I can recall on the "death panels" and other false characterizations of the current proposals.
I am not screaming anything. And after further review I modified my stance on the Bill and EOL counseling. I never used the term "Death Pannel" nor supported such idiocy. Try again my partisan comrade.
SO now you are running away from your own posts (paraphrase - "death panels only a slight exaggeration")
Cool!
That doesnt change the fact that Republicans in Congress are still using the same demagoguery....."socialism" and "death panels to pull the plug on grandma" and "big brother making your health care decisions"
How is that an honest debate?
SO now you are running away from your own posts ("death panels only a slight exaggeration")
Cool!
That doesnt change the fact that Republicans in Congress are still using the same demagoguery....."socialism" and "death panels to pull the plug on grandma" and "big brother making your health care decisions"
How is that an honest debate?
I haven't run from anything. The Death Panel issue has been debunked nearly as soon as it came out. The bigger issue was that they were going to reimburse people for the discussion. I could give a shit about Republickins in Congress. They are not in charge. The Demoncrats are in charge and have been in charge for more than 2 years. The responsiblity lies with them. This is about the Obama and Demoncratic plans for healthcare reform. Not about what the minority says but what about the majority are trying to Rham through, which thank God they have been prevented from doing in this case.
I get it...ignore the lies on the Right that have made an honest discussion of the issue virtually impossible, and blame the Left.
I get it...ignore the lies on the Right that have made an honest discussion of the issue virtually impossible, and blame the Left.
No, ignore the lies of the Left and the Right and pick apart the Bill the Dems have tried to rush through Congress.
This is a bit long but a really great read about the state of healthcare today. As the cover states, "What Washington doesn't get about Healthcare".
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-careNo, ignore the lies of the Left and the Right and pick apart the Bill the Dems have tried to rush through Congress.
Thank you for agreeing with me that we all should ignore most of the partisan false and misleading editorials from the Right (Betsy Mccaughey et al) that you flooded the discussion with for 40some pages. ;)
Thank you for agreeing with me that we all should ignore most of the partisan false and misleading editorials from the Right (Betsy Mccaughey et al) that you flooded the discussion with for 40some pages.
Not what I said.
A random sample of my posts from 3 pages:
Politifact.com
MILT FREUDENHEIM from the NYT
Amanda Carpenter from the Washington Times
DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK from the NYT
Caroline Baum from Bloomberg
GENERAL EDITORIAL FROM NYT
A BUNCH OF STUFF FROM THE WSJ
I'm as libertarian as anyone can get, but I still believe that there are some things that should not have a profit motive attached to them, and health care is one of them.
For those who are stupid enough to suggest the impending health care reform is even remotely socialist, you are insane.
Nobody is discussing a total government takeover of health care, though nations that have done it like the UK pay 1/3 of what Americans pay and they cover everyone including visitors to their country while giving superior health care than what is available in America even with great health insurance.
The Obama administration is merely trying to level the playing field a bit and enforce a few changes so people aren't screwed over by insurance companies. These will not drive up the cost of health care, but may eat into the profits of insurance companies.
Here are 8 FACTS about the upcoming health care reform.
8 WAYS HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PROVIDES SECURITY AND STABILITY TO ALL AMERICANS
1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Here are 8 of the top MYTHS (aka lies) about the health insurance reform being proposed by the Obama administration.
COMMON MYTHS ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
1. It's a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. It's a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. It's a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. It's a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. It's a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. It's myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. It's myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you - and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
WOW Radar, I thought you would be a little more original than become a mouth piece for David Axlerod. At least you could have referenced it as not being your own.
That is straight from the mouth of the White House.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6296060As opposed to straight from your arse?
As opposed to straight from your arse?
I reference what I post. If I have not please show me where and I will correct it. I certainly have not posted something that someone else wrote as propaganda and said it was my own. I think that is dishonest.
FTR.
I'm as libertarian as anyone can get, but I still believe that there are some things that should not have a profit motive attached to them, and health care is one of them.
For those who are stupid enough to suggest the impending health care reform is even remotely socialist, you are insane.
Nobody is discussing a total government takeover of health care, though nations that have done it like the UK pay 1/3 of what Americans pay and they cover everyone including visitors to their country while giving superior health care than what is available in America even with great health insurance.
The Obama administration is merely trying to level the playing field a bit and enforce a few changes so people aren't screwed over by insurance companies. These will not drive up the cost of health care, but may eat into the profits of insurance companies.
Here are 8 FACTS about the upcoming health care reform.
8 WAYS HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PROVIDES SECURITY AND STABILITY TO ALL AMERICANS
1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Here are 8 of the top MYTHS (aka lies) about the health insurance reform being proposed by the Obama administration.
COMMON MYTHS ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
1. It's a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. It's a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. It's a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. It's a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. It's a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. It's myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. It's myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you - and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
I reference what I post. If I have not please show me where and I will correct it. I certainly have not posted something that someone else wrote as propaganda and said it was my own. I think that is dishonest.
Sorry, you're quite right. I should have said straight from somebody else's arse :P
Sorry, you're quite right. I should have said straight from somebody else's arse :P
sure.
WOW Radar, I thought you would be a little more original than become a mouth piece for David Axlerod. At least you could have referenced it as not being your own.
That is straight from the mouth of the White House.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6296060
Yes, it is straight from the White House, which gives it more credibility than any of the lies, propaganda, stupidity, and smear campaigns by the Republican Party or the corrupt insurance companies who are funding them. The White House has more credibility than blithering idiots and pathological liars like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, etc.
I don't need to reference the post. These are widely known and indisputable facts, and I assumed if you weren't totally retarded, you'd know where it came from.
Nowhere did I take credit for the information. I merely said that they were facts and myths pertaining to the forthcoming health care reforms and I thought it obvious that I was pasting something. But if it makes you feel better, here's the sources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/I'm as libertarian as anyone can get, but I still believe that there are some things that should not have a profit motive attached to them, and health care is one of them.
Just curious, but why do you pick this facet of life out and deem it necessary to receive government intervention as opposed to letting the free hand of the market fix the problem like everything else? Surely, if people didn't like the care they were getting from current insurance providers and wanted something better, any number of competing businesses would thrive off the desires of the customers and provide the services people want. Why no "if you don't like it, don't buy it/start your own"?
Well to be honest Kitsune, we aren't likely to get free markets in America any time soon. More and more people are having more and more of their money stolen from them, and companies who want loyalty from employees are offering none in return.
Well over 80% of what the American government takes part in or legislates over is in blatant disregard and direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I'd rather not be robbed at all. I'd rather we had free markets entirely. But as long as I'm going to be robbed anyway, I'd rather the money stolen from me be spent on something that improves the lives of Americans like hospitals, beds, medicine, and doctors than bombs, fighter jets, missiles, and tanks for an unconstitutional war of aggression that doesn't help or defend any Americans like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The insurance companies don't act in good faith, because we don't have free markets. We have a system of mercantilism where businesses are buying the influence of elected officials openly and where those people put the needs and desires of the highest payer above those of the American people. Legislation and regulations are made to prevent new businesses from starting up to compete with politically influential ones.
Since it's less likely that I'll stop getting robbed to pay for unconstitutional government programs I don't like, I may as well push to have the money that will be stolen from me anyway, to have something that doesn't suck or kill people.
Nobody can deny that the quality of care in the UK, France, or Canada is superior to the care received in America even when you have great insurance, and these places pay a fraction of what Americans pay.
I used to buy into the often spread lies about "socialized medicine" and how people in Canada were coming to America for medical procedures. When I looked further into it and actually went to the UK and Canada, I found that they weren't waiting in line for medical care like Russians waited for bread, they weren't getting substandard care, they weren't being turned down for care based on age, etc.
The few Canadians who do seek medical care in America are most often coming here for elective surgeries like boob jobs, laser eye surgery, lap band surgery, etc. and not medically necessary operations.
For every Canadian who seeks medical care or medicines from America there are a hundred or more Americans seeking medical care or medicines from Canada.
It's hard to argue with what has a proven track record, and any system that leaves millions of people without health care and some people dying in the streets because they can't afford care is a flawed one. Any system where your coverage can be jerked out from under you when you need it the most is a flawed one. Any system where you can be dropped because you forgot to tell your insurance company you had your tonsils out when you were 9 years old is a flawed one. Any system where you can lose your health care coverage that you've paid for in good faith simply because you got sick is a flawed one. Any system where people lose their homes or businesses and go bankrupt because they can't afford medical care, is a flawed one.
Are there flaws in single-payer health care systems like the UK? Yes, but they are minuscule in comparison.
I'd have less of a problem with a profit motive being attached to health care if Americans weren't already being robbed to pay for things they don't want or need, and insurance companies weren't being given a license to cheat and steal from Americans who are in need of medical care and who have paid for it in good faith. But until that day happens, I'll stick with what costs the least and works the best.
This is a good summary of the problems we face with the current approach.
That’s the premise behind today’s incremental approach to health-care reform. Though details of the legislation are still being negotiated, its principles are a reprise of previous reforms—addressing access to health care by expanding government aid to those without adequate insurance, while attempting to control rising costs through centrally administered initiatives. Some of the ideas now on the table may well be sensible in the context of our current system. But fundamentally, the “comprehensive” reform being contemplated merely cements in place the current system—insurance-based, employment-centered, administratively complex. It addresses the underlying causes of our health-care crisis only obliquely, if at all; indeed, by extending the current system to more people, it will likely increase the ultimate cost of true reform.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-careTrue reform of course being a single-payer system that eliminates insurance companies from health care all together.
True reform of course being a single-payer system that eliminates insurance companies from health care all together.
I can't completely agree or disagree with this statement. The problem is so much more complex and convoluted.
So best to just all carp from the sidelines and do all we can to prevent any actual change from happening or gaining support then eh?
No. What is best to do is follow every step along the way and make sure that you are not handed a plate of shit and exepect that any one party is looking out for your best interests. YOU should know that and accept that more than anyone on this forum.
For those who are stupid enough to suggest the impending health care reform is even remotely socialist, you are insane.
Not insane -- just a classic response in politics. Nothing new, here.
Not insane -- just a classic response in politics. Nothing new, here.
So by the posting of this picture does that mean that you equate opposition to the current healthcare policy reform is due to racism?
Perhaps we could have a more productive discussion. With all the BS coming from ALL sides, its difficult to address the issue at hand and what changes need/should be implemented.
What costs are we trying to reduce?
Where is the waste - specifically?
Is it the Ins Co.'s, or the Hospitals or Pharma?
Who is going to pay for what & how?
These are just a couple of the basics that seem to get lost in the partisan BS.
So by the posting of this picture does that mean that you equate opposition to the current healthcare policy reform is due to racism?
Nope. Interesting that you would read that out of it, though. Just pointing out that the old scare tactic practice of bringing up the political boogeyman is still alive and well. That we give these nutjobs a voice in the news, however, is new.
Commies! Brownshirts! Nazis! Keep your innocent child out of school and away from this evil!Nope. Interesting that you would read that out of it, though. Just pointing out that the old scare tactic practice of bringing up the political boogeyman is still alive and well. That we give these nutjobs a voice in the news, however, is new. Commies! Brownshirts! Nazis! Keep your innocent child out of school and away from this evil!
I was just curious because I have heard 3 or 4 black commentators say that very thing, opposition to the reform was due to nothing more than racial issues. But on the note of scare tactics, they are being used by both sides of the issue, one to encourage support, the other in opposition.
What costs are we trying to reduce?
Where is the waste - specifically?
Is it the Ins Co.'s, or the Hospitals or Pharma?
Who is going to pay for what & how?
Are you asking about the current system or the proposed reform? If you're willing to spend some time reading,
here is a fair summary of the current issue list.
I'm just now 30 and I've already experienced one of the delightful ways insurance companies screw people. During my stint in a highly stressful contract position, I developed anxiety-induced skipped heartbeats at the age of 23. Harmless, but I felt I should get it checked out just to be sure. A quick doctor's visit was all it required.
What a mistake. I got a clean bill of health from the doctor, but the insurance company had a field day with it. Despite resolution of the issue a year prior with a simple change in jobs, my policy renewal had a giant rider stapled to the top of the contract indicating that they would have no problems covering any cardiovascular issues because the doctor gave a thumbs-up but would not drop a dime for treatment of "any neurological disease or disorder". That vague statement included every single mood disorder, depression, anxiety, nervous system degenerative disease, palsy, stroke, seizure, syncope, brain tumor, and spinal disease. Had they really wanted to, they likely wouldn't have had to cover a head injury if I had skipped and fallen on the sidewalk. They would, of course, review the rider in 2 years and had the option to remove it if they deemed it viable. Of course, they didn't. It was likely stuck with me for life. Why would they ever feel the need to remove it? Not only did it decrease their potential exposure as an insurance company, but they raised my rates slightly because of it.
Fuck you, Blue Cross.
Thankfully, I got a job some years later that had underwritten insurance, but a large number of jobs in my field leave it up to the policy holder to deal with insurance directly. Next year, my company will reduce the choice of insurance policies from 3 down to 1, and there are discussions that the burden of health coverage will soon be left to the employee in order to remain competitive. It makes one very hesitant to even get an issue checked out for fear that it will bite you in some unexpected way down the line.
This needs to be fixed. It's fucking criminal.
eh - I really don't trust Wiki - especially when it starts with:
"The debate over health care reform in the United States centers on questions about whether there is a fundamental right to health care, on who should have access to health care and under what circumstances..."
Well, that IS the debate, is it not?
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of it, classic. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to put it in those terms, but you either believe that healthcare is a fundamental human right, or it's not. The trick is to not be ashamed of what you believe (or if you are, reassess what you believe.) Lookout, for example, will openly tell you he doesn't think healthcare is a fundamental human right, just like being rich and being happy are not fundamental human rights.
Wow. Am I the go to posterchild for heartless bastards in the cellar, or what?;)
This is one of the reasons I love the Cellar. It just helped me clarify where I stand. I do not believe that health care is a fundamental right - if by that you mean "free to everyone".
I believe that health care should be available for a reasonable cost -- whether or not you work for a major corporation. That's a horse of a different color.
I'm just now 30 and I've already experienced one of the delightful ways insurance companies screw people.
Us, too. I have two children with lifelong pre-existing conditions. (Because even if I manage to recover them, the insurance companies go by the current medical assumption that recovery is impossible, so they will be forever autistic even if they no longer meet diagnostic criteria, and thus uninsurable for the rest of their lives.) If my husband is ever laid off, they will have to go on a state plan for uninsurable children, like my friend's daughter who is diabetic. That
government-run health insurance program has been quite literally a lifesaver for her.
Then you and I agree on that issue dar. I think the major problem is we having a wide range of definitions for "reasonable cost". I believe the system needs improvement, I do not believe our government is approaching the problem from the right angle though.
like my friend's daughter who is diabetic. That government-run health insurance program has been quite literally a lifesaver for her.
ABSOLUTELY! I whole heartedly support safety net programs like this. My concern is where we draw the lines for the programs to prevent corporations from dropping benefits and pushing more people to the government sponsored plans simply for the sake of ease and profit.
I think the debate is more how to fix what is perceived to be broken, if possible. Can we spend less money and insure an additional 15-25 million people?
Can we provide care to everyone without expanding facilities and caregivers?
I still have not heard one valid argument that answers those questions with a yes.
Therefore, I come back to... How are we going to do this?
Where is the waste - specifically?
This was addressed by a very good study by a nonpartisan group that Undertoad mentioned in post 152 of this thread and that I linked to directly again about a month ago. It really is worth visiting and spending a lot of time digesting. There is a tremendous amount of information there.
There is an interactive graphic overview
here. And the front page that takes you to the detailed study is
here.
It shows that by far the greatest rates of waste in the US health care system are in insurance and administration of health care. But we over pay in virtually every other area of health care. The only place where we are cheaper than other countries is in home care and long term care. The report suggests that is because the nurses who do that work are underpaid compared to other countries. The doctors (mainly the specialists, not the general practitioners and OB/GYNs) are payed more than in the other developed counties.
To read the chart, the light blue area is what the average costs are in other developed counties. The dark blue areas are how much more we pay for those areas of health care. The orange is where we pay less. And then at the far left is all of the bar graphs added up into the total.
As of 2003, we pay $477 billion a year more than we should, compared to other developed countries, which works out to around $1,500 per person per year. Makes the cost of reform pale in comparison, assuming we can eliminate the waste.
Which of those countries is comparable to the United States in size, population....?
Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, or Switzerland.
Are any of them? They are referred to as "Peer Countries." I never thought of the US as peers to many of them - no offense intended.
Does that matter? This is the problem that I'm having with all the BS which is out there - The fact get lost in all the noise. Also this study used data which is 6 years old. Are things better or worse now?
Which of those countries is comparable to the United States in size, population....?
They are all comparable. The costs are normalized to take into account the different economies of each country.
I can't copy and paste text from the PDF of the full report, and am too lazy to retype it, but they said in the report that they adjust for the differences in the economies of each country.
Can you really do that? I've been reading it and it seemed like once you accept that , its pretty straight-forward.
Excellent speech by President Obama tonight. I especially like the part where he said he will not back down from having a public option and that there WILL be health care reform and he will not allow us to go on with the status quo.
It was also very moving when he talked about Ted Kennedy.
I was disgusted by the scumbag who shouted "liar!" when President Obama told the truth about the proposed health care reform not covering undocumented immigrants. I was also disgusted at the lack of respect and poor behavior on the part of Republicans.
In each and every single presidential speech in front of a joint session of congress I've ever seen during my lifetime, when the president speaks, every member from both parties would applaud and stand up. Even during the stain on American history known as the Bush administration, Democrats had enough respect for the office of the Presidency that they applauded and stood up.
Not tonight though. The Republicans have changed all that with their divisive, disrespectful, and disgusting behavior.
Illegal aliens should not be paid for by public funds. Period. Legal aliens who follow the process and do the right thing are welcome. All others are scumbag law breakers and should be kicked out on their ass.
Illegal aliens should not be paid for by public funds. Period.
Right, and they won't be. No one has said that they should be. No one has proposed that they will be. That they might be is a lie. Period.
Operative word, "might"...
It's not an operative word if it's a lie. The whole point is there is no might, illegal aliens will not be covered by this plan. End of story.
In general, I liked what I heard from B. I want to look a little closer at the details, but it sounded good on the surface.
I was mostly underwhelmed by the Republican response. Most of it was not solid points but hand-waving. The only thing I did like was the initiative to allow businesses to get insurance across state lines. I think that ought to be put in.
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
That seems clearly stated to me. Not a lot of wiggle room there.
What will happen then, when an uninsured illegal immigrant shows up in the ER, under any proposed plan?
" the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
Correct. The part they did not admit or tell you about is that they already get care. We care for them everyday. EveryfriggingDay! So don't try to tell me they do not get covered. We are ALREADY Paying for these illegal aliens. You pay for them through higher insurance premiums. Get a grip people.
Right. What's being discussed won't affect that one way or the other, for good or bad. It also won't affect road maintenance funding, or the failing education system--just because something's a problem doesn't mean it has to be addressed at this time with this bill or else the bill must be worthless. One thing at a time.
No, it does not effect the root problems in our system today. It places an bunch of bandaids over the issues. It pats everyone on the head with feel good programs fueled by political agendas. And it spend 1 trillion dollars on a system which will not fix the issues, that your great great grand children will be paying for. Good luck with that.
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.
On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't watch the speech. (Not saying you have to agree with what he said... but I'm still quite sure you didn't watch it or read a transcript.)
Please tell me what the "root problems" are, and how we should "fix the issues." I am genuinely curious, since I can't recall you ever getting specific about it.
Illegal aliens should not be paid for by public funds. Period. Legal aliens who follow the process and do the right thing are welcome. All others are scumbag law breakers and should be kicked out on their ass.
There are no illegal aliens in America. The federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority whatsoever to create or enforce immigration laws unless someone amends the Constitution to give them such an enumerated power. All immigrants regardless of how they got here, or whether or not they came here with or without papers or whether they checked in with the government when they got here are here
LEGALLY.
What will happen then, when an uninsured illegal immigrant shows up in the ER, under any proposed plan?
Republicans and scumbags who use terms like "illegal alien" to describe undocumented immigrants who are here legally would prefer that they die in the street. How humanitarian of them.
which court rulings support your view on the immigration issue radar? how many cases have been filed?
illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal. like it or not the law says there are legal requirement for entrance into the US. therefore anyone in the US not following those requirements is by definition and illegal immigrant. you may argue the validity of the law but you cannot argue the law isn't in place so until you are able to get a ruling in your favor you had better accept these people are here illegally.
The courts are below the Constitution, including the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from taking part in, legislating, regulating, or controlling anything that isn't specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution or from having "implied powers" and guess what?
Immigration is not mentioned so what I'm saying is a stone, cold, indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable fact.
As the Supreme Court said in Marbury vs. Madison, all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. There is no need for judicial review. They are unconstitutional in their face and automatically null and void. The U.S. Supreme Court are not the sole arbiters of the Constitution. All citizens not only have the right to determine whether or not laws are Constitutional, but the duty to do so.
The federal government has no more legitimate authority to make a law pertaining to immigration or an organization of thugs to enforce them than I have the authority to make a law stating that you will shave your head bald and wear a pink speedo for the rest of your life. You would ignore any laws I made like that. You don't ignore the government because they have more guns than me. Their guns don't lend them any legitimacy, nor does the title "government".
Republicans and scumbags who use terms like "illegal alien" to describe undocumented immigrants who are here legally would prefer that they die in the street. How humanitarian of them.
But in fact we don't do that. We treat every single one just like they were your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, or wife. And someone else pays for it.
What will happen then, when an uninsured illegal immigrant shows up in the ER, under any proposed plan?
The same thing that happens now. As Obama said, the reform doesn't include them.
The same thing that happens now.
We will continue to have the hospitals and insurance companies make up the difference in our bills and premiums? Someone pays for them.
Of course. What's the alternative? Require papers from anyone who seems foreign in an ER?
The problem still exists.
But if I show up in an ER they'll want to see proof that Ive paid for insurance, right?
The problem still exists.
So rather than make things better for the deserving citizens it's better to not change anything because the illegals will still get care? What do you propose to change that part (assuming as you said that the problem is that part won't change in the current proprosal; it's not addressed) that would make the proposal to your liking? I don't get the logic. Don't change it because the millions it will benefit won't negate the small percentage who get around the system?
I don't have the solution. Really. But they are costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars every year. Maybe we should send the bill to their home country governments or withhold $ from aid programs in direct proportion to the costs of the healthcare. I do know that they need to come up with a plan and they need to address the issue.
But if I show up in an ER they'll want to see proof that Ive paid for insurance, right?
As well as your ID, your home phone number, address, SSN, Insurance ID numbers, etc.
And if you don't have insurance when you show up what will happen under the current system? If you have no insurance to show proof of?
Right now, if you have insurance do you have to show proof of it?
I doubt, under ANY system, our hospitals would (TYPICALLY---always gotta disclaimer everything in the Cellar 'cause someone knew someone personally and IRL who died that way) let someone die on the front step because they can't produce the appropriate papers. If this begins to be the case, I REALLY don't want to live here anymore. :headshake
Yes you do have to show proof of insurance now, so they can bill it. I never went to the ER when I didn't have insurance but the signs say they can't turn anyone away... under the current system.
When my bones were protuding from my arm I don't remember them beating me up for my insurance card: they got me into treatment and the paperwork came later. This isn't, of course, the same as showing up with the sniffles, which is what uninsured people HAVE to do because they have nowhere else to go, under the current system.
But if I show up in an ER they'll want to see proof that Ive paid for insurance, right?
They'll
want to. And if they can get it, they'll
want it before treatment. But they can't, and shouldn't, deny treatment if they don't get it. For obvious, practical, reasons like time-sensitive situations, unconscious victims, or contagion, and for moral reasons, both general and Hyppocratic.
But if I show up in an ER they'll want to see proof that Ive paid for insurance, right?
I suspect that in the end, the verification step will happen as part of your yearly taxes. Show proof of insurance, or $3,800 (or whatever the final penalty is) gets tacked on to your tax bill. The hospital will ask for insurance information and/or direct payment, like they do now, and some people will still tell them they have none, like they do now. At most the hospital will report you to whatever agency for having no insurance, while still treating you.
Video killed the radio star and insurance companies killed the Hippocratic Oath! ;)
I doubt, under ANY system, our hospitals would (TYPICALLY---always gotta disclaimer everything in the Cellar 'cause someone knew someone personally and IRL who died that way) let someone die on the front step because they can't produce the appropriate papers. If this begins to be the case, I REALLY don't want to live here anymore. :headshake
People die outside the ER and in the waiting room all the time. Usually because of the long wait and poor triage. I know there were some cases of patient dumping that happened in Texas a while back but laws were changed to prevent it. I am sure people die because hospitals go on divert and cannot accept patients as well.
I suspect that in the end, the verification step will happen as part of your yearly taxes. Show proof of insurance, or $3,800 (or whatever the final penalty is) gets tacked on to your tax bill. The hospital will ask for insurance information and/or direct payment, like they do now, and some people will still tell them they have none, like they do now. At most the hospital will report you to whatever agency for having no insurance, while still treating you.
I guess that is possible if that part of the bill makes it to final passage. The bill still has not provided for a lot of the problems that are needed to fix healtcare today. And we are about to spend a whole lot of money not fixing it.
See? ALL THE TIME. Bring out yer dead!
I've seen bloody stumps of people crawling all over the hospital lawn, just waiting to get in.
OK, sure. All the time.
See? ALL THE TIME. Bring out yer dead!
I've seen bloody stumps of people crawling all over the hospital lawn, just waiting to get in.
OK, sure. All the time.
Ok, not all the time, but it is in the news frequently. :D [borg]Google is your friend. [/borg]
I've seen bloody stumps of people crawling all over the hospital lawn, just waiting to get in.
Shaun of the Dead quote?
When my bones were protuding from my arm I don't remember them beating me up for my insurance card: they got me into treatment and the paperwork came later. This isn't, of course, the same as showing up with the sniffles, which is what uninsured people HAVE to do because they have nowhere else to go, under the current system.
Well that's not true.... there are walk in clinics, I've been to one a few times. They don't deal with insurance at all, just cash.
I just don't understand how the illegal immigration issue can be ignored when reforming health care. I'm not saying I have the answer... but I also didn't run for president.
lol
I just knew someone would know of it happening: I'm sure it does, I'm just saying it isn't exactly the intention.
I still think that with proper healthcare options, CITIZENS wouldn't need to use the emergency room for non-life-threatening illness or injury and thus alleviate the problems in overcrowded emergency rooms.
Shaun of the Dead quote?
Uh, no, I made it up off the top of my head, on the fly, out of thin air. lol
Is it? :confused: I've never seen that one.
Well that's not true.... there are walk in clinics, I've been to one a few times. They don't deal with insurance at all, just cash.
I just don't understand how the illegal immigration issue can be ignored when reforming health care. I'm not saying I have the answer... but I also didn't run for president.
Yeah, not in smaller towns. Certainly not at night.
I agree completely Shaunee123. :D
I completely support the need for changes in the system.
I just don't understand how the illegal immigration issue can be ignored when reforming health care. I'm not saying I have the answer... but I also didn't run for president.
I think it's mostly because the illegal immigration issue has so much of its own baggage that healthcare reform could never get passed if it even touched on the issue, at least in appearances. But if you think about it, I think this plan absolutely will affect the illegal immigrant problem, they just can't talk about that aspect of it without riling everyone up for a totally different debate.
Right now, an illegal goes to the ER to get an antibiotic, the hospital asks for money/insurance, they get little or none, and they may even have a direct admission that the patient is illegal--down here, it's not usually a big secret, because what are they realistically gonna do about it? Hospitals don't call INS, and INS doesn't do anything even when they are called. The only way illegals really ever get reliably deported is if they commit a crime.* And this proposed bill will make it a crime to be without health insurance, and guarantees the hospital will call someone about it. I think it will have a huge effect on illegals, in the long run.
*Yes yes, Merc, they're already committing a crime, but you know what I mean.
Who will the hospitals call?
So we implement healthcare reform and the ER line goes down, except for the illegals -- still an improvement. In terms of health care reform, there are exactly two options open for dealing with illegal immigrants: provide them healthcare as well or turn them away entirely. Guess which of these options no doctor would ever attempt?
To say we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because of illegals is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
To say we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because of illegals is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
I don't think anyone has stated that, only that it needs to be addressed.
To say we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because of illegals is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
To say this suggests that you KNOW for CERTAIN that proposed heath care reform will be successful and beneficial - and you don't. It may be your opinion that it will be - just like it is my concern that over-medication will be on the rise and actual quality of care will suffer. But again, we can't know these things at this point.
To suggest that people shouldn't ask questions and actually try to understand what will happen is doesn't benefit anyone.
So rather than make things better for the deserving citizens it's better to not change anything because the illegals will still get care? What do you propose to change that part (assuming as you said that the problem is that part won't change in the current proprosal; it's not addressed) that would make the proposal to your liking? I don't get the logic. Don't change it because the millions it will benefit won't negate the small percentage who get around the system?
Exactly. It's better to screw the 95% of the population out of health care reform even because 5% who are here without papers might get help when they are sick too.
I don't have the solution. Really. But they are costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars every year. Maybe we should send the bill to their home country governments or withhold $ from aid programs in direct proportion to the costs of the healthcare. I do know that they need to come up with a plan and they need to address the issue.
Wrong. Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny when everything is accounted for. They contribute more money into the economy and the tax base than they use in social services. This is an irrefutable fact.
When Americans are visiting the UK and they get hurt, do you know what happens? They get medical care and no bill. Why? Because not giving medical care to someone in need is inhuman and asinine.
People die outside the ER and in the waiting room all the time. Usually because of the long wait and poor triage. I know there were some cases of patient dumping that happened in Texas a while back but laws were changed to prevent it. I am sure people die because hospitals go on divert and cannot accept patients as well.
The wait for the E.R. wouldn't be so long if everyone could get cheap or free preventative care, but the insurance companies have prevented this so far. Luckily for us, President Obama will make sure a law is passed which will reduce the long wait in emergency rooms and reduce the costs from E.R. visits vs. regular doctor appointments.
Well that's not true.... there are walk in clinics, I've been to one a few times. They don't deal with insurance at all, just cash.
I just don't understand how the illegal immigration issue can be ignored when reforming health care. I'm not saying I have the answer... but I also didn't run for president.
There is no illegal immigration issue. There are no illegal immigrants.
Wrong. Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny when everything is accounted for. They contribute more money into the economy and the tax base than they use in social services. This is an irrefutable fact.
When Americans are visiting the UK and they get hurt, do you know what happens? They get medical care and no bill. Why? Because not giving medical care to someone in need is inhuman and asinine.
Wrong. We have been through this before and I am not going to go through it with you again. The benifits are not directly reimbursed to the hospitals and healthcare providers, if they were it would be a non-issue. The costs for everyone go up for people who have to pay and or have insurance when others who get care get it for free. Market forces at work. This is an irrefutable fact.
There is no illegal immigration issue. There are no illegal immigrants.
Yes, and America does not extend west of the Mississippi, we've been over this.
There is no illegal immigration issue. There are no illegal immigrants.
Take your head out.
http://danoday.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/PDHeadInSand.gifLuckily for us, President Obama will make sure a law is passed which will reduce the long wait in emergency rooms and reduce the costs from E.R. visits vs. regular doctor appointments.
Don't hold your breath.
The wait for the E.R. wouldn't be so long if everyone could get cheap or free preventative care, but the insurance companies have prevented this so far. Luckily for us, President Obama will make sure a law is passed which will reduce the long wait in emergency rooms and reduce the costs from E.R. visits vs. regular doctor appointments.
So no one will break their arm if everyone can go get their temp and blood pressure checked, and a prescription for an acid blocker since you're here anyway, regularly? Awesome.
The people who stupidly claim that there are illegal immigrants in America might want to take a minute to actually read the Constitution. The Federal Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. This is reality. It's an indisputable fact.
Every immigrant who is in America, regardless of how they got here, what papers they do or don't have, and whether or not they checked in with the U.S. Government when they came, is here LEGALLY. Anyone who denies this is either uneducated or dishonest.
So no one will break their arm if everyone can go get their temp and blood pressure checked, and a prescription for an acid blocker since you're here anyway, regularly? Awesome.
People will still break their arm and go to the E.R., but all of the dozens of people who are flooding emergency rooms due to easily preventable illnesses, won't be there. This will mean the wait will significantly decrease.
Was it that hard for you to figure out Jinx?
The people who stupidly claim that there are illegal immigrants in America might want to take a minute to actually read the Constitution. The Federal Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. This is reality. It's an indisputable fact.
Every immigrant who is in America, regardless of how they got here, what papers they do or don't have, and whether or not they checked in with the U.S. Government when they came, is here LEGALLY. Anyone who denies this is either uneducated or dishonest.
false.
Wrong. As usual Merc.
Here's Proof that the U.S. Government has zero Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws.
The U.S. Constitution was written by our founders to place strict limits on the powers of the federal government. It was made to specifically spell out what the Federal government had control over, and everything else was left to the states or the people assuming they granted the states a power that wasn't prohibited to them by the U.S. Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution spells out exactly what the federal government is to accomplish, and the following 17 clauses describe which powers are granted to the government in order to accomplish those goals. There are specifically enumerated (listed) powers and none of them has anything to do with immigration. A few idiots will try to stretch the meaning of certain clauses to mean something it doesn't. A few commonly mentioned clauses that do not apply to immigration are...
The phrase "general welfare" (Preamble & Clause 1) - This does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever, but many have attempted to use this phrase to give the government Carte Blanche to create any laws or government programs they want when this goes against the very reason for creating the Constitution in the first place. The phrase "general welfare" at the time of our founders meant the ability to enjoy the blessings of a government that does not intrude on our daily lives but protects our right to live our lives in our own way as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.
The power to make laws concerning naturalization. (Clause 4) - This allows Congress to establish rules and procedures detailing how an immigrant can become a citizen, but grants the federal government no power over immigration.
The power to repel invading armies. (Clause 15) - Some idiots try to suggest that an influx of peaceful immigrants is an "invasion", but this goes against everything the founders said. This clause refers to armed invasions, not large numbers of immigrants. Otherwise the army would have been called out against the Irish, Italians, Russians, Greeks, Germans, Polish, English, French, etc.
The power to create all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the specific things enumerated (listed) in the Constitution. (Clause 18) - This clause doesn't grant the government the power to make any laws other than laws pertaining to the specific things listed in the Constitution. Congress is granted the authority to make whatever laws are necessary and proper for carrying out those specific things and nothing more.
The last one that people often try to take out of context or stretch to mean what they want it to mean rather than what it actually says is actually Article 1, Section 9, clause 1....
The power to regulate the importation and migration of slaves. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1) - This was a compromise between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. It allowed the Southern states to continue importing slaves until 1808, but gave the government the power to charge a tariff or duty on each imported slave. This article only pertains to slaves and nobody else. Slaves are the only kind of people who are considered property. A duty or tariff is a tax on property.
Now that we've established that no part of the Constitution specifically grants or enumerates a power of the federal government to create or enforce any laws pertaining to immigration, we'll now look at the part of the Constitution that specifically prohibits the federal government from doing so.
The 9th and 10th amendments were written as catch-alls for the founders to limit the powers of the federal government. While they allowed the Constitution to be changed through an amendment, it cannot be changed any other way.
The 9th amendment states that the rights specifically listed and protected by the U.S. Constitution are not our only rights and can't be used to limit our other rights. In essence, this is saying that all power comes from the people and not from government.
The 10th amendment says that all powers and rights not specifically enumerated (listed) within the U.S. Constitution are RESERVED as powers of the states or rights of the people. This means that the federal government is PROHIBITED from taking part in or legislating over anything that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution. The founders wrote this to lock down the federal government and to strictly limit what activities it takes part in or legislates over. It clearly and specifically denies the federal government the ability to have "implied" powers.
Since immigration is not an enumerated power of the federal government, and the federal government is prohibited from doing anything that isn't listed, the federal government has zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws and all laws made to the contrary are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. CASE CLOSED.
I will list the actual text of each part of the Constitution I mentioned.
From Article 1, Section 8....
Clause 1 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 4 - To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 15 - To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Clause 18 - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article 9, Section 1, Clause 1 - The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The 9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
There you have it. Clearly you've never actually read or understood the U.S. Constitution so this lesson was far over due.
You'll note that nowhere in this post did I give an "interpretation" of the Constitution. I don't "interpret" the Constitution because it's not vague or ambiguous and it's not written in Swahili. It's written in simple English and it means what it says; no more; no less.
I've supplied verifiable and indisputable proof to back up what I say. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing the part of the Constitution where immigration is listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government. If you can't, I'm correct and you are not.
Jinx, can you explain the over-medication thing to me? I totally agree that over-medication in lieu of actual treatment is a problem that is already ridiculously widespread... but how will the reforms being proposed make it worse?
People will still break their arm and go to the E.R., but all of the dozens of people who are flooding emergency rooms due to easily preventable illnesses, won't be there. This will mean the wait will significantly decrease.
Was it that hard for you to figure out Jinx?
What are the easily preventable diseases and how will they be prevented with well visits?
I've supplied verifiable and indisputable proof to back up what I say. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing the part of the Constitution where immigration is listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government. If you can't, I'm correct and you are not.
Yes, and America does not extend west of the Mississippi, we've been over this.
Did you find that part of the constitution that gave the govt the authority to make the louisiana purchase yet? No? Didn't think so.
How about the part of the constitution that gives the govt the authority to mandate health insurance? Or the right to take money from some people but not others to pay for it?
Jinx, can you explain the over-medication thing to me? I totally agree that over-medication in lieu of actual treatment is a problem that is already ridiculously widespread... but how will the reforms being proposed make it worse?
Just by adding that many more consumers and limiting profit in other areas. If doctors need to see even more patients than they do now every day to break even, they'll be spending less actual time, less actual effort providing care. But if people are handed a prescription, they'll feel like something was accomplished.
Plus there are the perks that come with writing prescriptions, which may become even more important than they are now with the possibility of reduced financial incentives in general.
The interesting factor is that many medical students, when asked, express the belief that pharmaceutical industry contact does not have any influence on them. However social science literature suggests that it would be surprising if doctors were not influenced by small and large services and tokens of appreciation. (8) Gifts create relationships: they create a subconscious indebtedness and the feeling of a need to reciprocate. (9) This reciprocation is well documented in the form of increased prescribing of the heavily marketed drugs, even if those drugs are no more efficacious than other generics in that particular therapeutic area and do not display cost-effectiveness.
I'm not opposed to reform, it's sorely needed, I just want it to actually accomplish something other the feel-good "well, at least it sucks equally for everyone" model.
I'm not opposed to reform, it's sorely needed, I just want it to actually accomplish something other the feel-good "well, at least it sucks equally for everyone" model.[/QUOTE]
:notworthy
Is it in the original constitution that Alaska is a state? or Hawaii for that matter? If not, wouldn't that invalidate any politicians currently in office? Aren't you therefore agreeing with those right wing whacko extremists... Just askin ...
Just by adding that many more consumers and limiting profit in other areas. If doctors need to see even more patients than they do now every day to break even, they'll be spending less actual time, less actual effort providing care. But if people are handed a prescription, they'll feel like something was accomplished.
I have a hard time with this, because on the one hand some doctors are saying they can barely break even with all these Medicare patients, and on the other hand it's widely accepted that doctors in general, and specialists even moreso, make more money in this country than in any other. The few doctors I know personally do make very good money, and work very convenient office hours as well.
I don't think adding everyone to an insurance program will result in more consumers--these people already exist, and they will still go to the doctor when they get sick, just like they do now. They'll just be paying into the system instead of holding out and hoping for the best. Like my father, for example: he has never had health insurance, and it's worked out okay for him so far, but now that he's getting older medical problems are becoming more and more likely with each passing year. He has a nest egg that he's gambling will be enough to cover whatever crops up between now and when Medicare kicks in for him. But basic research shows he doesn't even have 1/2 the money he would need to cover a major hospitalization for a heart problem (which he already has hints of,) or treatment for colon cancer (which runs in the family.) If it happens, I don't care what his libertarian ideals are, when push comes to shove he will not smile and say, "Oh well, I can't afford it, let me die." And I guarantee you the doctors wouldn't allow it even if he did. He will get treatment, and other people will pay for it. He is just one of many people out there who I believe should be required to carry health insurance, because we all have to work within the same system, whatever it is, or it will fail. We could go with a totally libertarian system just as easily, but as a society we'd have to overcome our fear of just letting people die, and that's never going to happen.
Wrong. As usual Merc.
Sorry I trust these guys over a Hot Dog sales person in Florida:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigrationTo say this suggests that you KNOW for CERTAIN that proposed heath care reform will be successful and beneficial - and you don't.
Well, of course it is just my opinion, just as it is the opinion of many that reform won't work. I would say that most can agree that the current system isn't working and is unsustainable for our future without some kind of correction being made. I think, though, that it is important that current discussions over the way to correct it not get sidetracked and distorted by unrelated issues, including illegal immigrants. ("Lie!", etc.) The current reform plan doesn't concern them. We pay for them through distributed costs now and, if the bill is passed, we will continue to pay for them in the future. No change. Anything affecting that would result from different legislation.
I don't think anyone has stated that, only that it needs to be addressed.
It does, yes, but as stated no one is going to deny illegals emergency care with or without reform. The issue of illegals has to be tended to at a level above healthcare reform -- the only thing that could be done, realistically, involving healthcare is to permit them to be treated under the same plan. No one is going to turn them away, no one would dare to try to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship at the doors of the ambulance or ER. Immigration reform is something else entirely.
I have a hard time with this, because on the one hand some doctors are saying they can barely break even with all these Medicare patients, and on the other hand it's widely accepted that doctors in general, and specialists even moreso, make more money in this country than in any other. The few doctors I know personally do make very good money, and work very convenient office hours as well.
Maybe we just know different people but this is hardly my experience. In one private practice clinic where I work 4 doctors make up the practice, any 2 or 3 of them are there every day 5 days a week, plus a Nurse Practitioner and some times a PA. Everyone of them sees 40 to 65 patients every day. And they are specialists. Few specialists have the kind of time they can just sit around and have lazy days on their boats. They all work 7 days a week seeing patients in the hospital on a rotational basis. They take 24 hour call Mon thru Thurs and 72 hour call on a rotational basis. Malpractice is well over $100,000 a year. They have a staff of over 30 in this one office, from RN's to clerks and an office manager. The office is open from 830 am to when ever they are done, usually around 5 pm. How long do you think it takes to get an education to start and run a practice like this? How about the personal and financial costs associated with getting the education? Pick a specialty and I will give you an idea of the time it takes to get that specialty. The idea that most docs live the Life of Reilly is a misnomer in my experience. The hours are long and most people could never keep up.
Did you find that part of the constitution that gave the govt the authority to make the louisiana purchase yet? No? Didn't think so.
How about the part of the constitution that gives the govt the authority to mandate health insurance? Or the right to take money from some people but not others to pay for it?
1. It can easily be argued that the United States would be better off if the Louisianan Purchase hadn't happened and the South were another country. The average IQ of America would jump 30 points. Of course, I wouldn't be living in Florida if there were no Louisiana Purchase.
2. I agree that most of what the federal government does is blatantly unconstitutional including health care. But until they stop taking my money to pay for things I don't want, others will have to pay for things they don't want.
I'd prefer not to have any of my money stolen from me, but as long as it is, I'd rather see it spent on hospitals and doctors, than bombs and missiles for unconstitutional wars.
Maybe we just know different people but this is hardly my experience. In one private practice clinic where I work 4 doctors make up the practice, any 2 or 3 of them are there every day 5 days a week, plus a Nurse Practitioner and some times a PA. Everyone of them sees 40 to 65 patients every day. And they are specialists. Few specialists have the kind of time they can just sit around and have lazy days on their boats. They all work 7 days a week seeing patients in the hospital on a rotational basis. They take 24 hour call Mon thru Thurs and 72 hour call on a rotational basis. Malpractice is well over $100,000 a year. They have a staff of over 30 in this one office, from RN's to clerks and an office manager. The office is open from 830 am to when ever they are done, usually around 5 pm. How long do you think it takes to get an education to start and run a practice like this? How about the personal and financial costs associated with getting the education? Pick a specialty and I will give you an idea of the time it takes to get that specialty. The idea that most docs live the Life of Reilly is a misnomer in my experience. The hours are long and most people could never keep up.
Aren't most of the specialists you know OB-GYNs? As you note, their malpractice insurance rates are exhorbitant, and far worse than the rest of the industry. I've said before that needs to be curbed.
Why do they need a staff of 30? Is it possible that many, if not most of those employees are hired specifically to deal with chasing down payment from bullshit insurance companies? Wouldn't certain reforms allow them to have a smaller staff and lower operating costs?
And I'm sorry to tell you, but 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM are not excruciating hours. My husband works from about 8:30 AM until 7:30 PM, and usually comes home with more work to do. And his industry does the on-call thing, too, so he's in that rotation as well. Ask Lumberjim what kind of hours he worked this weekend.
My experience is that most private-practice doctors (again, other than OB-GYNs) do not go on call--they have an answering service that will leave a message for an on call nurse, who will call you back to let you know whether your problem can wait until morning, or you should go to the ER.
From what I've heard on the Cellar, most Americans who work seem to work mad hours. Happens here too, like, but I don't think to the same extent. Though British workers do generally work longer hours than they do in mainland Europe.
Aren't most of the specialists you know OB-GYNs? As you note, their malpractice insurance rates are exhorbitant, and far worse than the rest of the industry. I've said before that needs to be curbed.
Yes and Surgeons of all practices. So General Surgery, Plastics, EENT, Vascular, and Ortho.
Why do they need a staff of 30? Is it possible that many, if not most of those employees are hired specifically to deal with chasing down payment from bullshit insurance companies?
I would say that maybe 5 or so work just with insurance, coding, and billing.
Wouldn't certain reforms allow them to have a smaller staff and lower operating costs?
I seriously doubt it.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM are not excruciating hours. My husband works from about 8:30 AM until 7:30 PM, and usually comes home with more work to do. And his industry does the on-call thing, too, so he's in that rotation as well. Ask Lumberjim what kind of hours he worked this weekend.
Those are just the office hours times for the patients. No one goes home or comes in at those times. When I go there, the surgery side we start at 0700 and often do not finish til after 5. Remember they still have to see patients in the hospital after clinic is finished.
My experience is that most private-practice doctors (again, other than OB-GYNs) do not go on call--they have an answering service that will leave a message for an on call nurse, who will call you back to let you know whether your problem can wait until morning, or you should go to the ER.
All surgeons have an on-call service, basically an answering service. They also pay a nurse or PA to be the person on-call for professional stuff over the phone. And one of the 4 is always on-call in-house at the hospital 24/7/356. All of them work the day after call in the clinic, some for just a half a day, one works more. Add up those hours and it would put most peoples work schedule to shame. As a side I work an average of 70 hours a week and often well over 110 hours. The guys I work with will take vacation 2 or 3 times a year for a week at a time, but hey they also work for it. I still say few people would be able to keep up with the average busy doctors work schedule.
I have a hard time with this, because on the one hand some doctors are saying they can barely break even with all these Medicare patients, and on the other hand it's widely accepted that doctors in general, and specialists even moreso, make more money in this country than in any other. The few doctors I know personally do make very good money, and work very convenient office hours as well.
If doctors that are doing well under the current system can be influenced by free pens, imagine what will happen if the reforms cut into their bottom line at all.
I don't think adding everyone to an insurance program will result in more consumers--these people already exist, and they will still go to the doctor when they get sick, just like they do now. They'll just be paying into the system instead of holding out and hoping for the best.
Will they? Or will they be added to the insurance system without paying in because they don't have enough money? Do you think
most uninsured people can actually afford insurance and just choose not to buy it?
Well, of course it is just my opinion, just as it is the opinion of many that reform won't work. I would say that most can agree that the current system isn't working and is unsustainable for our future without some kind of correction being made. I think, though, that it is important that current discussions over the way to correct it not get sidetracked and distorted by unrelated issues, including illegal immigrants. ("Lie!", etc.) The current reform plan doesn't concern them. We pay for them through distributed costs now and, if the bill is passed, we will continue to pay for them in the future. No change. Anything affecting that would result from different legislation.
How do you know if you can afford something if you don't know how much it costs? Illegal aliens will cost health care money and will not be paying into the system. A discussion of their numbers and the level of care they will receive is entirely related and relevant - unlike the amount of money that Bush wasted in Iraq.
No good argument can be made for rushing thru reforms that don't get the job done right.
...always on-call in-house at the hospital 24/7/356...
Oh yeah? And what about the other nine days of the year, you lazy bastards!
How do you know if you can afford something if you don't know how much it costs?
By that argument, government can do nothing. (Yeah. I know. Some people will say that's an improvement.) But the truth is that
everything that the government does at that level will cut a wide swath. There's no way you can tally all the downstream costs.
I gotta go with Kitsune on this one. 1) I haven't seen any figures that undocumented immigrants are a significant portion of those getting free treatment. 2) Even if you've got figures to show the above, this is not a med insurance issue. It's a whole other deal. I'd say give 'em all social security cards, let 'em pay taxes like the rest of us and call it a day.
By that argument, government can do nothing. (Yeah. I know. Some people will say that's an improvement.) But the truth is that everything that the government does at that level will cut a wide swath. There's no way you can tally all the downstream costs.
I gotta go with Kitsune on this one. 1) I haven't seen any figures that undocumented immigrants are a significant portion of those getting free treatment. 2) Even if you've got figures to show the above, this is not a med insurance issue. It's a whole other deal. I'd say give 'em all social security cards, let 'em pay taxes like the rest of us and call it a day.
Absolutely. This is not an immigration reform bill.
And, the last report I saw, many illegal immigrants pay fica taxes (as a result of having a fake SS card) and are contributing to social security to the tune of $6 billion annually and Medicare to the tune of $1.5 billion annually and wont reap the direct benefits.
No good argument can be made for rushing thru reforms that don't get the job done right.
Absolutely correct, again!
[YOUTUBE]bLJxmJZXgNI[/YOUTUBE]
When my bones were protuding from my arm I don't remember them beating me up for my insurance card: they got me into treatment and the paperwork came later. This isn't, of course, the same as showing up with the sniffles, which is what uninsured people HAVE to do because they have nowhere else to go, under the current system.
When we took my daughter to the ER this summer, nobody asked about payment or insurance until after she was taken care of.
Maybe we just know different people but this is hardly my experience. In one private practice clinic where I work 4 doctors make up the practice, any 2 or 3 of them are there every day 5 days a week, plus a Nurse Practitioner and some times a PA. Everyone of them sees 40 to 65 patients every day. And they are specialists. Few specialists have the kind of time they can just sit around and have lazy days on their boats. They all work 7 days a week seeing patients in the hospital on a rotational basis. They take 24 hour call Mon thru Thurs and 72 hour call on a rotational basis. Malpractice is well over $100,000 a year. They have a staff of over 30 in this one office, from RN's to clerks and an office manager. The office is open from 830 am to when ever they are done, usually around 5 pm. How long do you think it takes to get an education to start and run a practice like this? How about the personal and financial costs associated with getting the education? Pick a specialty and I will give you an idea of the time it takes to get that specialty. The idea that most docs live the Life of Reilly is a misnomer in my experience. The hours are long and most people could never keep up.
My workplace has the ophthalmologist, who has been here for about 30 years, a tech, a receptionist, a billing/accounting clerk, an office manager, and me. The doctor work 1/2 days on Mon, Wed, and Thu, full day on Fri, full day on 3 of 4 Tues/month. The rest of us work more than he does, and make less. He drives a Mercedes, owns 4 properties in Haddonfield, a VERY expensive town, flies places on his quarterly (or more) vacations. Tough life.
He's an opthamologist!?!?!?!?! Thats about as cushy a position as a foot doctor!
My brother is one as well, so is his wife - they own two practices and oh - he's in Alaska right now fishing for salmon.:eyebrow:
My workplace has the ophthalmologist, who has been here for about 30 years, a tech, a receptionist, a billing/accounting clerk, an office manager, and me. The doctor work 1/2 days on Mon, Wed, and Thu, full day on Fri, full day on 3 of 4 Tues/month. The rest of us work more than he does, and make less. He drives a Mercedes, owns 4 properties in Haddonfield, a VERY expensive town, flies places on his quarterly (or more) vacations. Tough life.
I want to be him. Some make better choices than others. I deal with surgeons, few if any lead this type of life. Oh, and they busted ass to get there, a journey few would do or could do. Some are willing to go the distance and make the sacrifice to have a better life, some are not. Those that do should not feel bad or be vilified for hard work and reward.
When we took my daughter to the ER this summer, nobody asked about payment or insurance until after she was taken care of.
.
That amazes me. Not once in my memory have I ever received care before insurance or payment was verified. Even sitting in the ER with a dislocated ankle I had to hand over the debit card and insurance card first.
If they brought you in with a gunshot wound, you would have gone right in and they'd have worried about payment later.
That amazes me. Not once in my memory have I ever received care before insurance or payment was verified. Even sitting in the ER with a dislocated ankle I had to hand over the debit card and insurance card first.
I think the hospitals in your area are jaded (as well they should be, they get more than their fair share of non-paying customers.) I've never been asked for payment before treatment, and in one case I was desperately
trying to give them my insurance information and they said they didn't want it, didn't have time to deal with it, they'd mail me an automated bill and I could deal with it then.
That amazes me. Not once in my memory have I ever received care before insurance or payment was verified. Even sitting in the ER with a dislocated ankle I had to hand over the debit card and insurance card first.
This has been my experience as well. With a screaming/passing out post-surgical infant, with a husband who though he was having a heart attack, with a toddler with a pistachio jammed in his nose, myself with the sniffles (face swelling sinus infection) multiple times. They have never not verified insurance information first.
If they brought you in with a gunshot wound, you would have gone right in and they'd have worried about payment later.
Yea, we call that triage, which is why "The Dude" on the corner who is an illegal gets free care.
Typical exchange:
"How did you get shot?"
"Man I was sitting there minding my own business and up walks this
Dude and he just shoots me!"
"Oh really? so one of the famous
Dude Brothers shot you?"
"Yea man, I was just minding my own business! And he shot me!"
"Sure."
This has been my experience as well. With a screaming/passing out post-surgical infant, with a husband who though he was having a heart attack, with a toddler with a pistachio jammed in his nose, myself with the sniffles (face swelling sinus infection) multiple times. They have never not verified insurance information first.
Was that all in the same hospital visit?
Did you find that part of the constitution that gave the govt the authority to make the louisiana purchase yet? No? Didn't think so.
Wait a minute, doesn't this mean if folks don't live in the original 13 they have to STFU and stop using our Constitution? sweeet, let's down-size America. :)
.... Some are willing to go the distance and make the sacrifice to have a better life, some are not. Those that do should not feel bad or be vilified for hard work and reward.
But should basic healthcare be unattainable to middle class hard working families so that the surgeon can have more vacations and investment properties? Where does "a better life" at the expense of others' wellbeing become vilifyable?
That amazes me. Not once in my memory have I ever received care before insurance or payment was verified. Even sitting in the ER with a dislocated ankle I had to hand over the debit card and insurance card first.
It surprised me, too. Nevertheless, that's what happened at
Brandywine Hospital.
You will be greeted warmly by nurses who are truly compassionate and a registration staff that understands that people come before paperwork.
Except that the triage nurse was a beee-otch.
Was that all in the same hospital visit?
Yeah, what a shit day that was lemme tell ya...
Why did Obama give
PhRMA a great deal when even the Dems don't agree with it?
Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee and helped write the House health care bill, vowed to fight the White House, asserting that it was conceding too much to the powerful drug industry lobby, PhRMA.
“PhRMA would like to see if they can get a bargain,” Mr. Waxman said. “I think that PhRMA should contribute more than PhRMA wants to contribute.”
Under pressure from drug industry lobbyists, the White House for the first time Wednesday clarified its commitment to a behind-the-scenes deal negotiated by the Senate Finance Committee in June. It would limit the drug makers’ share of the cost of a health care overhaul to a total of $80 billion over 10 years without imposing other savings sought by House Democrats, like the government’s negotiation of prices for the drugs it buys under Medicare.
We know we can squeeze more from the system,” Ms. Pelosi told a Washington Post blogger a few weeks ago. “The minute the drug companies settled for $80 billion, we knew it was $160 billion.”
“The president made the agreements he made,” she added. “And maybe we’ll be limited by that. But maybe not!”
Some members of the Finance Committee said Thursday that they, too, were surprised by the explicitness of the promise to the drug makers negotiated by their chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and the White House.
“I think we could do more,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican involved in the panel’s health care talks. “It wasn’t enough.”
“When I read about it, it gave me heartburn,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Asked about his chances of undoing the deal, Mr. Waxman said, “I don’t do handicapping.”
Profit
Profit
Profit
Dems speak out on drug industry profits
profit
Profit
[LIST]
[*]Aggressive advertising: Since the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relaxed the rules governing TV ads in 1997, the drug industry has increased its direct-to-consumer spending by roughly 40 percent a year. (Last year, ad spending was up 41 percent, according to Fortune.) As a result, two companies – Merck and Pharmacia – spent $460 million on ads in 2000, which was 20 percent more than Burger King.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Lower tax rate: A 1999 study by the Congressional Research Service found that thanks to a variety of tax credits, the effective tax rate for drug companies was 16 percent compared to the overall industry average of 27 percent.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Corporate welfare: According to a study released by the FDA in January 2000, one relatively new government incentive alone accounts for $600 million in additional annual profits. The so-called Pediatric Exclusivity Provision gives companies an extra six-months of monopoly patent protection in exchange for conducting tests on children. But rather than use the incentive to primarily study drugs most important to children – as Congress had hoped – drug companies used it for blockbuster products, such as Claritin, that stood to gain the most from a six-month patent extension. The pediatric provision sunsets at the end of this year and its congressional sponsors, Sens. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), are pushing for permanent authorization. The FDA estimates this would cost consumers $14 billion over 20 years, by delaying the market entry of lower-priced generic drugs.
[/LIST]
Finally, it's important to note that the drug company's annual reports reveal where their revenues go – and what their priorities really are. The drug industry has long maintained that it needs extraordinary profits to fuel risky and expensive research into new medicines. But the reports show that the companies plow far more into profits and marketing than into research and development (R&D). Consider:
[LIST]
[*]Fortune 500 drug companies channeled 17 percent of revenue into profits last year and 30 percent into marketing and administration – yet they spent just 12 percent of revenues on R&D. (see Graph 3)
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Eight of the 10 most profitable Fortune 500 drug companies devoted more of their revenue to profits than to R&D. (see Graph 4)
[/LIST]
Because it's not an edict, it's a political process that has to get through congress, which is comprised of elected officials that are beholdin', if not owned, by the drug companies. A concerted effort by the drug companies could defeat anything... they could probably get Christmas canceled if they really tried. So you tell them ok, it'll only cost you $80 billion, now back off. That's the reality of politics in this country, who has the money and the power.
Because it's not an edict, it's a political process that has to get through congress, which is comprised of elected officials that are beholdin', if not owned, by the drug companies. A concerted effort by the drug companies could defeat anything... they could probably get Christmas canceled if they really tried. So you tell them ok, it'll only cost you $80 billion, now back off. That's the reality of politics in this country, who has the money and the power.
Just wait til you see what happens if the Supreme Court overturns provisions of McCain-Feingold and gives expanded first amendment rights of free speech to corporations. In recent similar cases, the liberals on the court would not give those first amendment rights to corporations; the conservations on the court would.
If overturned, the 2012 campaign will be a corporate feeding frenzy.
Because it's not an edict, it's a political process that has to get through congress, which is comprised of elected officials that are beholdin', if not owned, by the drug companies.
Seems like that needs to be reformed. Makes more sense to start there than worrying about the administrative cost of private insurance companies. Certainly more money to be saved there.
A concerted effort by the drug companies could defeat anything... they could probably get Christmas canceled if they really tried. So you tell them ok, it'll only cost you $80 billion, now back off.
Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.
Just wait til you see what happens if the Supreme Court overturns provisions of McCain-Feingold and gives expanded first amendment rights of free speech to corporations. In recent similar cases, the liberals on the court would not give those first amendment rights to corporations; the conservations on the court would.
If overturned, the 2012 campaign will be a corporate feeding frenzy.
It's insane. As Justice Ginsburg asked, "Is a corporation endowed by the creator with unalienable rights to free speech like a natural human being?"
The answer is absolutely not. A corporation is not a person and it has no rights. A corporation has no right to exist and only does exist because the government allows it to as long as it pays taxes on its profits.
These taxes, were the only taxes on income the founders supported.
People have rights, corporations, unions, or other organizations do not. Money is not speech, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
All political donations should be limited to $1000 per household, per year, per candidate, and if someone donates their money to a PAC for a candidate, that should be the total of their allowable contributions for that campaign. If a household gives $1000 to a particular candidate's campaign, they should be prevented from giving another $1000 to a political action committee.
Political parties should be prevented from using any contributed money to advertise for or against any candidates, and only be allowed to spend money on issues or ballot propositions.
Seems like that needs to be reformed. Makes more sense to start there than worrying about the administrative cost of private insurance companies. Certainly more money to be saved there.
The only way to do that is vote their asses out, but that won't happen because the more seniority them have, the more pork they can bring home to their district. Screw the country, it's all about meeeeee, on another level.
Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.
Don't you think they brought the threat of fighting it to the table? Why else would they be offered the price of only 80 billion?
Back off??? They're not fighting it - they are all freaking for it. They're pushing for it. They obviously want to make even more money, and know they will.
Absolutely! That is why they made the non-tranparent back door deals with the White House.
If it's a "non-tranparent back door deal", how come everybody knew, and commented, about it?
If it's a "non-tranparent back door deal", how come everybody knew, and commented, about it?
It started off with people from the industry who had been meeting with Obama and his staff in the White House, which only until recently and under pressure from the press, whom then agreed to admit they had been making deals with the Pharm Industry prior to dropping the Bill and moving forward with public anouncements. Yea, sure you know about it
now.
The only way to do that is vote their asses out
We did vote their asses out when it was a conflict of interest with oil companies and Haliburton and look where it got us. Why not try something more effective like restricting conflicts of interest with laws and shit? No one HAS to run for office...
Don't you think they brought the threat of fighting it to the table? Why else would they be offered the price of only 80 billion?
No I don't.
Maybe they own more than congress.
LA Times article
Reporting from Washington - As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.
Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.
"The White House blessed it," Tauzin said.
:lol2: Merc, go back and read what you wrote.
As I said, if pharma opposed the bill they have to power to kill it. The white house lining up support, from as many corners as possible, is crucial in a battle against the health insurers, but nothing they promise pharma to support is carved in stone. Remember the executive branch only pushes ideas, congress writes and passes laws. With the health insurers against it, and with half the republicans acting like soccer hooligans, makes it a tough row to hoe.
We did vote their asses out when it was a conflict of interest with oil companies and Haliburton and look where it got us. Why not try something more effective like restricting conflicts of interest with laws and shit? No one HAS to run for office...
Uh, hellooo. Who makes the laws? :rolleyes:
No I don't.
Maybe they own more than congress.
LA Times article
Read my last post about lining up support, Tauzin represents pharma. Does that make him a "partner" with Obama? I suppose you could call it that. They need all the partners they can get, to pass this bill.
That's right, the other team is fucking everything up.... sigh.
I'm disgusted at the fact that Obama doesn't say, "This health care reform will happen and it will have a public option whether Republicans like it or not."
and the fact that he has made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies not to negotiate lower prices for drugs or import drugs from Canada. The whole point is to lower costs and use greater buying power as a way to do it.
I know someone with lung cancer and his meds are over 15 thousand dollars a month. That's insane. The drugs do not cost a hundred thousandth of that to produce. I see putting drugs that can save lives out of the price range of people as an affront to humanity and a disgusting display of profiteering on the human suffering.
I'm disgusted at the fact that Obama doesn't say, "This health care reform will happen and it will have a public option whether Republicans like it or not."
I agree with you 100%, he's let the soccer hooligans cause too many distractions from the business at hand. Git r dun.
and the fact that he has made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies not to negotiate lower prices for drugs or import drugs from Canada. The whole point is to lower costs and use greater buying power as a way to do it.
True, but regardless what he promised them he'd recommend, he doesn't write the bill or pass it. It's still on congress to do this thing... plus it can be changed in the future.
The drugs do not cost a hundred thousandth of that to produce.
No, but they do cost a fortune to develop, with lots that never make it to market or have a small demand that will never recoup their investment.
That said, their bottom lines are enormous, even after the fortunes they spend on bribing... uh, I mean educating, doctors and politicians.
uh, I mean educating, doctors and politicians.
:lol2:
:lol2: Merc, go back and read what you wrote.
As I said, if pharma opposed the bill they have to power to kill it.
Bull shit, they are in so deep they have no choice but to go along at this point.
The white house lining up support, from as many corners as possible, is crucial in a battle against the health insurers, but nothing they promise pharma to support is carved in stone. Remember the executive branch only pushes ideas, congress writes and passes laws. With the health insurers against it, and with half the republicans acting like soccer hooligans, makes it a tough row to hoe.
Call it what ever you want. "Lining up support" or as I would call it making back door deals that will fuck you and the common man as well as water down a bill in the favor of those they make the deals with the Dems. The Demoncrats are no less Soccer Hooligans as they demonize those who appose their socialist agendas. The Republickins are no better. In the end, and mark my words, you will not get a bill that fixes healthcare and you will pay out the ass for it all, as will your fucking children.
True, but regardless what he promised them he'd recommend, he doesn't write the bill or pass it. It's still on congress to do this thing... plus it can be changed in the future.
So basically he is selling a lie to the American public who is un-insured or under insured. That is fucking BS. If the president stands up and makes the promise then the Congress who happens to be his party in power should at least try to make it happen. If not then Obama is a figure head and deserves not a nod in approval for anything he spouts off as support of a fix for this fucked up economy, or for that matter the system of healthcare. As I have said repeatedly, Obama matters very little, Pelosi and Reid are in charge and deserve all of our angst if this reform is a massive failure dominated by back door deals for the big Pharm industry or Insurance industry. And the failure of Congress to make changes and do it right is solely their responsibility. The voters will remember.
No, he's not selling a lie, he's trying to get this done. But the fact remains it's congress that has to do the job.
And there's a bunch in congress that were there long before Obama came on the political scene, and will be there long after he's gone. They keep getting reelected for what they can do for the homeboys.
No, he's not selling a lie, he's trying to get this done. But the fact remains it's congress that has to do the job.
And there's a bunch in congress that were there long before Obama came on the political scene, and will be there long after he's gone. They keep getting reelected for what they can do for the homeboys.
Excellent argument for term limits.
No, he's not selling a lie, he's trying to get this done. But the fact remains it's congress that has to do the job.
We can agree on that much. The Demoncrats own this one. I am interested to see if they can get it done. I support reform.
And there's a bunch in congress that were there long before Obama came on the political scene, and will be there long after he's gone. They keep getting reelected for what they can do for the homeboys.
Here, here....
"I don't care if the project is viable. I'm getting you the money, and you damn well better spend it."
I've seen this quote attributed to some US senator, speaking to a civil engineer.
It is much the same the world over, I think.
ETA: cellar cookie jar just threw up this:
"If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation."
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.
[YOUTUBE]Jng4TnKqy6A[/YOUTUBE]
OMG! That was awesome!
Representive Anthony Weiner discussed health care reform with Bill Maher on Sept. 11 on Real Time. It was awesome. He wants a single payer system though, and he explained that if we went to single payer, the thing would pay for itself through all the money saved from premiums and profits, and of course those high salaries costs hundreds of millions of dollars. I honestly don't know why democrats didn't argue for that. As Bill Moyers said recently, "I think...too many Democrats have had their spines surgically removed."
"I don't care if the project is viable. I'm getting you the money, and you damn well better spend it.
Damm, that sounds like the military. :D
Damm better than having the government running anything. So far they have not been able to do a good job at any of it. :cool:
Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.
Honestly, all these politicians working in government who
hate the government and think it can't do anything right? Maybe they shouldn't be in government. After all, they are the ones running it, if it's broke, it's their damn fault, right?
*edit to add* And the proof that private corporations work better is proven, I guess, by all the shenanigans those contractors were up to in Afghanistan when they were supposed to be gaurding the embassy. :eek:
Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.
Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it. What did the crack whore on the corner cranking out her babies daddies do to earn it?
Honestly, all these politicians working in government who hate the government and think it can't do anything right? Maybe they shouldn't be in government. After all, they are the ones running it, if it's broke, it's their damn fault, right?
I can't agree more. It is the Demoncrats fault. They have been in charge of Congress for over 2 years.
One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.
Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.
I love you. :p That reasoning is WHY we have a graduating tax system in this country. But people who want everyone to pay exactly the same are usually people with higher incomes. And they make that argument, even though they pay much less taxes than they used to. The tax burden has increasingly shifted over time to the middle class and upper middle class.
I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.
So you think income tax should be 4%? Really? :headshake
Wrong. Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny when everything is accounted for. They contribute more money into the economy and the tax base than they use in social services. This is an irrefutable fact.
When Americans are visiting the UK and they get hurt, do you know what happens? They get medical care and no bill. Why? Because not giving medical care to someone in need is inhuman and asinine.
I believe that is also true of other countries as well. At least, I know someone who was injured while on vacation in France, and they treated her at no charge. I know someone who was deathly ill while in CHINA, and they treated her, at no charge. I know someone who was in motorcycle accident in Australia, and they fixed his teeth. I don't know if they charged him or not, but he sure did have great teeth! :D
And hey, even fucking RWANDA has universal health care now, with home visits.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/537/index.htmlSo we implement healthcare reform and the ER line goes down, except for the illegals -- still an improvement. In terms of health care reform, there are exactly two options open for dealing with illegal immigrants: provide them healthcare as well or turn them away entirely. Guess which of these options no doctor would ever attempt?
To say we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because of illegals is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
There is actually another solution, enforce laws against slave labor, so people who are here can actually AFFORD to buy heatlh care. Who is really to blame? The person who comes here looking for a better life, or the person who employs them for dirt cheap wages so they don't have to pay wages a legal citizen or immigrant would take?
I take that back. There are plenty of Americans working for slave wages as well.
Well, of course it is just my opinion, just as it is the opinion of many that reform won't work. I would say that most can agree that the current system isn't working and is unsustainable for our future without some kind of correction being made.
Barbara Boxer stated recently (I think it was on on Morning Joe) that without reform, people in California would paying 41% of their income on health insurance by 2016, if we don't pass reform. I have heard that number quoted elsewhere as well, so it is very true the current system is unsustainable. How many of you can afford to pay 41% of your income for insurance? (I don't know if that number includes co-pays and deductibles, or if it is just for premiums.)
I want to be him. Some make better choices than others. I deal with surgeons, few if any lead this type of life. Oh, and they busted ass to get there, a journey few would do or could do. Some are willing to go the distance and make the sacrifice to have a better life, some are not. Those that do should not feel bad or be vilified for hard work and reward.
I don't think anyone is villifying doctors. Most doctors do work hard to get where they are, and they deserve to be paid well for what they do.
People are, however, villifying insurance companies, and rightly so. Look at it logically, all they do is collect money and then pay for the things
they think they should pay for. They deny many claims, even though people have been paying in good faith, and many of those people either die while fighting the insurance company, or they end up going bankrupt because the costs are so high. They are glorified middlemen. If the government was the payor, you would just go to the doctor and never see the bill. The doctor would bill the government, and the government would pay the bill. Pretty simple.
Just wait til you see what happens if the Supreme Court overturns provisions of McCain-Feingold and gives expanded first amendment rights of free speech to corporations. In recent similar cases, the liberals on the court would not give those first amendment rights to corporations; the conservations on the court would.
If overturned, the 2012 campaign will be a corporate feeding frenzy.
Yes, it makes me ill to think about it. I literally cannot STAND all the friggin' commercials for drugs. Pot is illegal, but pharmacuetical companies can legally push all the drugs they want to on TV? Sickening.
One more thing about big pharma not mentioned, most of the money going into r&d comes from the government anyway, through the NIH. They fund most of the research in this country, NOT big pharma, although they would have you believe otherwise.
I'm disgusted at the fact that Obama doesn't say, "This health care reform will happen and it will have a public option whether Republicans like it or not."
and the fact that he has made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies not to negotiate lower prices for drugs or import drugs from Canada. The whole point is to lower costs and use greater buying power as a way to do it.
I know someone with lung cancer and his meds are over 15 thousand dollars a month. That's insane. The drugs do not cost a hundred thousandth of that to produce. I see putting drugs that can save lives out of the price range of people as an affront to humanity and a disgusting display of profiteering on the human suffering.
I agree. I am MORE than disgusted that he made deals with big pharma, and I am MORE than disgusted that he is caving on other things as well. He hasn't stood up to republicans the way he should either. HE WON. THEY LOST. But he is allowing
them to decide the debate of what gets in the bill? It is sickening.
Honestly, all these politicians working in government who hate the government and think it can't do anything right? Maybe they shouldn't be in government. After all, they are the ones running it, if it's broke, it's their damn fault, right?
Republicans are people who believe government doesn't work and then get elected to prove it (P. J. O'Rourke).
Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it. What did the crack whore on the corner cranking out her babies daddies do to earn it?
Now you KNOW that right there is a fucking LIE. there are many people who work hard who cannot afford health care. I know you know, because you are friends with some. Why would not want your friends to have affordable health care? :headshake
I can't agree more. It is the Demoncrats fault. They have been in charge of Congress for over 2 years.
Good grief! Democrats are not the ones crying that government is BAD, and government can't do
anything right, and everything works better under the prviate sector! That is the cry of republicans! So if they hate government so damn much, why the hell are they in office?
Republicans are people who believe government doesn't work and then get elected to prove it (P. J. O'Rourke).
:D
I can't believe I FINALLY got through all those pages since I've been away! phewwww!
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P. J. O'Rourke
"Democrats are the party of hate. Republicans are the party of fear." -- Penn Jillette
I like Paddy. I disagree with about 75% of what he says, but he papers over the gaps in his arguments with the most endearing witticisms.
I just want someone else to pay all my bills, someone else to take care of me when I'm sick, someone else to give me whatever it is I need or want and someone else to remove all worries and challenges from my life. Because I breathe and live in America, I'm entitled to it.
...*edit to add* And the proof that private corporations work better is proven, I guess, by all the shenanigans those contractors were up to in Afghanistan when they were supposed to be gaurding the embassy. :eek:
Not to mention
this
According to the California Department of Managed Health Care, six of the state’s largest insurers rejected 45.7 million claims, or 22 percent of the total, from 2002 to June 30, 2009. UnitedHealth Group subsidiary PacifiCare denied nearly 40 percent of the claims submitted-the highest denial rate in the state-for the first half of this year. Even Kaiser Permanente, a not-for-profit HMO that has always said it spends more than 90 percent of premium revenue on patient care, had a denial rate of 28 percent. That’s the same level reported by Anthem Blue Cross, the state’s biggest for-profit insurer, which is part of WellPoint.
Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it. What did the crack whore on the corner cranking out her babies daddies do to earn it?...
And what did your mom do? Your daughter? Are they crack whores?
There are many hard working middle class people who can't afford healthcare.
And what did your mom do? Your daughter? Are they crack whores?
Wait until someone tells him that his taxpayer money puts out that crack whore's house when it is on fire, educates that crack whore's children, and that she drives on roads that he pays for. :rolleyes:
Merc and plenty of people like him love to see trillions spent to send the military halfway around the world to provide welfare to people in another country, but don't want to drop a dime on American citizens. One is somehow evil socialism, the other is patriotic. Go figure.
There are many hard working middle class people who can't afford healthcare.
Never said there aren't. I support reform.
Now you KNOW that right there is a fucking LIE.
No it is not a lie. You can't get VA benifits if you have not been in the military.
there are many people who work hard who cannot afford health care. I know you know, because you are friends with some. Why would not want your friends to have affordable health care?
Who said I didn't? I think that it should not be given away and if you want it you pay some percent of your income in tax to pay for it, that is all.
Good grief! Democrats are not the ones crying that government is BAD, and government can't do anything right, and everything works better under the prviate sector! That is the cry of republicans! So if they hate government so damn much, why the hell are they in office?
To hate the Demoncrats. :D
Wait until someone tells him that his taxpayer money puts out that crack whore's house when it is on fire, educates that crack whore's children, and that she drives on roads that he pays for.
Yea we already pay for that, it is built into our current system.
Merc and plenty of people like him love to see trillions spent to send the military halfway around the world
Yea, they were paying my salary.
to provide welfare to people in another country,
I am not much a supporter of Nation Building by the military.
but don't want to drop a dime on American citizens. One is somehow evil socialism, the other is patriotic. Go figure.
Most of my "dime" goes to American Citizens. Don't yours?
Damm better than having the government running anything. So far they have not been able to do a good job at any of it. :cool:
Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it.
On the one hand, the government can't run anything, but on the other hand, government run healthcare is so good that only veterans deserve it.
Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it.
I don't see any word(s) that indicate high quality here HM...
Wait until someone tells him that his taxpayer money puts out that crack whore's house when it is on fire, educates that crack whore's children, and that she drives on roads that he pays for. :rolleyes:
Merc and plenty of people like him love to see trillions spent to send the military halfway around the world to provide welfare to people in another country, but don't want to drop a dime on American citizens. One is somehow evil socialism, the other is patriotic. Go figure.
I think, though, that it is important that current discussions over the way to correct it not get sidetracked and distorted by unrelated issues, including illegal immigrants. ("Lie!", etc.) The current reform plan doesn't concern them.
On the one hand, the government can't run anything, but on the other hand, government run healthcare is so good that only veterans deserve it.
The State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), providing health care to 8-10 million children of working families who would not otherwise have health insurance, is another one of those efficient, successful and popular government administered programs.
I don't see any word(s) that indicate high quality here HM...
I see words that indicate that the VA is a reward for people who earned it by making sacrifices.
Right, services are received as part of compensation for service - nothing to do with what you said.
On the one hand, the government can't run anything, but on the other hand, government run healthcare is so good that only veterans deserve it.
So the VA is a booby prize?
It is what it is... you're bringing words like "so good" and "deserve" into to it to try to bolster your argument that the goverment will do a good job.
Personally, yeah, I wish buster was getting better care, but that's just one person and I don't have any first hand experience with it.
"Deserve" is another way to say "earned". You deserve something if you've earned it. And TheMercenary said "Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it." as a retort to "Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.".
I see words that indicate that the VA is a reward for people who earned it by making sacrifices.
No, actually that is defined as a "benefit". Along with a number of other things when you sign your
contract of service.
"Deserve" is another way to say "earned". You deserve something if you've earned it. And TheMercenary said "Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it." as a retort to "Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.".
It is how I feel about it.
No, actually that is defined as a "benefit". Along with a number of other things when you sign your contract of service.
What if I wanted to sign a
contract of payment for that benefit, instead of a contract of service? And what if the government was okay with this arrangement too? Are you cool with that?
"Deserve" is another way to say "earned". You deserve something if you've earned it. And TheMercenary said "Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it." as a retort to "Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.".
They've also earned their paychecks, so they deserve them. Notice I haven't said anything about the actual quality of their wages.
Mercenary earned his government-run health care thru service - good or bad, he deserves to receive it. I don't see anything funny, or complicated, about it...
Read the sequence of posts. IF The Mercenary wasn't saying that VA was good, then his post was a complete non sequitur.
a) Government can't do anything right
b) Mentions VA
a) Yeah, but people who get VA earned it
It wouldn't be the first time TheMercenary responded with a non sequitur, but I like to start out assuming that responses are actually responding to the post they quote.
It is what it is... you're bringing words like "so good" and "deserve" into to it to try to bolster your argument that the goverment will do a good job.
Personally, yeah, I wish buster was getting better care, but that's just one person and I don't have any first hand experience with it.
I don't need to use words like "so good" and "deserve". I just use the indisputable facts. The government run health care in France, the UK, Canada, Germany, etc. are better from an objective standpoint than health care in America, PERIOD.
By better I mean...
1) Everyone can get medical care regardless of their creed, color, or circumstance or which procedure they need.
2) Lower infant-mortality rate
3) Longer lifespans
4) A fraction of the cost per person than what it costs in America while still paying doctors and nurses very well. For instance in the UK, they spent 1/3 of what Americans pay and they cover everyone while we leave 50-60 million people without any kind of coverage and even those that do have coverage find it gets dropped when they need it most. Less administration costs, less unnecessary procedures, large-scale negotiation for drugs, equipment, and other supplies, and a significantly reduced number of lawsuits and therefore the need to pay for malpractice insurance would reduce the costs enough that the government could easily pay for the program without raising taxes a single penny. This is especially true if we get the U.S. military out of areas it doesn't belong like Germany, Japan, Italy, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and waiting times
5) No family or business goes bankrupt from hospital bills and people aren't forced to make tough decisions between allowing their family member to die, or giving up their house or business.
6) Their government system focuses on preventative care, which means less emergency care and overall healthier people.
7) They actually get something useful from their government when our money is pissed away on things we don't need and which don't help Americans like wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
8) By removing the profit motive for health care, those involved in health care actually care about helping people rather than making money. Our system rewards hospitals and doctors for keeping you sick. There is no money in the cure; only in the treatment. In any system that reimburses physicians on a fee-for-service basis, you will find abuses and doctors doing too many procedures. In one without a profit motive, they will only do what is needed and costs will be greatly reduced. By adopting a single-payer system, we'd no longer have a health care system that avoids helping truly sick people.
9) Neither the government, nor insurance companies would be involved in the decision as to which procedures we would or wouldn't have. That decision would be only for the doctor and patient to make and all options would be on the table; not just the ones the insurance company wants to pay for.
10) A national health care system like that in the UK would actually reduce the burden on businesses to provide health care plans to find and keep good employees. Even if the government didn't close our unnecessary military bases and didn't cut other programs, taxes would increase a fraction of what it costs employers to have health plans for their employees. Businesses would have higher profits
(except for health insurance companies)Read the sequence of posts. IF The Mercenary wasn't saying that VA was good, then his post was a complete non sequitur.
a) Government can't do anything right
b) Mentions VA
a) Yeah, but people who get VA earned it
It wouldn't be the first time TheMercenary responded with a non sequitur, but I like to start out assuming that responses are actually responding to the post they quote.
I have a lot of friends who use the VA system and they are very happy with it. My uncle John is 82, goes there all the time. He went to the VA a couple of weeks ago with pneumonia and they fixed him right up without much of a wait, and gave him meds. He's pretty happy with it.
Although if he had money and he were paying for health insurance and he actually got sick with something serious, they'd probably drop him. They might not let him buy insurance to begin with at his age, or at least not at a rate he could afford.
Turns out it's just one of those things that's counter-intuitive:
Spending more on health care increases the infant mortality rate
According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.
To reduce infant mortality, then, we need to prevent premature births, and if that fails, improve care of premature babies once born. (Prematurity is also linked to other problems; for example, it's the leading cause of mental retardation and cerebral palsy in children.) But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread.
And actually, maybe
lifespan is also one of those counter-intuitive things:
One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.
In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.
It's a waste of time to talk about "what if" in a book by some partisan hack. It's better to take a look at reality. The reality is murders and accidents won't go away and millions of Americans don't have health care.
With a single-payer system, we'd have less deaths that we could actually prevent without raising taxes much or at all.
It's a waste of time to talk about "what if" in a book...
...if it disagrees with you. End of discussion.
It's important to understand the statistics, because if they only get worse under whatever system you prefer, the system you prefer will be dismantled, or changed to something you don't prefer.
Read the sequence of posts. IF The Mercenary wasn't saying that VA was good, then his post was a complete non sequitur.
a) Government can't do anything right
b) Mentions VA
a) Yeah, but people who get VA earned it
Read it again HM.
a) Govt can't do anything right
b) sugarpop mentions that Merc works in and
receives government run health care
c) Merc points out that it is earned not given out for free
If you're suggesting that "Yeah, but" is some ringing endorsement of the quality of govt run health care - you're really reaching.
...if it disagrees with you. End of discussion.
No. Because "what if" isn't real. It's a pipe dream. I prefer to deal with reality and think we should use what has a proven track record of success like the system in the UK.
Read the sequence of posts. IF The Mercenary wasn't saying that VA was good, then his post was a complete non sequitur.
a) Government can't do anything right
b) Mentions VA
a) Yeah, but people who get VA earned it
It wouldn't be the first time TheMercenary responded with a non sequitur, but I like to start out assuming that responses are actually responding to the post they quote.
I never once brought the VA into the disussion, Sugarpop did that. I responded to her post that the VA was a form of socialized medicine. I did not use it to support or refute what the current system is, or is not. The VA system is like any other huge government run system, some elements work, some do not, some are good, others are not.
Ohhhh, and about those illegal immigrants that aren't being covered.....
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
So with a wave of his hand they become legal. The issue is less about whether you think there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant (Radar) or whether you want them all to leave or go thru the process of becoming legal. The issue is more about the deception of stating that illegals won't be covered and then just "POOF" making them all legal. This is not the openness and honesty I expected. This is simply more wordsmanship by another lying politician.
c) Merc points out that it is earned not given out for free
Which is irrelevant. sugarpop said he got government run medicine, not free medicine. And sugarpop was responding to a post that the government can't run anything.
So I guess we're going with non sequitur.
I never once brought the VA into the disussion, Sugarpop did that.
Sugarpop is b) in my quote.
.....
So with a wave of his hand they become legal... then just "POOF" making them all legal....
How the hell did you get that from your quote?
with a wave of MY hand :)
This is politics ya know. Truth need not enter into the discussion.
with a wave of MY hand :)
This is politics ya know. Truth need not enter into the discussion.
Or, if you are Joe Wilson, two months before you call the president a liar, you can introduce legislation to gain permanent resident status for an illegal immigrant named Sainey H. Fatty, who has been working in your district for several years.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3194Which is irrelevant. sugarpop said he got government run medicine, not free medicine. And sugarpop was responding to a post that the government can't run anything.
So I guess we're going with non sequitur.
Are you a retard?
She was speaking to when I was on active duty, I do not receive medical care from the VA. It is not free medicine. People who get medical care in the military or from the VA get it as a condition and part of a contract they make with the military. If you would like to join up and have the same benefit after you pay your dues I am sure that someone could look into that for you, if you can make the grade. It is nothing of the sort of a non sequitur. But you are starting to make me think that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between benefits after a contractual obligation and something that people get for nothing more than popping out some group of spawn from numerous unkown babies daddies. There is a huge difference. One group gets their care for free, one gets it after the delivery of and in the performance of a mutual contractual agreement between two parties. Get it?
Or, if you are Joe Wilson, two months before you call the president a liar, you can introduce legislation to gain permanent resident status for an illegal immigrant named Sainey H. Fatty, who has been working in your district for several years.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3194
Or you could just work for that criminal organization ACORN and tell them anything you want to get the job done.
Or you could just work for that criminal organization ACORN and tell them anything you want to get the job done.
ACORN cannot introduce legislation in Congress.
ACORN cannot introduce legislation in Congress.
Thank fucking God for one small thing they can't taint in our legislative process...
So your rebuttal will now be "ACORN....." in every political discussion when you dont want to respond directly to a factual post on the topic under discussion?
Choke on this video link:
And so now, here is the video of Barack Obama telling Community Organizers from around the country, which includes ACORN of course, that they will be setting his agenda before he is even inaugurated:
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/videoobama-telling-community-organizers-including-acorn-lobbyist-that-they-will-set-his-agenda/Repeat:
So your rebuttal will now be "ACORN....." in every political discussion when you dont want to respond directly to a factual post on the topic under discussion?
I get it!
So your rebuttal will now be "ACORN....." in every political discussion when you dont want to respond directly to a factual post on the topic under discussion?
Actually no, but I didn't bring up Joe Wilson in the healthcare thread either. :lol2:
Cool....then lets focus on your (?) contention that the government cant do anything right...particularly in health care.
Please cite where the SCHIP program that provides health care to millions of kids of working families has not been efficient, successful and accepted enthusiastically by all parties involved, particularly (parents of) patients and health care providers.
The only inefficiencies I have heard from those oppososed to the program is that many eligible families have not signed up for the program - so it must not be working, despite the fact that it is working extraordinarily well for 6+ million kids.
So your rebuttal will now be Joe Wilson called the President a liar in every political discussion when you dont want to respond directly to a factual post on the topic under discussion?
Nope..I simply thought it was a bit hypocritical for Wilson to complain about illegal immigrants getting health care two months after he sponsored a bill to give resident status to an illegal.
But, back to topic: health care and your contention that the government cant do it right.
SCHIP and 6+ millions kids of working families now receiving quality, efficient, health care.
SO whats wrong with SCHIP? How is it inefficient and how could the private sector alone do it better?
***
ps. I promise not to bring up Wilson again in an unrelated discussion if you do the same with ACORN. ;)
Cool....then lets focus on your (?) contention that the government cant do anything right...particularly in health care.
Please cite where the SCHIP program that provides health care to millions of kids of working families has not been efficient, successful and accepted enthusiastically by all parties involved, particularly (parents of) patients and health care providers.
The only inefficiencies I have heard from those oppososed to the program is that many eligible families have not signed up for the program - so it must not be working, despite the fact that it is working extraordinarily well for 6+ million kids.
Actually what was stated is that in a general sense the government has failed to adequately administer most anything it touches that does not involve waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
In the case of SCHIP RWF has reported the following. In all its good it has basically failed:
“The State of Kids’ Coverage” was released today by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The report shows that the number of uninsured children has decreased by 2 million since the creation of SCHIP and recent expansions in public programs. In the same period, the number of uninsured Americans has increased by nearly 5 million people.
The percentage of children who have private health insurance has fallen by five percent since 1997-98. That means 1.4 million fewer kids have private health insurance.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/august/schips_success_and.php
This is a great link by the KFF that shows how it fell short:
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7758.pdf
I fully support SCHIP.
Nope..I simply thought it was a bit hypocritical for Wilson to complain about illegal immigrants getting health care two months after he sponsored a bill to give resident status to an illegal.
But, back to topic: health care and your contention that the government cant do it right.
SCHIP and 6+ millions kids of working families now receiving quality, efficient, health care.
SO whats wrong with SCHIP? How is it inefficient and how could the private sector alone do it better?
***
ps. I promise not to bring up Wilson again in an unrelated discussion if you do the same with ACORN. ;)
FTR I think Wilson was out of line. I do not support him or his comments. They were out of line and disrespectful. He should be publically admonished.
Actually what was stated is that in a general sense the government has failed to adequately administer most anything it touches that does not involve waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
In the case of SCHIP RWF has reported the following. In all its good it has basically failed:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/august/schips_success_and.php
I would not characterize this as a failure:
[INDENT]...a new study analyzing government data suggests good news for the nation’s children.
The percentage of uninsured kids in America has decreased by 20 percent since the government-funded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was approved by Congress in 1997.
...The report shows that t
he number of uninsured children has decreased by 2 million since the creation of SCHIP and recent expansions in public programs.[/INDENT]
This is a great link by the KFF that shows how it fell short:
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7758.pdf
I fully support SCHIP.
So we are in agreement that SCHIP, a government administered health care program, is not wasteful, fraudulent or mismanaged, other than falling short of keeping up with more and more working families loosing their private health insurance.
I would not characterize this as a failure:
[INDENT]...a new study analyzing government data suggests good news for the nation’s children. The percentage of uninsured kids in America has decreased by 20 percent since the government-funded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was approved by Congress in 1997...
The report shows that the number of uninsured children has decreased by 2 million since the creation of SCHIP and recent expansions in public programs.[/INDENT].
But yet the number of uninsured has risen above that covered. Hence it has failed to do what it was designed to do..[/quote] But yet the number of uninsured has risen above that covered. Hence it has failed to do what it was designed to do.
So we are in agreement that SCHIP, a government administered health care program, is not wasteful, fraudulent or mismanaged, other than falling short of keeping up with more and more working families loosing their private health insurance.
No absolutely not.
So how well has SCHIP done since Jan 09 when the Demoncrats and Obama took over and more than 2 million are out of work. The numbers are still out there, but I doubt SCHIP provided for all those familes, hence hundreds of thousands have no healthcare. Right? Or did SCHIP cover those who have lost jobs since The Dems took over?
Yet there are real limits to incremental health reform. After all, despite gains in Medicaid and SCHIP, almost nine million children remain uninsured. The insurance system for children, notwithstanding their sympathetic status, is beset by the same problems that plague the rest of the U.S. health care system: fragmentation, inequality, and alarming coverage gaps.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/17/schip-a-lesson-on-demographic-incrementalism/Well, then I guess we disagree.
I dont think it is a failure of the program simply because SCHIP cannot keep up with the record rate at which working families have been loosing their health insurance over the last 10 years since the program's inception.
It is a failure of the health care system as a whole (as noted in your bolding above) and it is not limited to the actions of the Democrats in the last two years.
I have no idea how many additional kids have been covered since Obama signed the extension in February. Presumably, more than those who were left uncovered by Bush's two vetos of the bill.
So I guess we're going with non sequitur.
I guess you've got a mouse in your pocket.
Well, then I guess we disagree.
I dont think it is a failure of the program simply because SCHIP cannot keep up with the record rate at which working families have been loosing their health insurance over the last 10 years since the program's inception.
It is a failure of the health care system as a whole (as noted in your bolding above) and it is not limited to the actions of the Democrats in the last two years.
I have no idea how many additional kids have been covered since Obama signed the extension in February. Presumably, more than those who were left uncovered by Bush's two vetos of the bill.
The problem is not over the last
10 years, the problem is the last 9 months!
The problem is not over the last 10 years, the problem is the last 9 months!
You're not really suggesting that the health care crises began in last 9 months?
The percentage of Americans w/o health insurance has been on a steady decline for at least 10 years and the cost to those covered by employer-based plans has been rising disproportionately at a higher rate than wages for the last 10 years.
Ignoring that fact as it was for those 8 years between 2000- 2008 was not a solution.
You're not really suggesting that the health care crises began in last 9 months?
The percentage of Americans w/o health insurance has been on a steady decline for at least 10 years and the cost to those covered by employer-based plans has been rising disproportionately at a higher rate than wages for the last 10 years.
Ignoring that fact as it was for those 8 years between 2000- 2008 was not a solution.
No, actually it started long before that, most of the problems really took off because of the Clinton Administration and the things they did and failed to do. The period of 2000 -2008 was mere icing on the cake. The foundation was laid by Clinton.
Actually what was stated is that in a general sense the government has failed to adequately administer most anything it touches that does not involve waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
...
Especially the military.
No, actually it started long before that, most of the problems really took off because of the Clinton Administration and the things they did and failed to do. The period of 2000 -2008 was mere icing on the cake. The foundation was laid by Clinton.
Health care costs as percent of GDP have been rising steadily for 40 years....from about 5% in the 60s to over 15% now.
The steadily rising cost of health care is not a partisan issue....it is fact, without regard to the party in power.
When Reagan took office in 1980, the per capita expenditures on health care were under $1,000....by the time Clinton took office in 1992, that cost rose to about $2.500...in 2000, it was about $4000 and now it is over $7,000.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf (see table 6)
But if you want to make it a partisan issue, by blaming Clinton, I would suggest the partisanship comes about with the proposed solutions, if any....Reagan and GHW Bush did nothing to even attempt to address the problem. Clinton tried and failed, with the exception of SCHIP. GW Bush did nothing. Obama is taking it head on.
Health care costs as percent of GDP have been rising steadily for 40 years....from about 5% in the 60s to over 15% now.
The steadily rising cost of health care is not a partisan issue....it is fact, without regard to the party in power.
When Reagan took office in 1980, the per capita expenditures on health care were under $1,000....by the time Clinton took office in 1992, that cost rose to about $2.500...in 2000, it was about $4000 and now it is over $7,000.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf (see table 6)
But if you want to make it a partisan issue, by blaming Clinton, I would suggest the partisanship comes about with the proposed solutions, if any....Reagan and GHW Bush did nothing to even attempt to address the problem. Clinton tried and failed, with the exception of SCHIP. GW Bush did nothing. Obama is taking it head on.
Under Clinton, Medicaid expanded beyond it's means. After the failure of his health initiatives the insurance industry, HMO's and Managed Care plans took off and essentially have run amock over our healthcare delivery. They have grown exponentially since the late 1990's. That is where it started. With the failure of them to get anything done and to do it right. After the failure they basically quit the game. And here we are today.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tK71nX5LxSEC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=HealthCare+Clinton+HMO&source=bl&ots=BmX5G73w0p&sig=U6jlU5XGWcy8yd5Eww6Run0B88Q&hl=en&ei=uxS1Sp-IBdWE8Qa57rmTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=falseAre you a retard?
She was speaking to when I was on active duty, I do not receive medical care from the VA. It is not free medicine.
So what? The issue was government run, not whether it's free or not or socialist or not. The government runs VA, which is a health care provider.
So what? The issue was government run, not whether it's free or not or socialist or not. The government runs VA, which is a health care provider.
My point is that it is
not free. That is how
she described it. Do you understand that? Where as Medicaid
is free for the recipient, and if you have no insurance and need hospitalization or emergency care you still get it, even if you can't pay for it.
Under Clinton, Medicaid expanded beyond it's means. After the failure of his health initiatives the insurance industry, HMO's and Managed Care plans took off and essentially have run amock over our healthcare delivery. They have grown exponentially since the late 1990's. That is where it started. With the failure of them to get anything done and to do it right. After the failure they basically quit the game. And here we are today.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tK71nX5LxSEC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=HealthCare+Clinton+HMO&source=bl&ots=BmX5G73w0p&sig=U6jlU5XGWcy8yd5Eww6Run0B88Q&hl=en&ei=uxS1Sp-IBdWE8Qa57rmTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false
THe exponential rise in the cost of health care began long before Clinton, starting in the 60s and continuing unabated for 40+ years, both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis....the data is there for anyone to see.
[INDENT]
The green line shows the percentage of the gross national product going to national health expenditure. It is measured by the scale on the left axis.
The purple line, for gross domestic product (GDP), and the blue line, for national health expenditure (NHE), are in billions of dollars, measured by the right axis scale.
US National Health Care Expenditures
[/INDENT]
The growth was relatively flat during the Clinton years.
The per capita data shows much the same trends.
As I stated. It was the policy developed in the later half of the Clinton Administration which set the stage for the exponential growth in the following years. Your graph shows that. The growth took off before Bush was elected.
This was a pretty good summary.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf
http://whatifpost.com/heath-care-history-the-beginning-1929
HMO's leave Medicare, costs soar for the uninsured:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medicare+HMO+exodus:+system+correction+or+prediction%3F+(Health+Policy...-a0102286841As I stated. It was the policy developed in the later half of the Clinton Administration which set the stage for the exponential growth in the following years. Your graph shows that. The growth took off before Bush was elected.
This was a pretty good summary.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf
http://whatifpost.com/heath-care-history-the-beginning-1929
I accept that you want to ignore all the data before Clinton.,,that somehow, the current health care crises started with Clinton.
Even if that is the case, and the data suggests otherwise, Bush did nothing to address the problem for eight years and it only got worse.
NationalHealthExpenditures perCapita andTheirShareofGross DomesticProduct,1960-2005Source
Graph, Page 6
CumulativeChangeinSingleandFamilyHealthInsurancePremiumsandFederalPovertyThreshold,1996-2004
Graph, Page 15; starting point zero 1996.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdfEven if that is the case, and the data suggests otherwise, Bush did nothing to address the problem for eight years and it only got worse.
I never said it has not gotten worse. Only that exponential failures began in the 1990's. That is why I support reform. But up to this point I see nothing on the table that will fix the problems with the system. It wil place a bunch of bandaids over some of the issues, but it will not fix the system as it is.
Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.
I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation.
Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past.
If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised.
One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...
"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...
He never answered it.
I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.
Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrats have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label.
Not all Americans want big Gov't. Many want less and always have.
...during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...
"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...
He never answered it.
It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.
I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.
We have 6% (fica tax) coming out of our paychecks every payday to pay for Social Security (and another 1+% for Medicare)...that is, until your salary hits $100,000....at which point, one does not pay more in Social Security taxes. So if you make $200k, your tax rates is in effect 3%. The more you make, the lower the total percentage of fica taxes.
Applying that 6% rate on all income over $100k could very well cover the cost of the proposed health care reform.
It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.
Its very simple.....apply the same fica tax rate to all!
So a tax increase of 6% on all households with incomes of $100,000 or more - Is that what you are saying?
It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.
Isn't that the current system?
So a tax increase of 6% on all households with incomes of $100,000 or more - Is that what you are saying?
I should have said the 6% fica rate should apply to all wages/salaries, not all income.
The higher one's income, generally, the percent of that income from wages/salaries (as opposed to investment and other sources of income) goes down.
glatt - of course. It seemed like the simplest answer to the question posed.
Redux, so there is a 6% tax increase on all household wages and salaries of $100,000 or more - That correct?
Redux, so there is a 6% tax increase on all household wages and salaries of $100,000 or more - That correct?
They already pay 6% on on the first $100k...but effectively only pay 4.5% on their total wages (not tax on the last $50k)
Why should someone making $150k pay a lower rate than someone making $80k.
It is the reverse of the long standing concept of taxing according to ability to pay (the concept of progressive taxation that I know you dont agree with).
But this wouldnt even be a progressive tax.....6% on all wages/salaries....same rate for all.
It was an extremely simple yes/no question? Are they paying an additional 6% or not?
Please read what I wrote...I think its pretty simple.
Yes....6% rate on wages/salaries for all....and yes, that would mean a tax increase for those making over $100k.
Or hell, modify it, and only apply to the first $100K (as it currently the case), exempt wages between $100k - 250k, and then wages/salaries over $250K (or $400k family)..to protect the middle class.
Yes
That is the simple answer, thank you.
So a household with two people in it making 50k each is gonna get hit with a 6% tax increase. How well received do you think that message will be?
So a household with two people in it making 50k each is gonna get hit with a 6% tax increase. How well received do you think that message will be?
Huh?
Those two people making 50K each are already paying that 6%.
A household with two people making $150K each are the ones effectively paying a lower rate.... 4.5% by both not paying on their last $50k. They would see their taxes increase 1.5% by paying that 6% on the full wages.
I'll see your huh and raise you a WTH?
Its a simple payroll tax increase....apply the same 6% rate that to all wages/salaries....or exclude wages between $100k -250K. Its really not that hard.
If you make 100K or under, you are already paying that rate. If you are making over $100k, you are currently paying 0% payroll tax on wages over $100k.
Its a simple payroll tax increase....
ok got that part.
[COLOR="Silver"]OBAMA IS RAISING TAXES!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!![/COLOR]
apply the same 6% rate to all wages/salaries....or exclude wages between $100k -250K.
well? which is it applied or excluded?
If you make 100K or under, you are already paying that rate. If you are making over $100k, you are currently paying 0% payroll tax on wages over $100k.
uh - yeh ok. Happy Monkey always makes up lil graphs and charts to explain this stuff. :right:
apply the same 6% rate to all wages/salaries....or
exclude wages between $100k -250K.
well? which is it applied or excluded?
Two variations on the same theme.
The second option would protect those middle wage earners.
The fact remains that those workers making $100K and under are paying a greater proportion of their salaries in payroll taxes than those making above $100K.
Based upon % or dollar amount? Sigh, still no graph.
It's like this: each dollar is FICA-taxed at 6%, up until you hit $100,000. Each dollar you are handed after that is not taxed. So if you make $100,000 a year, you are taxed $6,000. If you make $100,001 a year, you are still taxed $6,000.
Under Redux's suggested plan, that person making $100,001 per year would now be taxed $6,000.06, an extra six cents than he was before. For someone making $150,000, they would currently be taxed $6,000, just like the guy who makes $100,000. Under Redux's suggested plan, the guy making $150K would now be taxed a total of $9,000.
Thanks Clod! Still, it would have been nice to have a lil graph or a chart.... some type of visual. Sheesh, with all the stimulus money redux got you'd think we were worth a couple pennies.
Its very simple.....apply the same fica tax rate to all!
As long as the person making $400 a month still has to pay.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
I may never tire of the "Imma let you..." spinoffs!
Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.
Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well.
Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
LOL
"Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits."
LOL
At least now, with no public option, the tea party guys get to keep their wonderful health insurance (and provide proof of it when sending in their tax forms), and the democrats get tons of money from their corporate overlords.
Everybody wins, right?
Well,
here's a heartwarming story to add to the debate. So the company's explanation is that they're doing him a favor by firing him and putting him on the path to SSDI, except that he would probably be bankrupt paying for his healthcare waiting for SSDI and I don't believe it would help his family.
I'm also not sure if COBRA would pick up the continuing care for his gunshot wound, a pre-existing condition.
If we had national health care, this wouldn't be an issue.
BTW, with tort reform, there's a chance that he wouldn't even be able to sue his employer.
Cary, N.C. — An employee at The HoneyBaked Ham Co. store in Cary who was shot while on the job is now without a job.
An employee for three years and general manager for 16 months, the husband and father was shot in the stomach – about four inches from his heart.
Several surgeries later, he's still unable to go back to work. Doctors tell him that the earliest he could return to work would be in December.
Huether has been on worker's compensation since April. When the benefits expired, he received an official notice that HoneyBaked Ham terminated his employment and canceled health benefits for him and his family.
Out-of-pocket, he said, those benefits would cost about $1,200 a month.
Maggie DeCan, vice president of human resources, said the decision to terminate his employment had to do with following workers' compensation rules and that his release could make him eligible for Social Security disability benefits.
"We are a value-serving company," DeCan said in a statement. "We do the right thing and serve others. We couldn't feel any worse for Rich, and we would do anything we could for him."
The company, she also said, hasn't ruled out rehiring Huether once he is able to work again. Executives also plan to revisit the case next week to see if there is anything further the company can do.
Are you a retard?
She was speaking to when I was on active duty, I do not receive medical care from the VA. It is not free medicine. People who get medical care in the military or from the VA get it as a condition and part of a contract they make with the military. If you would like to join up and have the same benefit after you pay your dues I am sure that someone could look into that for you, if you can make the grade. It is nothing of the sort of a non sequitur. But you are starting to make me think that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between benefits after a contractual obligation and something that people get for nothing more than popping out some group of spawn from numerous unkown babies daddies. There is a huge difference. One group gets their care for free, one gets it after the delivery of and in the performance of a mutual contractual agreement between two parties. Get it?
Watch this... I BEG YOU.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/
If you think the only people who need affordable health care are poor people popping out babies you are delusional. Everyone in this country, including you Merc, is a heartbeat away from losing everything they own because of some health disaster. In that program I listed, TWO CEOs of insurance companies said they would not be able to get insurance under the current system if they left their jobs. Nice. The truth is, insurance is great until you really need it. Because if something happens and you really DO need it, and you aren't lucky enough to work somewhere where you are pretty much guaranteed the very best insurance, the likelihood of your being dropped is very high, and then good luck finding another company to cover you at a rate you can afford.
For example, in that report, a couple of people had complications with pregnancy, and their bills were close to a million $$$ each. Could you afford to pay that if your insurance company decided they wouldn't pay it for some stupid reason (like you didn't report having acne or something equally unrelated to pregnancy)? Or what if you found out your kid was autistic? Because most insurance companies won't cover things like that. People are being forced to stay in jobs they don't like because they can't afford to lose their health insurance. Some people are having to get divorced or are being forced to stay in lower income jobs so they can get Medicaid for their children because they can't afford the coverage for certain illnesses, or they can't get coverage at all. WTF? And you support that?
And ftr, while I think those serving in the military deserve government health care, I do not believe they are any more special than anyone else in society. They do not deserve it simply because they are in the military. There are plenty of equally deserving people out there who can't afford insurance for one reason or another. People deserve treatment when they get cancer, or diabetes, or lupus, and they should not have to lose their homes (or DIE) in order to get it. Our health should not be a "for profit" item, like sneakers or corn or derivatives.
Under Clinton, Medicaid expanded beyond it's means. After the failure of his health initiatives the insurance industry, HMO's and Managed Care plans took off and essentially have run amock over our healthcare delivery. They have grown exponentially since the late 1990's. That is where it started. With the failure of them to get anything done and to do it right. After the failure they basically quit the game. And here we are today.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tK71nX5LxSEC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=HealthCare+Clinton+HMO&source=bl&ots=BmX5G73w0p&sig=U6jlU5XGWcy8yd5Eww6Run0B88Q&hl=en&ei=uxS1Sp-IBdWE8Qa57rmTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false
And that is
Clinton's fault? You mean it isn't the fault of republicans, who fought any change to the system? Or the insurance companies? Who fought changes to the system? Really? Jesus Christ Merc.
My point is that it is not free. That is how she described it. Do you understand that? Where as Medicaid is free for the recipient, and if you have no insurance and need hospitalization or emergency care you still get it, even if you can't pay for it.
NO, THIS is how I described it...
"Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care. "
And are you saying that all people (and their family members) in the military actually PAY for their health care benefits?
Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.
I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation.
Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past.
If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised.
One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...
"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...
He never answered it.
I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.
So wait... are you saying you had free health care in the military?
And the question isn't how much will cost us, the real question is, how much will cost us if we do nothing, and things continue the way they are now?
...It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.
Riiiiiiight, because
every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an
unproductive member of society. :rolleyes:
Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society. :rolleyes:
You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.
Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.
[INDENT][/INDENT]
Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.
Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.
Within the 'under 25k' bracket you'd presumably also get low paid single people.
You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.
Haggis!
My stepson just had an emergency appendectomy and he has no insurance. He is saddled with a good sized bill now.
But then you should support the part of the bill that says he will be required to carry health insurance of some kind.
Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.
So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?
Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.
So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?
Possibly. We won't know what's in it until it's done. But yea, that is one of things under consideration. The problem remains though, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It's friggin' ridiculous. And the way the Baucus bill is written, it is one giant giveaway to the insurance industry (or as Bill Maher said, a giant blow job... :D), according to Wendell Potter, and ex-VP for Cigna. He also said the Baucus bill would put more of the middle class in bankruptcy due to coverage being dropped and denied.
I think insurance should cost the same amount for everyone. There should be no "pools" for some people to get lower prices while it remains outrageously priced for individuals or people with pre-sxisting conditions. THAT is part of the problem. That and the fact that insurance companies make WAY too much profit. Health care should not be about profit. yea, yea capitalism and all of that. But some things should just not be for sale like that, and LIFE and HEALTH should be two things that are not about profit.
This is why we need a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, and for those who think the government can't run anything right, fine, let it be run by a private company, and PAID FOR by the government. Get rid of all the insurance companies. A single payor system would automatically reduce costs, because there is no advertising, and it would cut down dramatically on adminstrative costs.
NO, THIS is how I described it... "Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care. "
And are you saying that all people (and their family members) in the military actually PAY for their health care benefits?
No, the family members receive it as a benefit to the service member, who gets it for a time commitment under a contractual obligation with the government. Package deal. Given what many of them go through, I say it is a benefit well deserved.
You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.
Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.
Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.
Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.
Thanks for the graph. It's about time! Does that say how many choose not to purchase insurance? What again is the "poverty level"?
Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society. :rolleyes:
Shut the Fuck up - mmmkay? People without incomes aren't going to pay for shit - Its a given and my offhand simplistic comment to another poster being taken out of context is getting really tiresome.
Now run along and go hug a tree or something.
Thanks for the graph. It's about time! Does that say how many choose not to purchase insurance? What again is the "poverty level"?
The most recent poverty and health insurance data is in the Census report released earlier this month. I just thought the colorful graph was [COLOR="Blue"]prettier[/COLOR] [COLOR="Lime"]than[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrange"]the[/COLOR] [COLOR="Yellow"]raw[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]data[/COLOR]. :)
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008
(
pdf - see table 7, page 28)
As to the question of choosing to purchase insurance, many factors affect that choice, including the cost.
Consider the fact that the average cost for health insurance for a family of four is now over $12K.
If you are employed and covered by your employer's plan, you pay, on average about 30% of that cost and the employer covers the rest.
If you work for a small business or self-employed, you must purchase that insurance on the open market and pay the full cost yourself.
You might choose to forgo health insurance if it would require 20-25% of your income.
No, the family members receive it as a benefit to the service member, who gets it for a time commitment under a contractual obligation with the government. Package deal. Given what many of them go through, I say it is a benefit well deserved.
Personally, I think accessible and affordable quality health care should be a right for all citizens as it is in every other western industrialized country.
This is why we need a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, and for those who think the government can't run anything right, fine, let it be run by a private company, and PAID FOR by the government. Get rid of all the insurance companies. A single payor system would automatically reduce costs, because there is no advertising, and it would cut down dramatically on administrative costs.
While I might share your ultimate goal. I dont think we can get there from here. The political will is not there.
I prefer a more pragmatic approach....half a cake is better than none.
Increased competition through either a public option (first choice) or public/private exchange w/pools for small business employers as well as providing the opportunity for big businesses to purchase across state lines (with some limitation) to provide more choice, is a good first step to help drive down the cost of existing private insurance.
As to the question of choosing to purchase insurance, many factors affect that choice, including the cost.
Consider the fact that the average cost for health insurance for a family of four is now over $12K.
I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.
I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.
I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.
I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.
I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.
I can only rely on independent studies and not anecdotal examples;
The Commonwealth Fund
The rapid rise in health insurance premiums has severely strained U.S. families and employers in recent years. This analysis of federal data finds that if premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grow in each state at the projected national rate of increase, then the average premium for family coverage would rise from $12,298 (the 2008 average)to $23,842 by 2020...
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Data-Briefs/2009/Aug/Paying-the-Price-How-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Are-Eating-Up-Middle-Class-Incomes.aspx
Kaiser Family Foundation
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $13,375 annually for family coverage this year—with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the benchmark 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET).
http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm
Of course, there are many variables that would lead to some families paying much less, including not only factors related to the level of coverage, but also external factors like location, cost of living, level of competition in the state, etc.
For example, in 1/4 of the states, a handful of insurance carriers control 90% of the business. It is a closed market with virtually no competition, thus little or no incentive to control premium costs.
I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.
The cost of a family plan on the open market would absolutely be higher than the average cost of employer-base plan (cited above) for the reasons you noted.
The only "advantage" of an open market, non-employer based plan is the ability to pick and choose from more levels of coverage with more/less benefits at various prices...but then you lose the significant employer contribution.
And in any case, more and more employers are limiting those choices and lowering benefits or raising the employee share.
Beancounter mentality! - Where the hell is Tommy when you actually Want him to post something? The Economist had an article on this a few weeks - months ago - Dammit - I wish I had 1/2 the memory I smoked back.
Beancounter mentality!
The fact that there is little or no competition in the health insurance industry and little or no built-in incentives to lower administrative costs and /or premiums is not, IMO, beancounting.
It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).
I was referring to the rates you are quoting - You are saying that the average is over $1000 a month. Lemme tell you real plainly - NO EFFIN WAY is that average. The commonwealth fund is on crack.
Lets take a lil poll here - What is the cost for your health insurance?
I just checked mine - It went up - It is now $517 a month GROSS.
It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).
I couldn't agree more - Keep as many competitors as possible. The last thing we want is monopoly and control by a bloated inefficient giant. Long live Capitalism!
If you work for a small business or self-employed, you must purchase that insurance on the open market and pay the full cost yourself.
SO basically if you are a small business owner you are screwed.
You might choose to forgo health insurance if it would require 20-25% of your income.
Not an option, everyone will be required to carry it. The middle income people will take the hardest hit or pay the fine to the Feds.
Personally, I think accessible and affordable quality health care should be a right for all citizens as it is in every other western industrialized country.
Thanks for that statement. Please show us where it is a "Right" of "every other western industrialized country"...
While I might share your ultimate goal. I dont think we can get there from here. The political will is not there.
Which is exactly why I have been saying all along that you are about to get a big ass bill that your grand children will be paying off that will not fix the problems with the industry. And yet YOU continue to support this BS as if it is a fix. It is not.
I prefer a more pragmatic approach....half a cake is better than none.
BS again. You are about to accept a less than half empty glass of solutions to fix a problem that is much larger than what the DEMONcrats are putting on the table. I am at the point of letting them have their way to watch them fail and allow them to take the fall. The solutions proposed to this point do not fix the problems in our system.
I am at the point of letting them have their way to watch them fail and allow them to take the fall.
1.) You've been "at that point" this whole time.
2.) You make it sound as if you personally will have any role in whether they "have their way" or not.
you are about to get a big ass bill that your grand children will be paying off
Says the man with children, to the man without children. You gotta work on your threats, thar. :)
I couldn't agree more - Keep as many competitors as possible. The last thing we want is monopoly and control by a bloated inefficient giant. Long live Capitalism!
So how would you stimulate greater competition, given that it hasnt happened by leaving it to the insurance companies alone.
Why do you think something like the government administered (not government controlled) Federal Employees Health Benefits program wont work at a more macro level like in a proposed public option (or national insurance exchange)....it currently includes 10 or so private insurance companies providing more than 20 different plan choices (at varying premium rates) and I dont think any objective observer would characterize it as a bloated inefficient giant....but it does control costs in order for any particular private carrier to be include among the provider choices. Hell, even Medicare, with all its faults, has relatively low administrative costs compared to the private sector.
Just throwing out the same old rhetoric....monopoly, bloated inefficient giant, is not a very helpful solution.
Nice try at a turnaround there. I agreed with part of and was referring to your previous post (the one I quoted) - It appears as though you want to have it both ways - Gov't run, but also greater competition. Having the Gov't running things will NOT lead to greater competition. :headshake
Nice try at a turnaround there. I agreed with part of and was referring to your previous post (the one I quoted) - It appears as though you want to have it both ways - Gov't run, but also greater competition. Having the Gov't running things will NOT lead to greater competition. :headshake
I dont see it as a turnaround, but hey, interpret it as you wish.
In fact, the FEHB program does promote competition, in that private insurers compete to be included among the 10+ private providers and 20+ plan options made available to employees. A government administered public option or public/private national exchange based on that model can do the same. IF you dont think it can work, why not? Please, more than just bloated bureaucracy.
But if you dont want to go that route, how would you encourage or stimulate greater competition among private insurance companies when it is clear from their record, they currently have little or no incentive to reduce administrative costs or premiums (profits, after administrative costs, are based in part on a percentage of premium...the higher the premium, the greater the profit)? Further, in many states, there is no incentive to even open the market up beyond a few large private insurance providers. How do you fix that?
Too many of the arguments against the public option intentionally confuse public option with single payer. There is no single payer proposal on the table.
I hear alot of criticism from opponents, but very few solutions.
I never claimed to have any of the answers. Did I? I am just looking at the pro's and con's of those that our well-paid elected officials are putting out there. How can gov't stimulate competition? Off the top, or bottom, of my head... make it a profitable industry with easy access to new competitors. Thats the same as any industry.
So how would you stimulate greater competition, given that it hasnt happened by leaving it to the insurance companies alone.
Why do you think something like the government administered (not government controlled) Federal Employees Health Benefits program wont work at a more macro level like in a proposed public option (or national insurance exchange)....it currently includes 10 or so private insurance companies providing more than 20 different plan choices (at varying premium rates) and I dont think any objective observer would characterize it as a bloated inefficient giant....but it does control costs in order for any particular private carrier to be include among the provider choices. Hell, even Medicare, with all its faults, has relatively low administrative costs compared to the private sector.
Just throwing out the same old rhetoric....monopoly, bloated inefficient giant, is not a very helpful solution.
Medicare has lower administrative costs?
Maybe not:
only an extremely small portion of administrative costs are related to the dollar value of health care benefit claims. Expressing these costs as a percentage of benefit claims gives a misleading picture of the relative efficiency of government and private health plans.Medicare beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease. Private insurance beneficiaries may include a small percentage of people in those categories, but they consist primarily of people are who under age 65 and not disabled. Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare's administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-medicare-have-lower-administrative.htmlA great commentary:
Jul 7 2009, 2:41 pm by Megan McArdle
Medicare's Mythical Administrative Cost Savings
The title of this post is going to make some of my readers very angry. Medicare has lots of administrative cost savings, they will say. This may be so. But I mean mythical in another sense: there's ultimately no way to prove or disprove these amazing savings. The problem is indeterminate.
Jon Cohn, who I respect greatly, spends a lot of time on the money and time that insurance companies put into denying claims. This is undoubtedly true. But I have two caveats. First, some of that effort is a good thing: without it, there would be fraud. No, not the automatic denials so many insurers are fond of, and I'm not defending. But Medicare should probably spend a lot more effort rooting out excessive billing. And I don't know what percentage of claims denial consists of refusing to line the pockets of doctors and labs.
But the more important point is that I doubt this is the majority of their administrative costs, or even the difference between their administrative costs and Medicare's. I'm not trying to justify the bullshit automatic claims denial, but that's not actually a very costly process: a hospital submits a bill, they deny it, you yell at them. Nor is refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions, or any of the other multifarious complaints of single-payer advocates.
Rather, private insurers have costs that Medicare doesn't have within the agency. Private insurers bill. Medicare does too, but the IRS has its own budget--hell, its own courts--which don't show up on Medicare's balance sheet. Private insurers negotiate with suppliers. Medicare does too, but most of the negotiation takes place between lobbyists and Congressmen who again, do not show up on Medicare's balance sheet. The Federal government has all sorts of these little items which relieve government agencies of reporting certain costs. But the costs remain.
My guess would be that these explicit costs are still lower than Medicare's. But then there are implicit costs to government fiat that markets don't have. As Tyler Cowen points out, taxation has deadweight losses, and Medicare is a tax on employment, which is something we are particularly anxious not to suppress right now.
The final point is that while people commonly think of administrative costs as "wasted", in fact, they are an important part of the market system. As Alex Tabarrok points out, and I have myself from time to time, many of the arguments in favor of national health care are literally socialist. And no, I am not using that term to apply to "anyone who is in favor of redistribution" or "government programs". But consider the following common arguments:
1. National health care will be cheaper because we will reduce administrative overhead
2. National health care will reduce wasteful competition in the form of me-too drugs
3. National health care will reduce wasteful competition in the form of advertising and other marketing expenses
4. National health care will allow us to rationally distribute care to where it does the most good rather than the current messy, wasteful hodge-podge
5. National health care will use resources for production instead of profits
6. National health care will achieve economies of scale in purchasing and record-keeping
7. People will not overuse free goods because there are hard limits to desired consumption
These were all arguments advanced in favor of socialism. Contrary to popular conservative belief, socialists were not unfamilier with either the incentive problems of communism (people will not work hard if there's no benefit to doing so) or the Hayekian argument about the value of prices, aka the Socialist Calculation Problem. Rather, smart socialists thought that they could overcome these problems with a combination of status competitions (Hero of the Soviet Union, Second Class) and massive efficiencies gained by wringing all that fragmented, wasteful competition out of the system. Economists who would be ashamed to make these sorts of arguments about Proctor and Gamble or the used car market suddenly start parroting these things as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited by the last seventy years.
But why were they discredited? That list looks really, really good on paper, even to my jaded libertarian eyes. A lot of the answer lies in the reason that we don't like monopolies--even though that list is just as true of monopolies as it is of the government. Monopolies, government or private, are risk averse, slow to innovate, and generally run things for the benefit of themselves rather than their customers. Hamstringing them with regulations can limit measurable outcomes, like excess profit-taking, but not unmeasurable ones, like the people who might have been cured by a drug the system didn't invent. And the political system introduces its own problems. As Robert Heinlein pointed out years ago, systems that have only positive feedback loops tend to fail catastrophically.
My critics will want me to explain why, then, Europe can do it cheaper. The answer is threefold. First, most European nations have better governance than we do--the American political system is a Public Choice disaster. Second, they pay people less money in a way that's hard to replicate here (and even if it wasn't, would be a one time savings that wouldn't check the rate of growth). Third, we're still driving quite a bit of product innovation. Our messy, organic, wasteful, unfair, irrational system allows experimentation, and they cherry pick the best results. If we stopped doing this, their system would stop looking so good.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/medicares_mythical_administrative_cost_savings.phpGood God people at least Google:
"administrative costs of medicare" and see what BS Redux is feeding you...
If you look at what I posted, it was that Medicare administrative costs were relatively low compared to private insurance. I did not say lower.
And given, that one of the largest components of administrative costs are related to customer service, one should expect that portion to be higher for elderly and disabled as opposed to young and healthy.
For the record, I dont want a public option or a public/private exchange based on the Medicare model; but rather on the FEHB model.
One of the latest Republican amendments was to disband FEHB because it is unfair that government employees get affordable and quality choices in their health care while small business employees and self-employed, with no employer plan, pay full market prices....rather than expand FEHB to make it available to small businesses, etc. so those workers can benefit from the FEHB private provider choices.
Thanks for qualifying that. SO they are not really lower. And there is not REALLY a savings. As usual when the Gobberment sticks it's finger in it there is a greater cost to the tax payer.
Thanks for qualifying that. SO they are not really lower. And there is not REALLY a savings. As usual when the Gobberment sticks it's finger in it there is a greater cost to the tax payer.
I didnt expect you to address the concept of an expanded FEHB model.
Its far easier to vilify Medicare.
I did get a laugh out of the fact that you posted Megan McArdle....the anti-government "death panels" queen who, btw, is on the payroll of libertarian "think tanks" and the tobacco industry. No hidden agenda there.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/medicares_mythical_administrative_cost_savings.php
What is that...your fourth or fifth Megan McArdle "reliable source" editorial? I lost count.
I didnt expect you to address the concept of an expanded FEHB model.
Its far easier to vilify Medicare.
Medicare IS the model that the Demoncratically Controlled Congress is holding up as an example of efficiency and cost savings. Total Bull Shit. It is doomed for failure on that premise. And you know it. The Dem’s can’t have it both ways. Hold up one failed program and an example of success, all the while chortling the advantages and wonderful aspects that never really existed. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and the American public is about to be sold a Bill of Goods that neither address the root causes of a failed healthcare system nor some panacea of a fix by a power hungry Demoncratic majority. Sooner or later the people will see that the Emperor and Savior Obama wears no clothes.
Outlays for elderly and handicapped are naturally higher than those for younger and healthier.
Why should that come as a surprise to anyone?
Actually a more complete example:
Outlays for elderly and handicapped are naturally higher than those for younger and healthier.
Why should that come as a surprise to anyone?
OH? So you were just going to ignore those costs as a part of the total as the majority of those using the system leave a status of Baby Boomer and into Medicare?
And again, one of the largest components of Medicare administrative costs are related to customer service, something that is naturally higher than younger and healthier patients.
And if you would take the time to look at the public/private exchange proposals, they are based more on the FEHB model than the Medicare model.
One of the only good parts of the Obamanation Plan is that he is going to make a WHOLE bunch of people start to pay into the system who never had insurance before. That should satisfy those back door deals he made with the Insurance Industry very happy.
And again, one of the largest components of Medicare administrative costs are related to customer service, something that is naturally higher than younger and healthier patients.
And if you would take the time to look at the public/private exchange proposals, they are based more on the FEHB model than the Medicare model.
That is patently false. I mean since there is actually no Bill before Congress for us to dissect.
Hey Redux, please provide us a link the Bill currently before Congress so we can all look at the details of what the Demoncrats are proposing. Thanks.
There is currently one Senate bill and another expected this week, as well as several House proposals.
It really might be helpful to wait until a final bill is on the table...but that would prevent the demogoguery that has made this such a circus.
It really might be helpful to wait until a final bill is on the table...but that would prevent the demogoguery that has made this such a circus.
Oh really? and then what? Pelosi will give everyone a 72 hour window to look at the details and vote on one of the most sweeping changes to healthcare in America since the New Deal and you call that transparency? :lol2:
Yep...thats the plan.
We're out to get you...and your great great grand-children!
What happened to:
I am at the point of letting them have their way to watch them fail and allow them to take the fall.
Yep...thats the plan.
We're out to get you...and your great great grand-children!
What happened to:
Yep. It's all your's mate. Enjoy.:p
Yep. It's all your mate. Enjoy.:p
You can thank me when your health care choices are expanded and your premiums stop increasing at rates more than 4-5 times faster than your salary. ;)
Wow, looks like Medicare is headed for some problems... Where is the money going to come from?
You can thank me when your health care choices are expanded and your premiums stop increasing at rates more than 4-5 times faster than your salary. ;)
:lol2:I will thank you with a car bomb. So what, you are a narcissist? You think any of us should thank you for anything the Demoncrats do? ROTFLMAO!:D
I dont disagree with you on the need for entitlement (Medicare and Social Security) reform, but that is a separate discussion.
:lol2:I will thank you with a car bomb. So what, you are a narcissist? You think any of us should thank you for anything the Demoncrats do? ROTFLMAO!:D
Well, hell, you
blamed me in another post after
your meltdown, I want credit!
You can thank me when your health care choices are expanded and your premiums stop increasing at rates more than 4-5 times faster than your salary. ;)
Tell you what there Reflux. I will let all those middle class families that now have to come up with extra money or get fined by the feds for health insurance call and thank you, care to publish your home address and phone number so all those appreciative people can call you and bless you? :lol:
I dont disagree with you on the need for entitlement (Medicare and Social Security) reform, but that is a separate discussion.
I never once said we did not need reform.
Tell you what there Reflux. I will let all those middle class families that now have to come up with extra money or get fined by the feds for health insurance call and thank you, care to publish your home address and phone number so all those appreciative people can call you and bless you? :lol:
I see another meltdown coming on!
take a deep breath and relax, Merc.
A nice little summary of how Medicare is saving us soooo much money and is soooo efficent.
CHAPTER 7 - MEDICARE
Content Last Updated: 6/17/2009 9:28:21 AM
Graphics Last Updated: 6/15/2009 9:01:51 AM
Charts and graphs for this chapter are listed in the right column of the page.
Originally written by Gail Wilensky, Ph.D.,
Project HOPE, former chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and former administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)
This chapter was made possible by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Suggest Edits
FAST FACTS
Medicare is a federal program that covered 44.1 million people in calendar year 2007 -- 36.9 million aged 65 and over and 7.2 million who met Medicare’s definition of disability. 1
The first of the baby boomers will reach age 65 – the Medicare eligibility age for non-disabled people – in 2011. By 2030, when the youngest boomer turns 65, there are expected to be 78 million people on Medicare.2
Annual expenditures for Medicare were $436 billion in 2007 and are expected to rise to $887 billion in 2018.3
Financial assets of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that pays for Part A of Medicare are projected to be exhausted by 2019.4
To finance Part A’s expected needs through 2083, the Medicare payroll tax would need to be increased immediately by 122 percent, program outlays would need to be reduced by 51 percent immediately, or some combination of the two, according to the program’s trustees.5
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes Medicare incentive payments to encourage physicians and hospitals to “meaningfully use” electronic health records. The incentives phase out over six years, followed by penalties for non-adopters.6
Suggest Edits
BACKGROUND
Medicare is a federal program that helps pay medical bills for people age 65 and older, and a relatively small group of people who are judged to be severely and permanently disabled.
The program was signed into law in 1965 but has since been expanded in terms of services and populations covered. The most important of these expansions were the decision to cover people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in 1972 and the coverage of outpatient prescription drugs enacted in 2003.
At age 65, a person automatically becomes eligible for Medicare if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a legal resident (green card holder), and has lived in the U.S. for at least five years in a row.7 The eligibility rules for people with disabilities are more complicated but generally, if a person qualifies for cash benefits under Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), they can qualify for Medicare after a two-year waiting period.8 Special rules apply for those with ESRD or ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.
As with Social Security, eligibility for Medicare does not depend on income. Also like Social Security, much of Medicare is funded on a “pay-as-you-go basis,” which means it depends primarily on today’s working population to fund the expenses of today’s beneficiaries.
Suggest Edits
Medicare covers benefits that fall into four parts. (Click here to see text box with details on what's covered by each part and how much beneficiaries have to pay for premiums and services under each.)
Part A - Hospital Insurance
Part A, known as the Hospital Insurance (or HI) program, covers inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing care up to 100 days after a hospitalization, home health and hospice care. It is funded by a portion of the wage tax – 2.9 percent, with employers and employees each paying 1.45 percent. Beneficiaries pay a deductible ($1,068 for each “spell of illness” in 2009), and substantial copayments for extended inpatient hospital or skilled nursing facility stays. If they have worked in the U.S. for 10 years or more (40 quarters of Medicare-covered employment), beneficiaries pay no Part A premium. (See text box, “What Medicare Covers,” for Part A premiums charged to those who have worked fewer than 40 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.)
Part B - Supplementary Medical Insurance
Part B, known as Supplementary Medical Insurance (or SMI), covers physician services, outpatient care and home health care after 100 visits. It is funded partly by premiums, which accounted for 24.8 percent of the Part B income in 2007.9 The rest comes from general revenue. The monthly premium for most beneficiaries is $96.40 in 2009. Some with higher incomes pay higher, income-related premiums; some with low incomes and assets pay no premiums. Most face a Part B deductible of $135 in 2009. In 2009, premiums for the wealthiest beneficiaries will cover 80 percent of their Part B costs.10
Part C - Medicare Advantage
Part C replaces the benefits from parts A, B and D by enrollment in a private plan called a Medicare Advantage (or MA) plan, which includes at least the benefits associated with traditional Medicare. In 2008, around 10 million beneficiaries were enrolled in MA plans.11 (See the Glossary for more.)
Part D - Prescription Drug Benefit
Part D is the outpatient prescription drug benefit which took effect in 2006. The benefit is provided by free-standing private drug plans (except for those beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans with a prescription benefit). It is funded by general revenue, contributions from the states and premium payments from beneficiaries (an amount that made up 7.9 percent of Part D income in 2007).12 Each plan sets its own premium; the national average in 2009 is $30.36 per month. The deductible cannot be more than $295.
There are also some important benefits that Medicare does not cover. These include custodial long-term care, dental services and most vision and hearing services.
For a detailed description of what Medicare covers and how it is financed, go to the websites for the Medicare Rights Center (www.medicarerights.org) and the official U.S. government website for people with Medicare (www.medicare.gov).
Assuring adequate funding for both Social Security and Medicare faces the problem that, with the aging of the population, there will be fewer workers supporting each retiree. (See chart, “Historical and Projected Number of Medicare Beneficiaries and Number of Workers Per Beneficiary.”)
More:
http://www.allhealth.org/sourcebookcontent.asp?CHID=70I see another meltdown coming on!
take a deep breath and relax, Merc.
No meltdown, you have just stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the success of the program. You will also accept the failure. Good on you. I will be here to pat you on the back or stab a knife in it. Most likely you will do as most and just fade to black as it goes down the shitter. Typical Lobbyist.
Hey REDUX. Where's the Bill?
No meltdown, you have just stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the success of the program. You will also accept the failure. Good on you. I will be here to pat you on the back or stab a knife in it. Most likely you will do as most and just fade to black as it goes down the shitter. Typical Lobbyist.
Yesterday, you
blamed me for the failure....and now you want to
car bomb me...or
stab me in the back.
Man, how am I supposed to sleep tonight?
Yesterday, you blamed me for the failure....and now you want to car bomb me...or stab me in the back.
Man, how am I supposed to sleep tonight?
Wide awake MoFo. :lol2:
Wide awake MoFo. :lol2:
Ah....the MoFo comes out.
I knew you couldnt go one day w/o it!
Ah....the MoFo comes out.
I knew you couldnt go one day w/o it!
Without what?
2/3 of America want health care reform to pass, and want a public option. It will happen no matter how much money the insurance companies throw at it.
That there will be some healthcare reform legislation isn't the issue. I think we all recognize that. The issue is whether it will be a productive and beneficial change, and at what cost.
Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill
Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.
“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.
Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.
Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The committee defeated the amendment 13-10.
Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill. "It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all sections of the legislation," said the AP.
Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working with “conceptual language”—or what some committee members call a “plain English” summary or description of the bill.
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a “plain language description” of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.
“It’s not just conceptual, it’s a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration,” said Bingaman.
But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.
“The conceptual language is not good enough,” said Cornyn. “We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.”
Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of the bill as opposed to the actual text.
Probably??? FFS isn't it his job to read the bill?
Finance Committee Democrat Won’t Read Text of Health Bill
Probably??? FFS isn't it his job to read the bill?
I agree with Carper. Members of Congress dont read the actual full text of bills, particularly comprehensive bills like this one. Anyone who says otherwise is probably lying.
Try reading most bills yourself...much of any bill simply points back to amending existing laws and cites sections of the US Code....with language like: [INDENT]"subsection A(1)x of this new bill replaces USC Title 1, sec 23.xyx"
"insert...."this word or phrase" of the new bill to replace "this word or phrase" of USC V.3 (a)2(b)[/INDENT]
Huh?
One would need the entire 20+ volume of the US Code at your side to read many bills.
That is the job of the Committee staff and they prepare a detailed, comprehensive section-by-section summary in "plain English" that is available to every member.
Credit Carper for outing the truth.
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.
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.
Try reading most bills yourself...much of any bill simply points back to amending existing laws and cites sections of the US Code....with language like: "subsection A(1)x of this new bill replaces USC Title 1, sec 23.xyx"
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.
It's painfully fucking slow and tedious and ...
That is their job or at least part of it, right?
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.
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)
[COLOR="Red"](editorial comment - why term limits are not necessary :))[/COLOR]
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.
lol - very nice! but still no chart :( and you didn't post any poll data either - you're slippin
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.
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?:confused:
Remember when the Republicans didn't read the [COLOR="White"]un[/COLOR]Patriot 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.
lol - very nice! but still no chart :( and you didn't post any poll data either - you're slippin
:lol:
...we should just go with direct democracy.
Hell no! Then
I'd have to read that shit! Just give me the executive summary and tell me where to sign. :p
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).
[INDENT]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
[/INDENT]
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?
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.
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/health/policy/03health.html?ref=healthUnder 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.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus' committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean leaving at least 2 million more uninsured — not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
"I think we've got to do something about it," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We've got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class."
Well that right there is an understatement.
Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/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.
Not just the AMA, and btw many specialists abhor the AMA, but few are going to go along with significant changes to reimbursement willingly. I think most feel some wave of change coming but there will be a showdown over it and a lot of people are going to be caught in the middle of it. Each individual entity which received monies from the current model, including patients, is going to have a dog in the fight. Some will win and some will lose big time. Right now the only big winner I see is the traditional Lady-in-waiting of Congress, the insurance companies.
I agree the insurance companies will be one of the big winners if there is no public option included in the final reform.
But I dont see any of these provisions as a big win for the insurance industry:
[INDENT]* ending exclusions on pre-existing conditions
* requiring caps on total out-of-pocket expenses
* eliminating cost-sharing (no co-pays or deductibles) for preventive care
* mandating a required level of basic benefits
* forcing greater competition in order for an insurance company to be included in the health insurance exchange[/INDENT]
They would certainly lose under the swiss model in which the insurance companies are highly regulated at the federal level, including being forced to operate as a non-profit in providing a basic level of coverage to all citizens.
There is a reason why most of the insurance industry lobbying money is working as hard as it is against comprehensive reform.
I agree the insurance companies will be one of the big winners if there is no public option included in the final reform.
But I dont see ending exclusions on pre-existing conditions or including caps on total out-of-pocket expenses, or eliminating cost-sharng for some preventive care, or mandating a required level of basic benefits, or forcing greater competition in order for an insurance company to be included in the health insurance exchange as a big win for those companies.
True, but those costs will be paid by someone, the government, the individuals, or the other non-insurance parties involved, which is why the model will ultimately fail to deal with the root problems of the current system.
They would certainly lose under the swiss model in which the insurance companies are highly regulated at the federal level, including being forced to operate as a non-profit in providing a basic level of coverage to all citizens.
I prefer this model over that being proposed.
There is a reason why most of the insurance industry lobbying money is working as hard as it is against comprehensive reform.
No doubt. They are still in the back pockets of the Congress.
There is a reason why most of the insurance industry lobbying money is working as hard as it is against comprehensive reform.
And, even under the Swiss model you prefer, the government subsidizes consumers when the costs exceed a government set percentage of income. Someone always has to pay.
IMO, greater competition (like the proposed exchange), along with standardized federal regulations (like those I listed above), are still is the best way to lower costs and/or ensure a basic level of service.
I am open to other ideas, but all I hear are complaints and misrepresentations of the proposals on the table, and not solutions.
I suggested earlier how I would pay for it (increasing FICA taxes on high income wage earners). The other proposals most under consideration also are targeted to the top 1-5% of taxpayers.
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
WSJ
$1.4 million a day, that they admit to. I don't see a chance for the public being a winner in this fight. However, if the little guy really wants to, this
is an opportunity to track his/her elected representative's actions, and get involved with the political process during their next election cycle. Kick the bastards out, that are working against your interests.
That said, it won't happen. Joe Average will grouse and bitch about Congress, then quickly turn his attention to who will be the next American Idol on his HD, wide screen, Wallymart TV. Smug in the belief the American system is best, because it's of the people*, by the people*, and for the people*.
* At least the ones with the money and power... or the gumption to get off their fat ass and do something about it.
There is a reason why most of the insurance industry lobbying money is working as hard as it is against comprehensive reform.
And, even under the Swiss model you prefer, the government subsidizes consumers when the costs exceed a government set percentage of income. Someone always has to pay.
IMO, greater competition (like the proposed exchange), along with standardized federal regulations (like those I listed above), are still is the best way to lower costs and/or ensure a basic level of service.
I am open to other ideas, but all I hear are complaints and misrepresentations of the proposals on the table, and not solutions.
I suggested earlier how I would pay for it (increasing FICA taxes on high income wage earners). The other proposals most under consideration also are targeted to the top 1-5% of taxpayers.
Any model in which the insurance companies come out ahead at the expense of all other elements is not a solution. And so far I have seen nothing proposed by Congress which does not do that very thing. Every proposal on the table has elements of minor reform of the insurance process while giving them a HUGE increase in profit.
Any model in which the insurance companies come out ahead at the expense of all other elements is not a solution. And so far I have seen nothing proposed by Congress which does not do that very thing. Every proposal on the table has elements of minor reform of the insurance process while giving them a HUGE increase in profit.
I dont think ending exclusions on pre-existing conditions, requiring caps on total out-of-pocket expenses, eliminating cost-sharing (no co-pays or deductibles) for preventive care, mandating a required level of basic benefits are minor reforms.
Of course insurance companies will "come out ahead" if an additional 30+ million people, mostly employees in small businesses currently w/o insurance, will have access to affordable health care through new programs like the health insurance exchange. The point is to force the companies to make it more affordable through a competitive bid process and requiring insurance companies to meet specific costs and benefit provisions in order to participate in the exchange.
How else would you propose providing coverage to those millions?
Or for those 200+ million with employer-based insurance, how else do you rein in the spiraling costs and/or provide greater choice of that private provider system?
The only other solution is even greater federal regulation of the insurance industry or to do away with insurance companies completely.
I dont think ending exclusions on pre-existing conditions, requiring caps on total out-of-pocket expenses, eliminating cost-sharing (no co-pays or deductibles) for preventive care, mandating a required level of basic benefits are minor reforms.
They are if you are trading profits to the insurance industry for them at the expense of all the other elements of the medical system who will have to take cuts or pay more for others to get the benefit and funnel profits to the insurance industry.
Of course insurance companies will "come out ahead" if an additional 30+ million people, mostly employees in small businesses currently w/o insurance, will have access to affordable health care through new programs like the health insurance exchange. The point it to make it affordable by forcing greater competition.
Which is why it really is not reform.
How else would you propose providing coverage to those millions?
Everyone pays the same percent of their income to get the benefit. And or a user tax on goods and services akin to the VAT in the UK.
Or for those w/insurance, how else do you rein in the spiraling costs and/or provide greater choice of the current employer-based, private provider system.
Much more comprehensive reform than that proposed by any plan being offered by Congress who is merely pandering to the insurance industry while they try to sell a bandaid to the American public. I promise this will have significant unintended consequences which will be difficult to recover from.
The only other solution is even greater federal regulation of the insurance industry or to do away with insurance companies completely.
Both of those options are quite good.
One of the first casualties as Insurance companies begin to cost shift.
WASHINGTON–More than 660,000 seniors next year will lose the private Medicare plans they now have because some insurers are dropping coverage in response to tougher federal requirements.
Most of those beneficiaries are enrolled in a type of Medicare Advantage plan called Private Fee for Service, where enrollment has surged from about 820,000 three years ago to more than 2.44 million today. PFFS enrollees, unlike those under other Medicare Advantage plans, can see any doctor they like as long as he or she accepts payments through their plan. Medicare Advantage plans are subsidized by the federal government and run by insurance companies; most operate with networks of providers.
President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress have proposed more than $100 billion in payment cuts to private Medicare plans over 10 years to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. They argue that the private insurers are overpaid -- Advantage plans cost the government 14% more on average per beneficiary than traditional Medicare -- and the cuts will help control Medicare costs.
"Today's announcement demonstrates the real impact that policy changes can have on the health security of seniors in Medicare Advantage," said Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association for insurers. The proposed payment cuts "will put the entire program at risk and cause seniors to face even higher premiums, further reductions in benefits and fewer health-care choices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125443003194657369.htmlAnother change is that everyone's premiums are going to go up. My premiums went up $300 a month last year. This year they have gone up another $300. And my new employer REQUIRES every employe to take their insurance option, it is mandatory. This is in anticipation of the Obamanation Healthcare Reform.
They are if you are trading profits to the insurance industry for them at the expense of all the other elements of the medical system who will have to take cuts or pay more for others to get the benefit and funnel profits to the insurance industry.
Which is why it really is not reform.
Everyone pays the same percent of their income to get the benefit. And or a user tax on goods and services akin to the VAT in the UK.
Nothing you suggested reduces the spiraling costs without heavy subsidy.
You want everyone paying the same percent of their income to get benefits, but you also want the working poor and middle class to pay a greater percent of their income through a vat tax.
It sounds like you want to do away the entire employer based system and the insurance industry.
IMO, that is no reform, that is blowing up the system completely. And then you support greater federal regulations?
I dont get your plan at all.
Nothing you suggested reduces the spiraling costs without heavy subsidy.
We don't need subsidy, we need across the board reform of the industry. Take a look at the reform in Mass and see how it is on the verge of epic failure.
You want everyone paying the same percent of their income to get benefits, but you also want the working poor and middle class to pay a greater percent of their income through a vat tax.
Absolutely. It is the only way the program will survive the long term. Any other change will be reversed the next time there is a switch in power in Congress. And that may not be as far off as people think.
By now, it should be obvious to everyone that the Massachusetts model was the president’s health reform endgame all along. As articulated last week in his speech to the nation, Obama’s proposal appears to replicate the Massachusetts plan, sans public option. And yet few in the media have taken a good look at the Massachusetts model, and its many shortcomings. With Congress back in session and legislation on the way, now is the time to do so.
The Massachusetts model includes an individual mandate that requires people to carry insurance. The state helps people who can’t afford a policy pay for one. Those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four and $32,496 for an individual) receive full or partial subsidies. If someone doesn’t qualify for a subsidy, they must purchase insurance on their own. If they want to, they can use the state’s shopping service, called the Connector. Those deemed able to afford a policy must pay a tax penalty if they don’t buy one.
Massachusetts embarked on its reform efforts with several advantages. The state’s number of uninsured residents was lower than most states, and a large percentage of employers offered coverage and still do. Boasting a tradition of strong insurance regulation, the state already required insurers to cover sick people. The state’s Medicaid waiver was up for renewal, and politicians persuaded the federal government to recast the waiver and expand coverage to more poor people.
But recent Census Bureau statistics show that, in 2008, some 352,000 Massachusetts residents did not have coverage, even though the law requires that they do. That’s about 5.5 percent of the state’s population; up from the 2.6 percent who were uninsured in the years after reform took effect. These numbers caused Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at the Harvard Medical School (and unabashed single-payer advocate), to remark: “Today’s numbers show that plans that require people to buy private insurance don’t work. Obama’s plan to replicate Massachusetts’ reform nationally risks failure on a massive scale.”
continues:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/health_reform_lessons_from_mas_5.phpMeanwhile, few of the near-poor uninsured seem able to afford even the newly subsidized policies, and the federal funds providing the bulk of the subsidies are set to expire in 2008. The unsubsidized coverage mandated for middle-income individuals (most of whom have incomes between $30,000 and $50,000) offers a bitter choice between unaffordable premiums (at least $7,200 for comprehensive coverage for a single 56-year-old) or plans so skimpy (e.g., a $2,000 per person deductible with 20% coinsurance for hospital care after that) that they hardly qualify as insurance. The religious coalition that was key to passage of the legislation has already called for a delay in enforcement of the individual mandate, fearing that it will place unbearable financial stress on many of the uninsured. In sum, neither government, nor employers, nor the uninsured themselves have pockets deep enough to sustain coverage expansion in the face of rising costs.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/08/massachusetts_h_1.htmlPNHP's study found that the state's 2006 reforms, instead of reducing costs, have been more expensive. The budget overruns have forced the state to siphon about $150 million from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics.
Many low-income residents who used to receive free care now face co-payments, premiums and deductibles under the new system - financial burdens that prevent many from receiving necessary medical treatment, the study said. Since the state's reforms passed, premiums under the state insurance program have increased 9.4 percent. The study found that a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.
"We are facing a healthcare crisis in this country because private insurers are driving up costs with unnecessary overhead, bloated executive salaries and an unquenchable quest for profits - all at the expense of American consumers," said Sidney Wolfe, MD, director of Public Citizen's health research group. "Massachusetts' failed attempt at reform is little more than a repeat of experiments that haven't worked in other states. To repeat that model on a national scale would be nothing short of Einstein's definition of insanity."
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/pnhp-massachusetts-healthcare-system-failureA very good, highly footnoted, review of the Mass system by Cato.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdfPersonally, I dont find articles from two libertarian sites (cato and econlib) and an insurance industry site (health care finance news) to be objective or convincing.
Nor is the personal mandate, as established in Massachusetts, set in stone in the current proposals.
But thats just me.
Personally, I dont find articles from two libertarian sites (cato and econlib) to be objective or convincing.
They are far more objective than the BS we are being fed from the White House or spouted by Demoncrats or Republickins who both have agendas to complete.
Nor is the personal mandate, as established in Massachusetts, set in stone in the current proposals.
Not set in stone but certainly a halmark of the plans currently before both houses.
Whats good for the rest of the nation apparently isn't good for Nevada. WTF is this and why isn't anyone outraged?
Changes to a health care reform bill in the U.S. Senate increased to $2.3 billion the extra money that would assist low-income residents in Nevada.
That is the word from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who sought changes to a proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. The changes would provide more health care help for Nevadans without dipping into the state's budget at least temporarily.
Nevada would be one of four states to be reimbursed 100 percent by the federal government over five years for the cost of increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid.
After five years, the federal government would pay 82.3 percent of the cost to provide care to the newly eligible people. Nevada would pay 17.7 percent, said sources who worked on the legislation.
"I promised the people of Nevada that I wouldn't support any health insurance reform proposal that wasn't good for our state, and I meant it," Reid said in a statement.
An earlier version of the bill would have required states to increase the percentage rate they pay for Medicaid. Reid said that was unacceptable and sought changes to shield Nevada from such an increase.
link
Why is it fair for all the other states to pay and not his??? This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. Basically they are either adding to the cost of the program or taking money from other states. Either way it seems very wrong.
Maybe Nevada has significantly more low-income residents than other states. So when the Feds raise the income bracket of people eligible for Medicare, maybe that saddles Nevada with 3 million new users to pay for, while maybe Virginia would only have to deal with 250,000. (Numbers pulled out of my ass for illustration.) I wonder what the other three states are...
Whats good for the rest of the nation apparently isn't good for Nevada. WTF is this and why isn't anyone outraged?
link
Why is it fair for all the other states to pay and not his??? This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. Basically they are either adding to the cost of the program or taking money from other states. Either way it seems very wrong.
Under the current law, states can never pay more than 50% of the Medicaid costs, with the feds picking up the rest.
In most states, the fed taxpayers (you and me) are paying more than 50 percent (in some states, much more) based on the current cost sharing formula. In Nevada and a few other states, it is a 50-50 split.
Increasing the number of eligible residents for Medicaid in NV may have pushed that state share above 50% which would be contrary to the limit in existing law.
A chart :)
[INDENT]
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?cb=56&sctn=152&ch=991[/INDENT]
So, in fact, you and I have been paying less for Medicaid in Nevada than we pay for most other states and I suspect, even with these provisions that Reid added, we would still be paying less in NV than the national average.
FMAP is not just Medicaid.
Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) are the percentage rates used to determine the amount of matching funds that are allocated annually to certain medical and social service programs in the United States of America. FMAP eligible programs are joint federal-state partnerships between the federal government of the United States and state governments, which are administered by the states.[1][2]
Funds that are eligible for FMAP match include Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expenditures, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Contingency Funds, the Federal share of Child Support Enforcement collections, and Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund.
State governments use FMAP percentages to determine the federal government's contribution to specific state administered programs and assess their related budgetary outlays. For example, the 2006-2007 FMAP rate for California was 50% - therefore, for every dollar that California contributed to an eligible social or medical program between 2006 and 2007, the federal government also contributed one dollar.
from Wiki.
The "Federal Medical Assistance Percentages" are for Medicaid. Section 1905(b) of the Act specifies the formula for calculating Federal Medical Assistance Percentages as follows:
"Federal medical assistance percentage" for any State shall be 100 per centum less the State percentage; and the State percentage shall be that percentage which bears the same ratio to 45 per centum as the square of the per capita income of such State bears to the square of the per capita income of the continental United States (including Alaska) and Hawaii; except that (1) the Federal medical assistance percentage shall in no case be less than 50 per centum or more than 83 per centum, (2) the Federal medical assistance percentage for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa shall be 50 per centum."
Section 4725(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amended section 1905(b) to provide that the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for the District of Columbia for purposes of titles XIX and XXI shall be 70 percent. For the District of Columbia, we note under the table of Federal Medical Assistance Percentages the rate that applies in certain other programs calculated using the formula otherwise applicable, and the rate that applies in certain other programs pursuant to section 1118 of the Social Security Act.
Actual numbers by state:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap10.htm
Nevada is 50.16 percent paid by the Fed.
FMAP is not just Medicaid.
Nevada is 50.16 percent paid by the Fed.
Right.
The FMAP formula is used to determine state/federal shares for more than just Medicaid.
More on FMAP and the federal share of Medicaid costs, if anyone really cares:
http://www.nhpf.org/library/the-basics/Basics_FMAP_01-15-09.pdf
[INDENT]The statute establishes a minimum FMAP of 50 percent for states,
stipulating that no state shall bear more than 50 percent of total costs, regardless of the result of applying the formula. Thirteen states have FMAPs equal to the 50 percent floor in FY 2009. The statute also contains an upper FMAP limit of 83 percent.[/INDENT]
Adding a few more million Nevada residents to be eligible for Medicaid would probably put the state cost-sharing percentage over 50% UNLESS the federal share pays 100% for those newly added millions...at least in the short term.
I dont see where Reid did anything wrong here for Nevada and 2-3 other states that are at the state limit on cost-sharing. In fact, I dont know why he didnt include all 13-14 states already at the 50% match, unless there are specific demographic differences among these states that make the fiscal impact of providing Medicare eligibility to more residents significantly greater on some of those states than others.
I dont see where Reid did anything wrong here for Nevada and 2-3 other states that are at the state limit on cost-sharing. In fact, I dont know why he didnt include all 13-14 states already at the 50% match, unless there are specific demographic differences among these states that make the fiscal impact of providing Medicare eligibility to more residents significantly greater on some of those states than others.
Perhaps they're primarily Republican states. :rolleyes:
Perhaps they're primarily Republican states. :rolleyes:
If you look at the map I posted earlier, you will see that, with the exception of WY, nearly all of the 13-14 states at the 50% match level are Democratic states...or a few swing states like CO and VA.
Nope...doesnt fly.
I WAS KIDDING! Sheesh a lil levity and all ya know. Hold your mouse over the smiley?
I still think it doesn't need an amendment. Isn't/shouldn't that be written in there already? I think it looks bad and stinks - especially coming from one of the leaders of the party. :headshake
I WAS KIDDING! Sheesh a lil levity and all ya know. Hold your mouse over the smiley?
I still think it doesn't need an amendment. Isn't/shouldn't that be written in there already? I think it looks bad and stinks - especially coming from one of the leaders of the party. :headshake
I just cant help myself.
I see attempts at "gotcha Obama/Democrats" in so many posts, and more often than not, without having all the facts. (More from Merc than you)
An image flashes in my head each time.
[INDENT][youtube]KuStsFW4EmQ[/youtube][/INDENT]
“Always with the negative waves, man!”
Awww...bringing up Kelly's Heroes. How cool is that.
By Jacob Goldstein
The Congressional Budget Office just released its estimates for the Senate Finance Committee’s big health-care bill. (Here’s the WSJ story.) The bottom line: CBO estimates that the bill will shave more than $80 billion off of the federal deficit over a 10-year period.
Here are five key numbers from CBO:
94%: The percentage of legal U.S. residents under 65 who will have health insurance in 2019. That’s up from about 83% today. The bill doesn’t provide coverage for illegal immigrants. U.S. citizens 65 and older already have near universal access to health insurance, through Medicare.
29 million: The decrease over a decade in the number of people who are under 65 and uninsured.
25 million: The number of people under 65 who would still be uninsured in a decade. About a third would be illegal immigrants.
$829 billion: The gross total cost to the federal government, over 10 years, of expanding insurance coverage. This includes credits and subsidies to help people buy insurance on exchanges; higher funding for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and tax credits for small employers.
$911 billion: Savings and new revenue, over 10 years, resulting from the bill. Among the contributors: A new tax on so-called Cadillac health-insurance plans (initially defined as those with annual annual premiums over $8,000 for individuals and over $21,000 for families, with some exceptions).
Bonus Number: The CBO estimates that only $3 billion of an allotted $6 billion will be spent for the non-profit insurance co-ops described in the bill. The co-ops got a lot of attention in the health-care debate this summer, but CBO says “they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/10/07/five-key-numbers-in-cbos-score-of-the-senate-finance-bill/?mod=blogmod
Not discussed:
How they are going to cut Medicare Advantage and how that will affect seniors that depend on it, esp in rural areas.
There are still a lot of amendments to go through.
The CBO calculations only take into account the proposed bill, not the potential for employers to take the penalty hit and pass the empolyee off to what ever plan they can find out there under the big mommy of the Fed.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A compromise health care proposal widely seen as having the best chance to win Democratic and Republican support would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years, nonpartisan budget analysts concluded Wednesday.
It also would reduce the federal deficit by more than $80 billion, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.
The review of the Senate Finance Committee's amended bill sets the stage for the next step in the politically charged debate over health care reform. Committee members have been waiting for the Budget Office's cost analysis before voting on their version of the bill.
The Finance Committee is the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before debate begins in the full House and Senate.
The Budget Office's analysis differs slightly from Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' estimate. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, had said the revised bill would cost roughly $900 billion.
Over the past two weeks, the Finance Committee has considered several hundred amendments to the sweeping bill. Committee members boosted the bill's overall price tag in part by voting to exempt senior citizens from higher taxes on medical expenses.
Before the amendments, the Budget Office projected that the committee's version of the bill would cost $774 billion; Baucus estimated that it would cost $856 billion.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/health.care/index.htmlUnintended consequence looms large over plans for healtcare reform bill.
Waves of new fund cuts imperil US nursing homes
HARTFORD, Conn. – The nation's nursing homes are perilously close to laying off workers, cutting services — possibly even closing — because of a perfect storm wallop from the recession and deep federal and state government spending cuts, industry experts say.
A Medicare rate adjustment that cuts an estimated $16 billion in nursing home funding over the next 10 years was enacted at week's end by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — on top of state-level cuts or flat-funding that already had the industry reeling.
And Congress is debating slashing billions more in Medicare funding as part of health care reform.
Add it all up, and the nursing home industry is headed for a crisis, industry officials say.
"We can foresee the possibility of nursing homes having to close their doors," said David Hebert, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association. "I certainly foresee that we'll have to let staff go."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_us/us_meltdown_nursing_home_cutsSo it really does not fix the problem and it is all just a guess...
$800 billion bandaid:
The bill would leave 25 million Americans uninsured - fully 6% of the population, excluding illegal immigrants, according to the CBO. But it would result in coverage for 29 million who currently do not have insurance, the CBO said.
The $829 billion cost of subsidies in the bill was up from a $774 billion, 10-year estimate delivered by the CBO on Sept. 16, before Finance Committee members voted to boost subsidies to lower- and middle-income Americans, among other changes.
The CBO projected that the revenue from the insurance excise tax and other sources will grow more quickly from 2020 to 2029 than the parts of the bill that cost the government - amounting to a net reduction in the federal deficit. But the CBO cautioned its projection is "subject to substantial uncertainty."
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091007-714575.htmlI get it. You just need something new to bitch about because you dont like the CBO total cost and deficit reduction numbers.
If an Obama/Democratic program is less than 100% perfect and does not solve or address a problem in the way that you believe is best, then it is a failure.
“Always with the negative waves, man!”
I get it. You just need something new to bitch about because you dont like the CBO total cost and deficit reduction numbers.
If an Obama/Democratic program is less than 100% perfect and does not solve or address a problem in the way that you believe is best, then it is a failure.
“Always with the negative waves, man!”
And why would you say that? This is the first look that we are getting at the details of the Senate plan minus the numerous amendments that are going to attempted to be lumped on as it moves on through the process. The time to pick it apart is as it moves through the process, not at the end when Pelosi, Reid, and Rahm it Home Emanuel trys to screw us with last minute manipulations and add-ons.
The CBO estimate is but one step in that process and you know that. There is still much we don’t know and at this early stage there are already cracks in the plan. Some people may blindly accept the change because all they know is that they will be getting something for nothing, when in fact they will be paying a larger part of their income for whatever they currently have. Some of that is positive, although there is great potential for abuse as there are currently no provisions to prevent medical device corps, big pharm, or employers from passing on costs to the consumers. There is also frank discussions about how many employers may find that paying a penalty to the feds is a much cheaper route than providing health care to the employees, some thing I have mentioned a long time ago and throughout this process. Then how do they deal with the people who
still can’t afford healthcare or the personal penalty ala the current situation in Mass.?
I
will be holding Obama and the Demoncrats to all the promises they made to the American public which got people to vote for them and propel them to their present state of power. They get it all, all the success and all the failures. I also will be looking out for my best interest as a participating member of the business of healthcare. The current plan as it is moving through the Senate fails to provide healthcare to
all legal citizens nor does it address the root problems in our system. I predict it is doomed to failure even though my great grand children, along with the rest of us, will still be paying for this mess. Deficit neutrality is a farse.
You can spread the fear all you want, Merc.
IMO, it puts you in the same company as those other fear mongers on the right.
And, I dont doubt that some will buy into it.
As for me, I'm not impressed with the Doctor Doom impression.
You can spread the fear all you want, Merc.
IMO, it puts you in the same company as those other fear mongers on the right.
And, I dont doubt that some will buy into it.
As for me, I'm not impressed with the Doctor Doom impression.
Fear? You can't be that much of a manipulator of the facts on the table. Facts are facts. You are ignoring them or you are trying to deflect the issues at hand in an effort to gain support for the Demoncratic talking points. I am here in the trenches and can only report my experiences in 5 different healthcare settings. Ignore my points all you want. In the end you may be the person who disappears from this forum because you can't face the failures of your party. I will be here to remind you of your failings.
Redux, now please defend the fact that Medicare Advantage is not about to be cut by 21%. Thanks.
Fear? You can't be that much of a manipulator of the facts on the table. Facts are facts. You are ignoring them or you are trying to deflect the issues at hand in an effort to gain support for the Demoncratic talking points. I am here in the trenches and can only report my experiences in 5 different healthcare settings. Ignore my points all you want. In the end you may be the person who disappears from this forum because you can't face the failures of your party. I will be here to remind you of your failings.
Hmmmm..who is the one who has flooded this discussion with false and/or misleading partisan talking points (from Megan McArdle et al)?
That would be you.
I'll be here and I still wont flood the discussion with partisan editorials. I never have.
Redux, now please defend the fact that Medicare Advantage is not about to be cut by 21%. Thanks.
The proposal is to utilize the Medicare Advantage
average cost; not the cost of the most expensive provider.....and not on a national basis, but for each market.
I have not seen any independent, objective analysis that this would result in a significant increase in patient costs, rather than a lower payment by the government to the insurance providers.
But if you rely on your partisan editorials and analysis, its all about fear and scaring seniors.
Hmmmm..who is the one who has flooded this discussion with false and/or misleading partisan talking points (from Megan McArdle et al)?
That would be you.
I'll be here and I still wont flood the discussion with partisan editorials. I never have.
You do love to focus on one report which I admitted was misleading and out of line. But whatever, if it makes your panties wet go for it.
The proposal is to utilize the Medicare Advantage average cost; not the cost of the most expensive provider.....and not on a national basis, but for each market.
I have not seen any independent, objective analysis that this would result in a significant increase in patient costs, rather than a lower payment by the government to the insurance providers.
But if you rely on your partisan editorials and analysis, its all about fear and scaring seniors.
Maybe you missed the memo. A %21 cut in the program.
I'll be here and I still wont flood the discussion with partisan editorials. I never have.
Hmmmmm.... an admitted lobbyist and shrill for the Demoncrats? Nice try. Fail.
Redux, Please dispute this fact.
APRIL 7, 2009.U.S. Reduces Subsidies for Private Medicare
By VANESSA FUHRMANS and JANE ZHANG
The federal government made good on its plan to cut 2010 payments for private Medicare plans, whittling the subsidies to health insurers sooner than the industry originally expected.
The cuts, announced late Monday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are slightly less severe than the 5% reduction the federal agency signaled in February, but still raise concerns about what has been a critical source of profit growth for many health insurers. Reimbursements to private insurers that administer so-called Medicare Advantage plans would fall by as much as 4% to 4.5% next year.
The agency said it would raise the baseline rate for the private plans by 0.81%, slightly more than the 0.5% it proposed in February, though significantly less than the roughly 4% insurers have seen in recent years. But the payment rates also include a 3.41% reduction as a result of a change in how the government uses a reimbursement scale pegged to enrollees' health.
The move makes clear the Obama administration's intent to swiftly rein in the private plans. More than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries get their medical and drug benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. Republicans during the Bush administration pushed the plans' extra benefits for seniors and subsidies to insurers to promote more private-sector involvement in Medicare. But President Barack Obama has argued that insurers are overpaid to administer the plans, and he wants to finance part of his health-care overhaul by paring their subsidies.
Health insurers, though, hadn't expected cuts to begin until 2011 and were caught off guard by the February regulatory announcement. Last month, the administration also set stricter terms for companies bidding to offer such plans in 2010, including a requirement that they can't charge sick, low-income patients more than what they would pay under traditional Medicare.
Humana Inc., Coventry Health Care Inc. and other insurers that have made big bets on Medicare Advantage are expected to feel the rate cuts the most. With more than 1.4 million Medicare Advantage members, Humana is the second-biggest provider of private Medicare plans, and the business comprises roughly half of its overall revenue. UnitedHealth Group Inc. is the biggest provider of such plans with about 1.5 million members.
Medicare Advantage plans wrap physician and hospital services in one, often with vision and drug coverage. Unlike traditional Medicare, the government doesn't pay physicians and hospitals directly but instead pays insurers to manage care. Currently, though, a patient in these plans costs the government an average of 14% more than if he or she stayed in traditional Medicare.
The cuts mean beneficiaries enrolled in the private plans could see higher premiums or cost-sharing amounts next year, depending on the extent to which insurers try to preserve the 3% to 5% profit margins they usually make on the plans. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, for instance, said it had calculated average monthly premium increases of $50 to $80 if the 2010 cuts were to go through. That won't be clear until plans submit bids and benefit designs later this year.
Insurers and Republican lawmakers say the administration's cuts go too far, particularly because they assume a prospective 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors that Congress is all but certain to override later this year. Medicare officials said that if the physician fee cut is reversed, they would work with Congress to incorporate the change into Medicare Advantage payments then.
Humana declined to comment. UnitedHealth said it was still reviewing the Medicare announcement, but that it would continue to offer affordable plans. "We have long-standing experience with addressing the changing rate environment within Medicare Advantage and we will use all our business levers to make the adjustments necessary to manage these changes for 2010."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123905667327594685.html#printModeIn fact, this is from action earlier this year and I do like the fact that it "also set stricter terms for companies bidding to offer such plans in 2010, including a requirement that they can't charge sick, low-income patients more than what they would pay under traditional Medicare."
The partisan editorial suggests that patients "could see higher premiums" bu quoting one provider that is not even certain how or if it will absorb part or all of the increase.
And maybe, in the future bidding process, the insurers will be required to absorb more of the cost, with even stricter regulations and other offsets to protect seniors in the current reform bills.
But, I'm really not interested in responding to every partisan editorial you can find.
In fact, this is from action earlier this year and I do like the fact that it "also set stricter terms for companies bidding to offer such plans in 2010, including a requirement that they can't charge sick, low-income patients more than what they would pay under traditional Medicare."
The partisan editorial suggests that patients "could see higher premiums"...and maybe they wont, with even stricter regulations and other offsets in the current reform bills.
So you can't dispute it. Thanks.
You're welcome. :thumb:
And, I am still not interested in responding to every partisan editorial you can find.
Obamacare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP
Among the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will provide the bulk of the financing for Obama's health care plan is a $160 billion to $180 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program, which offers a range of benefits not available to beneficiaries under basic Medicare.
Medicare Advantage should be Obama's favorite program. It combines all the elements he likes — premiums are subsidized for low-income elderly, and the companies negotiate low-priced, managed care that emphasizes prevention, treatment of chronic conditions and coordination among doctors. As a result, its costs on the one hand and its premiums on the other are both much lower than with conventional insurance.
Ten million primarily low-income elderly have voluntarily enrolled in Medicare Advantage and realize savings of about $1,000 annually in enhanced benefits over and above what Medicare itself provides. These extra benefits include reductions in out-of-pocket costs and comprehensive drug coverage, vision, dental and hearing benefits, wellness programs (like gym memberships), and disease management and care coordination programs.
Medicare Advantage, which gained momentum during the Bush-43 years, essentially implements all the economies and efficiencies that Obama preaches nonstop. Doctors speak to one another, duplication is avoided, care is managed, and there is an emphasis on prevention.
The alternative to Medicare Advantage is Medicare supplement plans, popularly called Medigap coverage. But these conventional health insurance policies offer fewer benefits at higher premiums. They offer no care coordination, no chronic care management, no pay-for-performance incentives. They have no way to control costs. They just write out checks.
Because Medicare Advantage negotiates payment levels and saves money through bulk purchasing, inpatient costs run 20 percent to 25 percent lower than under Medigap insurance.
More patients are handled through outpatient care. X-rays and other radiation cost 10 percent to 20 percent less, and durable medical equipment like wheelchairs, walkers and oxygen bottles run one-fifth less than with conventional insurance policies.
So why is Obama so keen to cut Medicare Advantage?
Here's a clue: AARP (the American Association of Retired Persons) does not sell Medicare Advantage. But it makes a vast amount of money selling Medigap coverage. AARP has had no higher political priority than to curb the Medicare Advantage program and replace it with Medigap insurance. The profit margins on Medigap are greater, and AARP has every intention of exploiting them with Obama's help. His price? AARP backing for his program.
The American Seniors Association (ASA), an alternative to AARP that represents hundreds of thousands of elderly, says, "It is outrageous that Medicare Advantage, a private program with premium assistance for seniors ... has come under attack." Stuart Barton, ASA president, notes that under Medicare Advantage, private healthcare companies "compete to provide care based on a negotiated price."
Obama's deal with AARP represents special interest politics at its worst. He has already negotiated a deal with the big drug companies to get their support for his bill (and their advertising bucks to promote it) in return for guaranteeing that the cuts in their prices and profits will be small. And, by cutting Medicare Advantage, he signed up the AARP too.
Obama plans to slash the premium subsidies to low income elderly for Medicare Advantage coverage. This would drive up the premiums and drive many poor seniors into Medigap coverage. And then, most cynically, he would take the money he saves on shortchanging poor old people and use it to subsidize the policies of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who are, by definition, not poor (and thus not eligible for Medicaid).
And all this from a liberal? A Democrat?
http://www.creators.com/conservative/dick-morris/obamacare-cut-the-elderly-and-give-to-aarp.html
Hate him or love him he knows the "Clitons" like no other previous confident.
You're welcome. :thumb:
And, I am still not interested in responding to every partisan editorial you can find.
Facts are facts. Read it and weap...:rolleyes:
I didn't think you could defend it anyway.
This is your party's plan, least you could do it support and defend why it is a good idea to take benefits away from the elderly to take care of the rest of the nation.
In fact, it was a Republican in the Senate today who blocked a simple "unanimous consent" request (separate from the reform bills) to hold next year's Medicare (Part B) cost to the current level.
It's not reform related, but still very interesting. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn blocked a unanimous consent request Wednesday to approve a House bill that would prevent seniors from paying more for Medicare.
Because no lawmaker likes to jack with seniors' Medicare rates, the House bill passed 406-18.
CongressDaily's Peter Cohn has more:
Seniors are facing uncertainty over Medicare costs next year after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., blocked a unanimous consent request Wednesday to approve a House-passed bill keeping Part B premiums constant at 2009 levels. The House bill, which passed 406-18 on Sept. 24, is needed to freeze monthly Part B insurance premiums, which pay for seniors' physician visits, at $96.40 next year. Those premiums are usually deducted from Social Security checks.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/Coburn_blocks_Medicare_bill.html
This is not an editorial like the WSJ piece, it is a fact that one Republican Senator blocked this bill.
Facts are facts. Read it and weap...:rolleyes:
I didn't think you could defend it anyway.
This is your party's plan, least you could do it support and defend why it is a good idea to take benefits away from the elderly to take care of the rest of the nation.
IMO, and I have not seen any facts to the contrary, the plan will take money out of the pockets of the insurance providers with tighter requirements in the bidding process (including holding patients harmless as much as possible), not the patients...and that is why the Republicans and the insurance industry have opposed it and vilify it and are scaring seniors.
More great news for your guys plan from the NYTimes....
September 23, 2009, 4:10 pm Medicare Advantage: Suddenly a Battle With Three Fronts
By David M. Herszenhorn
Three related issues consumed lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee as they debated major health care legislation on Wednesday afternoon, but connecting the dots from one controversy to the next isn’t easy.
Here’s the back story:
The health care bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and the committee chairman, seeks to cut $123 billion in payments to private insurance plans that administer health benefits for roughly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.
The private insurance plans, known as Medicare Advantage, were originally intended to save money, and the government initially paid them 95 percent of the projected cost of enrollees in traditional Medicare.
But in recent years, spending on Medicare Advantage has soared, in part because the federal government offered incentives to the private insurers to offer coverage in underserved regions, including many rural areas.
Studies show that the private plans now cost about 14 percent more than traditional Medicare, and many Democrats say insurance companies are profiting excessively from them.
To attract customers, Medicare Advantage plans typically offer enhanced benefits compared to traditional Medicare, including vision and dental benefits and, in some cases, gym memberships. The added perks make Medicare Advantage popular among beneficiaries, and the proposal by Mr. Baucus to reduce payments to them has stirred opposition, particularly in Florida, where about 1 million people are covered by the plans.
As a result, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, has proposed an amendment to the health care legislation that would protect Medicare Advantage plans in areas where they are more cost-efficient than traditional Medicare, like Florida. (Big surprise.)
Now that proposal has set off at least three related controversies on the Finance Committee.
First, lawmakers in rural states are furious at the idea of protecting Medicare Advantage plans only where they are cheaper than traditional Medicare, because that’s typically true only in higher-cost regions like Mr. Nelson’s home state.
Second, to cover the cost of protecting some existing Medicare Advantage plans, Mr. Nelson has proposed extracting at least $86 billion more in savings over 10 years from drug manufacturers, potentially upending a deal between the pharmaceutical industry and the Obama administration.
And third, Republicans are furious that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, has warned private insurers not to lobby customers over the health care legislation.
That last fight stems from a letter sent by Humana, one of the largest providers of Medicare Advantage coverage, to Medicare beneficiaries warning of potential cuts in benefits.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has accused Democrats and the Obama administration of trying to muzzle critics of the legislation.
So as the Finance Committee debate shifted into high gear, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, proposed an amendment seeking to shield all Medicare Advantage plans from reduced payments. Mr. Hatch’s amendment was rejected by a vote of 14 to 9, with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joining all of the Democrats on the committee to defeat it.
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, has offered an amendment seeking to protect the First Amendment rights of private insurers who might want to criticize the proposed health care legislation.
Mr. Baucus fired back at Mr. Kyl, saying Humana had overstepped its bounds and had frightened American seniors by warning them that their benefits would be cut. “There is no First Amendment right to lie,” Mr. Baucus said. “There is no First Amendment right to mislead.”
Some Republicans said Mr. Kyl’s amendment was valid even if Humana had made misstatements. “You have a right to be wrong,” said Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas. Mr. Kyl’s amendment was defeated 13 to 10, with all Democrats opposed and all Republicans in favor.
In an appearance in Maryland on Wednesday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. sought to refute the Republican assertions about cuts to Medicare Advantage. “Here’s the truth — you’ll continue to be able to get Medicare Advantage if that’s what you choose,” Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Biden said that less than a quarter of those eligible choose Medicare Advantage, “but those of you who have it, you’ll be able to get it.”
“All we’re doing,” the vice president said, “is just cutting the padding out of the subsidies that insurance companies are already getting.”
But some health insurance industry experts say that the proposed cuts in payments to Medicare Advantage plans will mean that insurers either have to reduce benefits or cancel their plans altogether.
Senators on the Finance Committee will be debating that point in the hours ahead.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/medicare-advantage-suddenly-a-battle-with-three-fronts/Go ahead Redux, defend it....
You can't....
Sure, you can't defend the cuts. I am done if you can't defend the cut to the elderly who in the end are going to be royally fucked by the Demoncratic plan.
Well it has been 10 minutes. I guess you can't defend the cuts to the elderly. No biggie. I will wait for Pelosi and Reid to feed us their bullshit on why it is ok. Make it a great day Redux...
Sure, you can't defend the cuts. I am done if you can't defend the cut to the elderly who in the end are going to be royally fucked by the Demoncratic plan.
Merc...I am very comfortable with the clear and concise response I provided in my own words:
[INDENT]
....the plan will take money out of the pockets of the insurance providers (add: who have been overcharging for years) with tighter requirements in the bidding process (including holding patients harmless as much as possible), not the patients...and that is why the Republicans and the insurance industry have opposed it and vilify it and are scaring seniors. [/INDENT]
If you want to post more partisan editorials, that is your choice.
The folks following this discussion (sic) can decide for themselves, as will the voters.
That is your defense!?!?! Holy crap your guys are in trouble.
BTW, I do not now nor have I ever supported the insurance industry in any issue of healthcare reform.
Fail.
Again.
Imagine that.....
CBO says Medicare Advantage seniors WILL suffer from lower benefits, to say nothing of the higher premiums, and the departure of their carriers from the market that will also result from the cut:
"However, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, in testimony before Baucus’s own Senate Finance Committee, said, in fact, the cuts in Medicare Advantage would result in a loss of benefits and lower enrollment.
'The effect of the original chairman’s mark on Medicare Advantage enrollment in 2019, would be a reduction of roughly 2.7 million people or 20 percent of the enrollment,' Elmendorf said Tuesday. '[T]he competitive bidding process would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.'
Elmendorf said that, by 2019, the value of extra benefits provided by private insurers but not by the government, would be cut in half if health reform is passed.
'The additional benefits would be smaller: $42 in additional benefits per month in 2019, and it’s a little less than half of what we would project under current law,' he said."
http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/2009/09/cbo-vindicates-medicare-advantage.html
Redux, can you defend the cuts?
Come on Redux. All I am asking you to do is to defend taking away a benefit from the elderly to pay for other's healthcare. This is not difficult. Can you defend it?
Come on Redux. All I am asking you to do is to defend taking away a benefit from the elderly to pay for other's healthcare. This is not difficult. Can you defend it?
Merc..in a post earlier today, you discount the CBO because you dont like the numbers.
Now you find a statement from the CBO that you do like...even if it is several weeks old and addressing the original "mark" and does not apply to the final Senate Finance bill that was crafted over the last week (that added protections to Medicare patients in the final version).
You cant have it both ways, Merc.
The Baucus Bill: An October Trick
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
WASHINGTON--It's October, the month of trick or treat, and Congress is trying to come up with a trick. The Congressional Budget Office's estimate of Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus's health reform bill makes it looks like a treat-it's projected to reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years-but in reality it's a Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yesterday CBO came out with its second estimate of the Baucus bill, reflecting the original bill together with amendments that have been hammered out over the past three weeks in committee deliberations. Only in government accounting could an additional 29 million people receive new health coverage with a savings of $81 billion. By this congressional logic, America could insure all 6 billion people in the world at a savings of trillions of dollars.
CBO estimates that the $829 billion bill (over ten years) would be paid for partly with additional taxes-on expensive health insurance plans, on employers who do not provide the right kind of health insurance, and on people who do not sign up for insurance-and partly through savings in Medicare and Medicaid.
The Baucus bill would require everyone to purchase health insurance or face penalties. Americans with incomes up to 300% of the poverty line (currently $66,000 for a family of four) who are not covered by an employer plan would receive tax credits to purchase health insurance plans in an "exchange."
Plans purchased in the exchange would be Cadillac plans, with generous coverage and no lifetime or annual limits on any benefits. Only Americans under 25 would be allowed to purchase "young invincible" plans, catastrophic insurance against major accidents. Most Americans would have to pay a far higher cost for health insurance, since plans would have to accept everyone, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions.
The Baucus bill would be paid for in two major ways-an excise tax on expensive plans and savings from Medicare. CBO underestimates the true cost of both components.
Take the excise tax increase, for instance. The more expensive health care plans would face an excise tax of 40% on premiums above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for families, bringing in $201 billion from 2013 through 2019. Today health insurance premiums cost on average $4,824 for singles and $13,375 for families.
What CBO doesn't tell Americans is that their health insurance premiums would increase substantially in the decades ahead. The level of health insurance premiums does not have to be incorporated in CBO estimates, because it is not a tax and it is not paid by the federal government. In 2019, in addition to $46 billion in excise taxes, Americans would be paying over $100 billion in higher premiums.
Since CBO forecasts increases in excise tax revenues of 10% to 15% annually after 2019, health insurance premiums must also rise by the same percent annually. This government mandate will amount to a steady drain on Americans' pocketbooks, a tax under another name.
Turning from taxes to savings, nearly 90% of the $404 billion Medicare and Medicaid savings would be from Medicare in the period 2013 to 2019. Thereafter, savings would be expected to continue at the rate of 10% to 15%. Of all demographic groups in America, the elderly would be the biggest losers under the Baucus plan.
CBO estimates that Medicare Advantage plans, popular bundled health maintenance organizations serving 20% of Medicare patients, would be cut by $117 billion.
Under "Ensuring Medicare Sustainability," more than $200 billion would be cut from payments to hospitals, elder care, doctors, and hospices. Payments to Medicare doctors would be cut by 25% in 2011.
Another $55 billion would be saved by "Improving Payment Accuracy," as if one can magically reduce government spending by increasing accuracy. A Medicare Commission would propose further cuts.
The government would persuade doctors to cut Medicare costs by associating more tests with lower reimbursements. Ranked in order of spending per patient, every year the top 10% of physicians would have their reimbursements cut. Since by definition there would always be 10% of physicians in the top 10%, they would have an incentive to avoid the sickest patients or the specialties with the most tests.
America's elderly might soon discover that if they were sick they would be shunned by many doctors, if the bill operated as planned.
But it's more likely that the $360 billion of Medicare savings would not materialize, and that the Baucus bill would add to the deficit rather than reducing it. After all, Congress regularly overrides an existing law requiring Medicare payments to doctors to be cut when the program is in deficit, as it is today. Why should the new law be any different?
As CBO director Douglas Elmendorf so aptly wrote in his letter to Mr. Baucus yesterday, the "mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments...The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed and or not fully implemented."
Should some version of the Baucus bill pass, Medicare spending could decline as projected, with catastrophic consequences for seniors' health care. Or, Congress could back away from cuts as it has in the past, with catastrophic consequences for the deficit. Either way, it's no treat for America.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/10/08/the_baucus_bill_an_october_trick_97444.htmlMerc..in a post earlier today, you discount the CBO because you dont like the numbers.
Now you find a statement from the CBO that is several weeks old that does not apply to the final Senate Finance bill that was crafted over the last week (that added protections to Medicare patients in the final version).
You cant have it both ways, Merc.
No, I did not say I did not "like" the numbers. I stated that the calculations were going to be faulty and they did not take in to account many unintended consequences such as employers accepting the penalty over paying for insurance. Among other things.
Oh good...another partisan editorial. Does that make 4 or 5 in the last hour?
Honestly, I dont bother to read them...others may.
Seriously if you want to keep posting editorials, go for it, and maybe you will change some minds here.
I've had my say.
Good luck!
Now you find a statement from the CBO that you do like...even if it is several weeks old and addressing the original "mark" and does not apply to the final Senate Finance bill that was crafted over the last week (that added protections to Medicare patients in the final version).
You cant have it both ways, Merc.
None of that changes the planned cuts in Medicare Advantage.
Oh good...another partisan editorial. Does that make 4 or 5 in the last hour?
Honestly, I dont bother to read them...others may.
Again, feel free to keep posting them and maybe you will change some minds.
Good luck!
Either way you still cannot defend the facts as presented. I am ok with that. The burden is on you, the defender of the Demoncratic Plan.
All I am asking you to do, as a supporter, is to defend the cuts. Can you?
Youtube:
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on Medicare Advantage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebMSpLaXmls
Please explain and defend Redux.... by 2019 the plan would be reduced to 1/2 of the current plan. Great. So where do they get the care they previously received?
Redux, certainly you can defend this...
From The Atlantic. One of the few magazines I have a subscrip to...
What Will Health Reform Do to Medicare Advantage?
The next reform battle will be fought in a peculiar trench of the health care landscape: Medicare Advantage. The latest controversy began when Humana Inc., an insurance company, sent a note to its enrollees predicting that health care reform would kick millions off Medicare Advantage -- an option for seniors to buy private insurance with public money. Some lawmakers castigated the company and a sterner whipping could be forthcoming. The Wall Street Journal op-ed page is spearheading the conservative indignation and some liberal blogs are playing defense.
But is it true? Will health care reform cut into Medicare Advantage?
It might. Democrats aim to cut as much as $120 billion from private insurers in Medicare Advantage over 10 years. CBO head Doug Elmendorf told lawmakers that those cuts "could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program," the WSJ reports.
Back in August Ezra Klein wrote of the Medicare cuts:
From the beginning, Medicare has been named as one of the potential sources of savings that would fund subsidies for the uninsured. That sounds like service cuts, even if the specific changes don't involve anything of the kind (most of the savings would come from reducing overpayments to the private insurers that participate in the Medicare Advantage program).
Today he sounds more circumspect:
Democrats don't want to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program. But they want it to live within the same budget that Medicare uses. Republicans argue that pulling back these payments will force some Medicare Advantage plans to trim their benefits. That may well be true. But it is an argument against ever eliminating government overpayments to any program. It is an argument, in other words, for waste and abuse.
I think he's right -- Medicare Advantage is not going to emerge from $120 billion in cuts to private insurers without any change. The question, then, is whether the changes will be for the better or worse. Will the reforms gut Medicare Advantage and piss off a lot of senior citizens, who force the government to stop cutting the program? That's possible. Will the reforms bring down the taxpayer burden of public health programs while maintaining a very high standard for elderly care? That's possible too! But this country's public health programs are just as popular as private insurance. The important thing to note is that senior citizens love Medicare, with or without the (more expensive) Advantage program.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/09/what_will_health_reform_do_to_medicare_advantage.phpMerc....as I noted previously, your youtube of the CBO director is several weeks old, as is the Atlantic article and both are referring to the original mark of the bill....before additional amendments to protect seniors were added.
One such amendment from last week, but after your cites:
The committee also adopted an amendment by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to protect several million older Americans against the loss of extra benefits they receive from private Medicare Advantage plans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/health/policy/03health.html
It also has to be consolidated with the Senate Health Committee bill that has additional protections for seniors. And other Democrats have additional amendments related to holding seniors harmless while requiring the insurers to be more competitive in the bidding process.
Posting partisan commentaries about earlier versions of one bill in transition is not a factual representation of the current status of the legislation.
More great facts... Sorry REDux, the facts are beginning to have a common theme. You may consider them to partisan, but the overwhelming majority agree. The Demoncratic plans include cuts to Medicare Advantage, a fact you cannot and have not to this point been able to defend....
HEALTH CARE FACT CHECK: Medicare Advantage not all that advantageous for seniors, government
By Stephen Koff
September 08, 2009, 5:45PM
Q: I am a senior on Medicare Advantage and I like my plan, which covers some services not provided by traditional Medicare. But President Obama has said that he will eliminate Medicare Advantage to pay for his health care overhaul, which means I must go to a new plan. Does that mean I will have to pay the 20 percent co-payment that traditional Medicare now requires, or else have to buy a gap coverage to cover that 20 percent, at a cost of $150 to $250 a month? How is this fair?
A: This is an important question for seniors, containing truths, myths and a bit of political baggage. It also underlies an overlooked point: Senior citizens get a good deal from Medicare, the government's health insurance program for senior citizens. Workers pay taxes into the basic hospitalization program and then, when they retire, they see about $96 a month deducted from their Social Security to pay for doctor's visits and outpatient care.
The average senior gets far more in benefits out of this government program than he or she ever pays in. Someone retiring in 2008 would have paid, on average, $30,650 in Medicare taxes during his or her working years, yet will receive on average $85,360 in hospitalization benefits, if male, or $81,570 if female, according to actuaries at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Still, Medicare requires a 20 percent co-payment for outpatient services, and additional co-payments for hospital stays exceeding 60 days. Some seniors simply pay this or work out arrangements with their doctors, while others buy supplemental policies to cover the gap -- and still others turn to Medicare Advantage for all their medical needs.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to enroll in private health plans, usually through insurers or health maintenance organizations, as an alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Advantage plans were supposed to operate more efficiently and curtail the explosive growth of Medicare spending because, the thinking went, the private sector could do anything better than federal bureaucrats, and for less money.
For many seniors, this was a great deal, enabling them to avoid the co-payments or gap-coverage policies that many traditional Medicare beneficiaries buy. Some Advantage programs even throw in vision and hearing coverage, though the reader who asked today's question said he does not have those benefits.
About 23 percent of seniors nationwide, and 25 percent in Ohio, are in Advantage plans.
For the government, Advantage plans have not lived up to expectations. Advantage insurers charge the government more money, not less, requiring a taxpayer subsidy that averages 14 percent more per-patient on top of what traditional Medicare pays providers. That's an extra $1,138 per Advantage enrollee nationwide, or $1,166 for those in Ohio, according to a George Washington University analysis.
Medicare Advantage plans also tend to limit the doctors that seniors can see, just as traditional insurers do.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has noted that many Advantage seniors wind up paying high co-payments when hospitalized, although the reader who asked today's question -- a retired certified public accountant -- said he does not face those kinds of fees under his Advantage plan.
Furthermore, Advantage plans have not spread broadly to rural areas, despite Congress' agreement in 2003 to boost payments to expand rural coverage, according to an analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund, a private, nonprofit organization that studies health care issues. In the six years since then, extra payments to Advantage plans "are estimated to total nearly $44 billion," the study concluded.
Put another way, taxpayers are giving the gentleman who posed today's question an extra $1,166 a year for his health care, providing what he considers excellent coverage. Who could blame him for wanting to keep this deal?
But President Barack Obama wants to eliminate the extra subsidy, just as members of Congress tried to do throughout the 1990s. Obama has not proposed eliminating Advantage, despite rumors to the contrary. His proposals would scale back the subsidies, using a funding formula to put Advantage on parity with traditional Medicare.
Would that force Advantage plans to curtail services or even go out of business?
That's a matter of debate. Critics say the plans could stand to absorb the lower payments since they have profited handsomely from taxpayer subsidies. A recent examination by the Associated Press found that "profits at the insurers offering Medicare Advantage have far outpaced expectations, and their expenses to treat clients have been far lower than projected."
The insurance industry disputes this. Its influence, along with fears by seniors and Advantage-paid hospitals and other providers, was enough to keep the U.S. Health Care Financing Administration from curtailing Advantage funding in the 1990s, when cuts were also proposed, according to Health Affairs, a nonpartisan journal funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Obama proposed the newest trim when campaigning for president last year, and he included it in his proposed 2010 budget, projecting the savings at $177.2 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, projects the savings at $156 billion. The savings would help pay for a broad expansion of health coverage in the United States, which the CBO says would cost $1 trillion over 10 years.
That means that savings from Advantage would pay for 15.6 percent of Obama's health care overhaul -- not 60 percent, a figure some seniors have heard.
http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/09/health_care_fact_check_medicar.htmlMore great facts... Sorry REDux, the facts are beginning to have a common theme. You may consider them to partisan, but the overwhelming majority agree. The Demoncratic plans include cuts to Medicare Advantage, a fact you cannot and have not to this point been able to defend....
http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/09/health_care_fact_check_medicar.html
Another editorial that is a month old....well before the current version of the Senate bill. Every recent post of yours refers to earlier versions.
I understand that you would rather focus on those earlier versions of the legislation, but this is getting silly now.
I really dont know why I am bothering anymore.
Carry on.
So help me out here REDux. Are you trying to tell us that because the Bill has not been finalized that you are saying and defending that cuts to Medicare Advantage have not been actually approved and therefore they really are not going to cut the program? or they are not going to cut Medicare reimbursement at all and the program, as currently proposed, will not have cuts to Medicare?
Please defend if you believe any of this. thanks.
Another editorial that is a month old....well before the current version of the Senate bill. Every recent post of yours refers to earlier versions.
I understand that you would rather focus on those earlier versions of the legislation, but this is getting silly now.
Oh ok, So REDUX says that none of the currently proposed programs involve cuts to Medicare. I get it. Really? Where is the money going to come from again to pay for this boondoggle? Not from Medicare or from Medicare Advantage, right?
Merc...I just dont have the patience anymore.
Say what you want, post what you want, declare yourself the winner, criticize me as a lobbyist and Democratic mouthpiece, pretend that you are posting factual and timely editorials,.....
Its all good!
Come on Redux. All I want you to do is defend the proposed cuts by your Demoncratic guys and gals in Congress. Tell my 89 year old mother how that is going to make her life better and save her money without cutting or decreasing her benefit. Thanks. I am waiting.
Merc...I just dont have the patience anymore.
Say what you want, post what you want, declare yourself the winner, criticize me as a lobbyist and Democratic mouthpiece.
Its all good!
Care to defend that
you are not?
You know the least you could do is admit it...
Merc...I stand by my posts, just as you stand by yours.
As I again stated previously, I am comfortable with others reading through this entire discussion and deciding for themselves.
Merc...I stand by my posts, just as you stand by yours.
As I again stated previously, I am comfortable with others reading through this entire discussion and deciding for themselves.
Come on Mate, I am only asking you to defend the cuts to seniors. That is all. It is your party that is making the cuts, or if you want to sugar coat it, proposing the cuts. Just defend the position of cutting off my 89 year old mother and the rest of the seniors that depend on Medicare Advantage. Pretty simple.
Come on Mate, I am only asking you to defend the cuts to seniors. That is all. It is your party that is making the cuts, or if you want to sugar coat it, proposing the cuts. Just defend the position of cutting off my 89 year old mother and the rest of the seniors that depend on Medicare Advantage. Pretty simple.
Proposing cuts that have been lining the pockets of Medicare Advantage providers at excess levels is not the same as proposing cuts to patients...particularly with amendments that protect the patients.
We see it differently...it is as simple as that and others will form their own opinions.
There is nothing more for us to debate.
And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senator who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/Coburn_blocks_Medicare_bill.htmlProposing cuts that have lining the pockets of Medicare Advantage providers is not the same as proposing cuts to patients...particularly with amendments that protect the patients.
We see it differently...it is as simple as that and other will form their own opinions.
There is nothing more for us to debate.
And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senatir who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/Coburn_blocks_Medicare_bill.html
The cuts are to the patients. The cuts are to the providers. The cuts are across the board. Can you defend it?
It ain't my grandmother, it is my mother.
And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senatir who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.
Strawman and deflection of the argument that you CANNOT defend. Just admit it. Your party is going to royally fuck seniors on Medicare.
As I stated earlier in this discussion there is no control of the Insurance Industry in any plan before Congress to radically overhall our Healthcare. I also stated that I felt like the insurance companies were making back door deals with the White House. And that due to lack of controls, the insurance industry would just pass on their costs to those who have insurance. Well it looks like the press is now documenting those very rumblings. As I have said numerous times, this plan by Congress does not fix the problems at the root of the illness in healthcare today. Even though this is coming from the very companies who would profit from the changes proposed by Congress, there is nothing to say that they will not and cannot pass on any and all increased cost to the consumer. And in fact they are now coming right out and telling us we are going to be screwed.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage..
Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.
The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.
In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.
Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.
The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.
The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091012/D9B9QLO81.htmlIf you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.
Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.
-------------------------------------
There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....
If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.
So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.
Great gig.
If you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.
Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.
-------------------------------------
There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....
If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.
So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.
Great gig.
Yeppers. And the practice has been honed to a sharpe effective edge over the last 2 years.
If you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.
Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.
-------------------------------------
There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....
If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.
So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.
Great gig.
Makes sense if you completely ignore the other Senate bill and the House bill and assume the Senate Finance Committee bill will be the final bill.
And, more important, ignores the regulatory process that will follow the legislation....unless, like Merc, you think Congress writes regulations.
What the latest industry report accomplished was make a stronger case for a broader exchange with a (limited version ) of a public option as envisioned in the other bills.
BTW....welcome, Henry.
Sticking with the Baucus, bill, tHe CBO analysis of the future costs of premiums (assuming the insurance exchange in the Baucus bill) offers a much different (unbiaised) analysis than the industry’s report:
Industry report: average premiums in 2016 - $21,300
CBO report: average premiums in 2016- $14,400
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10618/09-22-Analysis_of_Premiums.pdf
At least, the CBO has the integrity to also note that the “net effect” of the proposed legislation on premiums is difficult to determine because there are too many uncertain factors...but under any scenario it reviewed, it found that premiums would be far more affordable than the industry report suggests.
The industry is running scared because the momentum is building.....so now, even Merc is shilling for the industry, posting their "analysis" as the be all and end all (of course, we dont have access to the analysis behind the industry numbers, so its taken on faith if you (he) share their views on the bill).
And then the same old rhetoric based on industry reports and partisan editorials...declaring that the Democratic's proposals will "screw" the people, even before there is a final bill and despite more objective analyses.
Ok, it is all a big lie and the insurance companies are not really going to pass on their costs to the people with insurance. They are just pretending they are going to pass those costs on and charge us more. They really aren't. They are just teasing us and daring Congress.
Sure. You go on believing that Redux. The majority of the public can see through any empty promise this Congress makes.
Sure. You go on believing that Redux. The majority of the public can see through any empty promise this Congress makes.
In fact, once the lies and fear-mongerng that the industry and conservatives jointly and collaboratively perpetuated throughout most of the "debate" (including the town hall meetings) have been debunked, the majority of the public are supportive of the general concepts behind the Democratic bills, including a public option.
CBO is not infalible. That is a fact you want to ignore. There are plenty of examples where it fails.
CBO is not infalible. That is a fact you want to ignore. There are plenty of examples where it fails.
But of course, the industry reports and the conservative/libertarian op-eds, all with an agenda to see the proposals fail, but that you cite as evidence of screwing the people ARE infallible, eh?
Keep posting more, if thats the best you got, and hey, you might really convince a few folks.
In fact, once the lies and fear-mongerng that the industry and conservatives jointly and collaboratively perpetuated throughout most of the "debate" (including the town hall meetings) have been debunked, the majority of the public are supportive of the general concepts behind the Democratic bills, including a public option.
So basically what you are saying is that it is a big lie and the insurance companies are not going to pass the costs on to the rest of us as they promised. Right? That really it is just "lies and fear-mongerng that the industry and conservatives jointly and collaboratively perpetuated throughout most of the "debate"". Right?
So since you brought it up, please "debunk" that the insurance companies are NOT going to pass costs on to the rest of us if the bill is passed in its current form.
But of course, the industry reports and the conservative/libertarian op-eds, all with an agenda to see the proposals fail, but that you cite as factual, ARE infallible, eh?....so keep posting more and you might really convince a few folks.
Ok, please show me the track record of the CBO and how everything they have estimated has been true and really did not cost us more in the long run.
CBO Failures
Congress’s Health Care Numbers Don’t Add Up
FOR competence and integrity, few organizations command more respect in Washington than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As health care reform makes its way through Congress, the budget office’s assessment of how much various elements might cost may determine the details of legislation, and whether it ultimately passes. But when it comes to forecasting the costs of reform, the budget office’s record is suspect. In each of the past three decades, when assessing major changes in Medicare, it has substantially underestimated the savings the changes would bring.
In the early 1980s, Congress changed the way Medicare paid hospitals so that payments would no longer be based on costs incurred. Instead, hospitals would receive a predetermined amount per admission, based on the patient’s primary medical problem. This encouraged shorter stays, led to fewer diagnostic services and reduced administrative costs. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that, from 1983 to 1986, this change would slow Medicare hospital spending (which had been rising much faster than the rate of inflation) by $10 billion, and that by 1986 total spending would be $60 billion. Actual spending in 1986 was $49 billion. The savings in 1986 alone were as much as three years of estimated savings.
Why was the budget office so far off? It had projected that the new payment strategy would increase hospital admissions, because hospitals would maximize their payments by admitting patients who were less severely ill and discharging them quickly. In short, they would make up money with faster turnover. But in the first year of the new payment system, admissions, which had been increasing, actually declined by 3.5 percent. By the third year, they had declined by 15.9 percent. It may be that the declining admissions resulted from a new and stronger program for reviewing admissions.
But the Congressional Budget Office was correct in assuming that hospital stays would grow shorter. In the first three years of the payment system, the length of Medicare patients’ hospital stays, which had been decreasing by 1 percent to 2 percent a year, fell by 17 percent. The new system also led hospitals, for the first time in decades, to cut their work forces — by 2.3 percent in the first year alone.
In the 1990s, the biggest change in Medicare came with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a compromise between a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic administration. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that, from 1998 to 2002, the act would reduce Medicare spending by $112 billion — a 9.1 percent reduction. Part of that — $36 billion worth — would come from paying skilled nursing facilities and home health care services a set fee per patient. But only a tiny fraction of the savings, about $100 million, would come from better monitoring of fraud and abuse on the part of health care providers, according to budget office projections.
The actual savings turned out to be 50 percent greater in 1998 and 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast. Overall spending increased just 1.2 percent from 1998 to 2000, rather than 5.6 percent, as was projected. With increased monitoring for fraud and abuse, hospitals billed less aggressively. Spending for skilled nursing facilities, which had increased by 38 percent per year from 1988 to 1997, did not increase at all in 1998 and 1999. At the same time, spending for home health care services, which had been rising at the rate of 25 percent a year, fell by 52 percent. In fact, Medicare spending fell so much that Congress increased payment levels to hospitals and other providers in 1999 and 2000.
In the current decade, the major legislative change to the system was the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added a prescription drug benefit. In assessing how much this new program would cost, the Congressional Budget Office assumed that prices would rise as patients demanded more drugs, and estimated that spending on the drug benefit would be $206 billion.
Actual spending was nearly 40 percent less than that. Spending on drugs declined from fiscal year 2007 to 2008. Seniors proved more willing to buy lower-cost generic drugs than expected, fewer people participated in the program than expected, and competition held premiums down. Few new blockbuster drugs came on the market, so overall drug prices remained relatively constant, rather than accelerating as predicted.
The Congressional Budget Office’s consistent forecasting errors arose not from any partisan bias, but from its methods of projection. In analyzing initiatives meant to save money, it helps to be able to refer to similar initiatives in the past that saved money. When there aren’t enough good historical examples to go by, the estimated savings based on past experience is essentially considered to be unknown. Too often, “unknown” becomes zero — even though zero is not a logical estimate.
The budget office has particular difficulty estimating savings when it considers more than one change at once. For example, last December the office reported that it found no consistent evidence that changes in medical malpractice laws would have a measurable effect on health care spending. It also reported that increased spending on studies comparing the effectiveness of different drugs and medical treatments would yield no net savings for 10 years. Yet if both malpractice reform and comparative effectiveness studies were instituted simultaneously, they might work together to yield substantial savings; doctors would gain more confidence in the effectiveness of less aggressive treatments and, at the same time, could use those treatments with less to fear from lawsuits.
The budget office’s cautious methods may have unintended consequences in the current health care reform effort. By underestimating the savings that can come from improved Medicare payment procedures and other cost-control initiatives, the budget office leads Congress to think that politically unpopular cost-cutting initiatives will have, at best, only modest effects. This, in turn, forces Congress to believe it can pay for reform only by raising taxes, which then makes reform legislation more difficult to pass.
The Congressional Budget Office’s integrity is beyond questioning. But the record shows that it has substantially overestimated the cost of health care reform three times out of three. As Congress now works on its greatest push for reform in generations, the budget office needs to revise the methods it uses to make predictions about costs.
Jon R. Gabel is a senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/opinion/26gabel.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=%22congressional%20budget%20office%22&st=cse
So since you brought it up, please "debunk" that the insurance companies are NOT going to pass costs on to the rest of us if the bill is passed in its current form.
Read up on the proposed insurance exchange (in all different versions of bills) and you might understand how the process will work with regulations to provide greater competition (thous more competitive premium pricing) as well as regulations to limit pass throughs.
Look, you can scream "screwing the people" all you want if that works for you. You can cite the CBO when you like it. as you have in the past, and criticize it when you dont and you can post your editorials and industry reports that have a bias than any objective observer would recognize.
I think the bills have taken an approach that I generally support...there are no guarantees, but IMO, they represent the best way forward.
Time will tell.
Look, you can scream "screwing the people" all you want if that works for you.
I think the bills have promise...there are no guarantees, but IMO, they represent the best way forward.
Time will tell.
Now you are avoiding the questions and are unable to support your positions. Can you prove the insurance companies are actually just using "lies and fear-mongering that the industry and conservatives jointly and collaboratively perpetuated throughout most of the "debate"' and they really are not going to pass along the costs to all the rest of us that have insurance.
People like you are why the Demoncrats are beginning to fail in such a big way and they are now turning on each other. The majority don't really agree with the majority of anything. They are just a loose organization of vaguely interested parties all fighting for a piece of the power pie. And now that they have beaten the Republikins they are starting to turn on each other. Senate says no public option. Pelosi says no bill without it. So which is it. Who are you guys going to screw next? Really you are just going to start to screw each other because you can't get it together enough to pass something that addresses the root problems in the industry, you have made back door deals with Big Pharm and the Insurance Industry and now they are starting to turn on you. And yet your attitude is, "Eh, whatever, something is better than nothing." What BS. Grow some nads. Do the right thing and tell the insurance companies to fuck off and get them under control. This goes right back to what Henry said. You are just going to let them pass the bills off that screw other people as long as you can shift blame.
And now we actually have the insurance companies TELLING Us they are going to make everyone else pay for their increased costs and risk. And you guys pretend like there is nothing there. Pass it off and some conspiracy. "It's not true", "There really not going to do that, they just want to scare you."
I don't buy your bullshit and most of the American public does not either.
Merc...what you characterize as "turning on each other" I would characterize as a diversity of opinion, with a shared foundation. That is why the Democrats have become the "big tent" party and the Republicans are mired in a rigid and narrow ideology. With that big tent comes challenges as well as opportunities.
IMO, that always provides a better and more comprehensive review and discussion of policy options than a party that is so ideologically driven that expressing a diverging opinion makes you an outcast in your own party.
I think the American people will benefit from the outcome of the Democratic proposals, even if what results is not a perfect bill and from what I have been reading lately (as opposed to earlier in the national debate), more and more Americans agree.
As I said, in the end, time will tell....but debating it with you is a waste of time.
But I will continue to point out when you post one of your partisan editorials as "evidence" of anything ;)
Bottom line is that you can't answer the questions I have posed to you. The Congress will not solve the insurance crisis in this country with this bill. But they will have given the insurance companies a HUGE increase in income paid for on the backs of taxpayers with no caps for what can be passed on to the consumers. The American public is about to be stuck with a huge ass bill that does not address many of the problems in this industry.
The most partisan person in this debate on this forum is you Redux as you defend only one parties plan for change in healthcare reform.
Bottom line is that you can't answer the questions I have posed to you. The Congress will not solve the insurance crisis in this country with this bill. But they will have given the insurance companies a HUGE increase in income paid for on the backs of taxpayers with no caps for what can be passed on to the consumers. The American public is about to be stuck with a huge ass bill that does not address many of the problems in this industry.
The most partisan person in this debate on this forum is you Redux as you defend only one parties plan for change in healthcare reform.
Merc.....I'm sorry you are not willing to take the time to read more about the proposed insurance exchange (on the state level in the Baucus bill) and regional/national level in the other bills...and how the exchange will encourge competition and set standards for pricing and benefit levels (through regulation, not legislation) in order for an insurance company to be included in the exchange.
I haver never shied away from my partisanship and I still firmly believe the Democratic bills are the best and most realistic way forward.
On the other hand, you have demostrated in numerous threads that you are just as partisan as anyone here. You have already judged Obama to be a failure (after only 9 months) ...you think Pelosi is a Nazi.... and you flood the site with the most partisan links of any poster here. So lets not pretend that you are somehow above partisanship.
But, I suspect the other members here are tired of reading our exchanges.
So, I encourage them to read the summaries of the bills and a variety of reports on the propsoed legislation fromi across the political spectrum..and judge for themselves.
Redux, now please defend the fact that Medicare Advantage is not about to be cut by 21%. Thanks.
How can you complain about the cost being too high, and tax increases, then complain about cutting programs. Make up your mind. [/total tailpost]
I heard that repubicans support a bill that will deny any healthcare to anyone under 25, because they probably won't get sick anyway.;)
I heard that repubicans support a bill that will deny any healthcare to anyone under 25, because they probably won't get sick anyway.;)
Yeah, and so what if they do? They haven't lived long enough to form any real ties and haven't had time to contribute much to society. :rolleyes:
:bolt:
Yeah, and so what if they do? They haven't lived long enough to form any real ties and haven't had time to contribute much to society. :rolleyes:
:bolt:
But who will work in fast food chains?
That's what the Mexicans are for, duh. Don't have to insure them either.
That's what the Mexicans are for, duh. Don't have to insure them either.
The Mexicans are way too busy working the lawn care industry. Might need to smuggle in some azerbaijanians for the fast food chains.
Merc.....I'm sorry you are not willing to take the time to read more about the proposed insurance exchange (on the state level in the Baucus bill) and regional/national level in the other bills...and how the exchange will encourge competition and set standards for pricing and benefit levels (through regulation, not legislation) in order for an insurance company to be included in the exchange.
I will take the time to address this fantasy of the "insurance exchange" in another post. Anyone who has done their research will understand that it is nothing more than a pie in the sky guess that they would function as proposed.
I haver never shied away from my partisanship and I still firmly believe the Democratic bills are the best and most realistic way forward.
But yet you claim you want everyone to read the information out there "read the summaries of the bills and a variety of reports on the propsoed legislation fromi across the political spectrum..and judge for themselves". So as long as their conclusions are the same as yours you are ok, but if anyone disagrees with the Demoncratic proposals you are insensed. What a line of bull shit. You can't want it both ways and think it is going to come out as you plan.
On the other hand, you have demostrated in numerous threads that you are just as partisan as anyone here.
Partisan for the consumers who are going to foot the bill for anything your guys are trying to pass, sure. For any political party, no. Absolutely not.
You have already judged Obama to be a failure (after only 9 months)
Failed on his promises?, yes, a failure overall?, way to early to tell... I don't hope he fails. But I know Congress will fail him.
...you think Pelosi is a Nazi....
Absolutely, I can't stand the bitch.
and you flood the site with the most partisan links of any poster here.
Bull shit. Just because they are not views you share you, and others claim they are partisan. They may be opposing views but they are not the views of one party, even if there is overlap.
So lets not pretend that you are somehow above partisanship.
Partisan in the sense that they disagree with your views, sure, see above response.
So, I encourage them to read the summaries of the bills and a variety of reports on the propsoed legislation fromi across the political spectrum..and judge for themselves.
If you cared if anyone read things from "across the political spectrum" you would not be making claims of "partisan" views that I or anyone else posted. You would let them stand on their own merits. But instead you attack them as some right-wing conspiracy.
How can you complain about the cost being too high, and tax increases, then complain about cutting programs. Make up your mind. [/total tailpost]
Cutting which programs specifically? I can complain about anything I want, including high costs, tax increases, and the cutting of programs. It depends on high costs on which things, who is gettting a tax increase, and which programs are going to be cut. Care to tell me what you think about any specific part of your broad generalizations you believe what I believe?
Redux, care to answer this directly since you have avoided it?
Now you are avoiding the questions and are unable to support your positions. Can you prove the insurance companies are actually just using "lies and fear-mongering that the industry and conservatives jointly and collaboratively perpetuated throughout most of the "debate"' and they really are not going to pass along the costs to all the rest of us that have insurance.
It's three, three, three posts in ...three.
Consolidation is your friend.
Just trying to get a straight anwser... :D
Good luck with that Merc. These are politicians/lawyers we are talking about here.
Good luck with that Merc. These are politicians/lawyers we are talking about here.
I tried to answer the question about Medicare costs and how cutting Medicare Advantage subisides to insurance providers does not mean a cut to seniors..in fact, what the bill does, in effect, is eliminate much of the two-tiered system (basic Medicare + Medicare Advantage) by cutting payments to M-A providers and "pushing" some "enhanced" services back to the basic program. This will particularly benefit seniors in rural areas.
And I tried to answer the question about controlling premium costs through greater competition (and regulation) provided through the Insurance Exchange that will be tied to relative average costs in each market in the country and will require industry concessions in order to particiate in the Exchange.
If you guys dont buy it, thats fine with me.
If you think all of Merc's endless partisan editorials are more accurate, hey, thats fine too.
And if Merc wants to represent himself as the great "consumer advocate"...great, more power to him.
I have said repeatedly, folks should read and listen to all sides, then decide on their own.
But dont think you can bully and bullshit me into playing your game.
Reflux - I was talking about the congressmen/women, but if you feel as though my statement applies to you as well, then feel free to defend yourself as needed. BUT, Please don't lump me into any of your neat little boxes. I won't fit your preconceived notions. ktxbai.
Reflux - I was talking about the congressmen/women, but if you feel as though my statement applies to you as well, then feel free to defend yourself as needed. BUT, Please don't lump me into any of your neat little boxes. I won't fit your preconceived notions. ktxbai.
I call it like I see it..but the bullying bullshitter was directed more at "Mr Consumer" Merc or Merc the Plumber? Mr. Everyman?
Redux,
I apologize if you interpreted my comment as directed at you. It was not.
I've posted twice in this thread in the last 5-6 pages (83 posts). I haven't been following the subject close enough to make anything other than an occasional offhand comment. Again - sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
Redux,
I apologize if you interpreted my comment as directed at you. It was not.
I've posted twice in this thread in the last 5-6 pages (83 posts). I haven't been following the subject close enough to make anything other than an occasional offhand comment. Again - sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
No problem....a misunderstanding all around.
Look at it this way, if you will.
IMO, Merc is like a harmless little puppy who thinks he is a tough pit bull....so I really didnt mind his incessant nipping at my heels if it made him feel like a big dog wanting to play with the big boys, even though he had little or nothing of his own to contribute to the game (although he sure knows how to cut and post the opinions of others more than any big dog of any persuasion that I have ever encountered). But eventually, it just became too damn annoying and I had to flick him away with a shove of my foot...and you got hit in the crossfire (sorry about that).
Yeah, the above description is my arrogance on display, although I like to think of it as self-confidence and standing behind what I believe...and I suspect Merc feels the same way about his beliefs (perhaps with a few more expletives directed at those who might challenge his "sources" and "analysis").
Anyone following this discussion has probably had more than enough of Merc and me. In the grand scheme of things, neither of our opinions amount to a hill of beans ...read and listen to more than one side of the issue and make your own decisions.
But if I see more puppy poop from the lil critter, I'll point it out.
Added:
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has voted 14-9 for the Baucus bill (the least appealing to me), the game really begins. Merging the two Senate bills comes next, then the even greater challenge of reconciling it with the House bill.
But ask yourself this....why is the insurance industry reportedly preparing to spend $millions on ads (in addition to the face-to-face lobbying) opposing the bill over the next few weeks if it has so much to gain?
No problem....a misunderstanding all around.
Look at it this way, if you will.
IMO, Merc is like a harmless little puppy who thinks he is a tough pit bull....
So you would rather resort back to the name calling rather than answer the question I have repeatedly posted to you. Ok. Have at it. But you still can't address the hard questions I have asked as you have attempted to blow smoke up our asses and at the same time defend the current Demoncratic Bill.
so I really didnt mind his incessant nipping at my heels if it made him feel like a big dog wanting to play with the big boys, even though he had little or nothing of his own to contribute to the game (although he sure knows how to cut and post the opinions of others more than any big dog of any persuasion that I have ever encountered). But eventually, it just became too damn annoying and I had to flick him away with a shove of my foot...and you got hit in the crossfire (sorry about that).
Good God you sound like you have a narcissistic personality disorder. Does it prop up your ego to not have a straight discussion about one aspect of the bill being proposed so you resort to this kind of a response?
Yeah, the above description is my arrogance on display, although I like to think of it as self-confidence and standing behind what I believe...and I suspect Merc feels the same way about his beliefs (perhaps with a few more expletives directed at those who might challenge his "sources" and "analysis").
Damm! that is the most honest response I have heard from you in months. Good work. Sorry if you don't like my occassional choice of delivery.:D
Anyone following this discussion has probably had more than enough of Merc and me. In the grand scheme of things, neither of our opinions amount to a hill of beans ...read and listen to more than one side of the issue and make your own decisions.
Wow, that is two times in two pages you almost sound normal.
But if I see more puppy poop from the lil critter, I'll point it out.
Ahhhhhh.......... back to the name calling.
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has voted 14-9 for the Baucus bill (the least appealing to me), the game really begins. Merging the two Senate bills comes next, then the even greater challenge of reconciling it with the House bill.
True dat.
But ask yourself this....why is the insurance industry reportedly preparing to spend $millions on ads (in addition to the face-to-face lobbying) opposing the bill over the next few weeks if it has so much to gain?
Because like big Pharm and some others they have much to lose as well. And if the Demoncrats had balls they would make sure that the stealth tax of passing on the costs to those who already have insurance would be prevented in any bill. That or they need to regulate the industry like any other public service. Don't get me wrong. I am against big business, but these half-way measures do not address the core issues. :headshake
Now you can continue with your name calling as you dodge my straight forward questions. Enjoy.:neutral:
I tried to answer the question about Medicare costs and how cutting Medicare Advantage subisides to insurance providers does not mean a cut to seniors..in fact, what the bill does, in effect, is eliminate much of the two-tiered system (basic Medicare + Medicare Advantage) by cutting payments to M-A providers and "pushing" some "enhanced" services back to the basic program. This will particularly benefit seniors in rural areas.
You have stated it but you have so far been unable to back it up with hard data to prove that is what is going to happen. You have ignored the fact that providers may just refuse to accept Medicare patients, as many already do, in larger numbers, further reducing access to care and increasing wait times. The largest fall out is that the bill pushes these costs back onto seniors and the predictions among many experts, Redux you are not one of them, state that service will be decreased or eliminated from through the loss of Medicare Advantage and if they want them they will have to pay for them. In otherwords they will not be available in the "basic program" at all. If they were why do you think Congress came up with the plan to gain savings by cutting the program? It is not cost shifting, it is cost elimination.
And I tried to answer the question about controlling premium costs through greater competition (and regulation) provided through the Insurance Exchange that will be tied to relative average costs in each market in the country and will require industry concessions in order to particiate in the Exchange.
There is little concrete data to support the idea that an insurance exchange will actually work.
If you think all of Merc's endless partisan editorials are more accurate, hey, thats fine too.
Look back at the majority of my links they are from a spectrum of sources. Some partisan, the majority are not and many come from mainstream sources.
And if Merc wants to represent himself as the great "consumer advocate"...great, more power to him.
I don't represent one side, the current Demoncratic one. I represent many of the other sides. None of them partisan unless you want to say that anyone not supporting the Dems is partisan.
I have said repeatedly, folks should read and listen to all sides, then decide on their own.
Wow... common sense trys to rear it's ugly head.
Is there anyone who believes that the new Healthcare Bill will reduce the budget deficit by 81 billion dollars?
I am really interested in someone other than Refulx giving a thoughtful response on the issue.
Anyone?
You guys all do realize that the "bill" voted on by the Senate Finance Committee is not really a bill that has language anyone can read. It is merely a concept. Not only does a bill formally have to submitted but then we get to see what people will try to tack on at the last minute.
The continuing lies about "transparent" looks at the legislative process...
WASHINGTON - As Congress prepares to consider historic changes to the nation's health care system, Democratic leaders are balking at supporting a change in the rules that would let the public see the bills' texts 72 hours before a vote.
An unusual coalition of conservatives, watchdog groups and a handful of Democrats has joined the push by Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., to put the 72-hour measure into a binding rule for the House of Representatives. Similar efforts in the Senate haven't gained much momentum.
House Democratic leaders have pledged transparency before. In their 2006 campaign book, in the "integrity" section, they vowed that legislation would be available to the public 24 hours before "consideration" of final versions.
On some recent big bills, that hasn't happened, however. On Feb. 12, the 1,100-page, $787 billion economic-stimulus plan was made public at 10:45 p.m. EST and brought up in the House 13 hours later.
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, several measures had been adopted to make the legislative process more transparent, such as posting amendments' texts online before consideration.
Pelosi also said last month that she was "absolutely" willing to put the health care bill online 72 hours in advance but that she wouldn't back legislation forcing her to do so.
"The vast majority of bills that have been considered by the House have been online for weeks and will continue to follow this process," Elshami said. Elshami didn't respond, however, when asked why Pelosi won't back Baird's bill.
Baird vowed to keep pushing.
"It's great what she said about health care, but it hasn't happened yet," he said. "The problem is that over the last decade or so, the more important the legislation, the less time we've had to read it."
continues:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/77468.htmlOne of the many elephants in the room that are not being addressed. Who says that anyone is going to take all these patients when the reimbursement is low? Well, few will. Not so fast.
October 22, 2009
Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.
The Medicare bill has become a proxy for larger issues in the debate over legislation to overhaul the health care system.
Mr. Reid said the bill, by averting big cuts in physician fees, guaranteed that doctors would continue accepting Medicare patients. But since none of the costs were offset or paid for, Republicans said it was fiscally irresponsible, and some Democrats said they shared that concern.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/policy/22health.html?_r=1&hpwAnd yet basic payments are going up and this is before the Demoncrats cut out Medicare Advantage.
October 20, 2009
Basic Medicare Premium to Rise 15% Next Year By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The basic Medicare premium will shoot up next year by 15 percent, to $110.50 a month, federal officials said Monday.
The increase means that monthly premiums would top $100 for the first time, a stark indication of the rise in medical costs that is driving the debate in Congress about a broad overhaul of the health care system.
About 12 million people, or 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, will have to pay higher premiums or have the additional amounts paid on their behalf. The other 73 percent will be shielded from the increase because, under federal law, their Medicare premiums cannot go up more than the increase in their Social Security benefits, and Social Security officials announced last week that there would be no increase in benefits in 2010 because inflation had been extremely low.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to approve a bill, already passed by the House, to block the scheduled increase in Medicare premiums.
“We are in tremendously difficult economic times, and seniors are being hit particularly hard,” Ms. Sebelius said. “The last thing seniors need right now is a substantial increase in their Medicare premiums, and many seniors will see such an increase if no action is taken.”
Among those who face higher premiums next year are new Medicare beneficiaries, high-income people and those whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid. Premiums can be as high as $353.60 a month, or more than $4,200 a year, for Medicare beneficiaries who file tax returns with adjusted gross income greater than $214,000 for an individual or $428,000 for a couple.
The higher premiums will impose “an additional and significant burden” on states, which help pay Medicaid costs, along with the federal government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/health/policy/20health.html?ref=healthAmong those who face higher premiums next year are new Medicare beneficiaries, high-income people and those whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid. Premiums can be as high as $353.60 a month, or more than $4,200 a year, for Medicare beneficiaries who file tax returns with adjusted gross income greater than $214,000 for an individual or $428,000 for a couple.
My heart bleeds. :rolleyes:
Sure, as long as someone else pays your bill right?
An audio clip of Paul Krugman speaking on health care reform at Hunter College on July 16, 2008. It’s a long clip at ~5:00 (unedited). How to turn the public option into a single payer system over 5 - 10 years.
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009/10/Krugman-Audio.mp3
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009/10/Krugman-Transcript.pdf
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/21/the-public-option-deception-with-exclusive-new-audio/Reid dives at the chance..
Senate Leader Takes Risk Pushing Public Insurance Plan
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — In pushing to include a government-run health insurance plan in the health care bill, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is taking a calculated gamble that the 60 members of his caucus could support the plan if it included a way for states to opt out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/health/policy/23health.html?_r=1&hp
I don't know why they don't just put their plan on the table and go for it. The Demoncrats want a public option and they want a single payer system in the end. Why be subversive about it? Put it out there and let the voters tell them what they think about it in the next election.
Commentary
Why Doctors Are Worried
Marc Siegel, 10.22.09, 2:00 PM ET
I sit before my aging patient Julia for a few moments before my office nurse bangs on the door to say I'm running late. Julia looks at me across the desk, and in her pleading eyes, I can see her hopes for a reassurance or a cure. She hopes that I will tell her that nothing is wrong, or if there is something, that I can immediately fix it.
She is not thinking about health insurance reform. She is not worrying that the government is plotting to spread expensive insurance to pay for low-tech care for the entire population. She hopes only that her card will cover her in the case of illness. She is far more concerned about losing her connection with me and my network of doctors than she is about whether health insurance is extended to more people.
Thinking about her and those like her makes me very angry. Should I tell her that the very art of medicine that I rely on to take care of her is in mortal jeopardy? I barely have enough time with my growing list of patients to concentrate on her case as it is, and the reform will bring me more patients with lower payments. Should I mention that many of my contemporaries (the network she relies on) are no longer accepting her Medicare, even before the reform bills sink their claws into it and cut Medicare to the bone with hundreds of billions in cuts?
Should I say that primary care doctors like me already designate an employee to deal entirely with insurance, and that this problem will only get worse as we move in the direction of comparative effectiveness studies and bundling payments based on so-called quality? I lay awake at night thinking of the services I will deliver only to be denied payment.
The orthopedist I referred Julia to for her total hip replacement received only $970 for the procedure, and he says he hates to operate now because he loses an hour before and after each operation getting ready and cleaning up. If his payments drop further or his malpractice premiums rise higher, he vows to work only in the office and avoid the operating room altogether. Who will operate on patients like Julia then?
The organization that supposedly represents us, the spineless American Medical Association, has sold its soul to health reform in return for a one-year moratorium on the legislated, across the board 21% Medicare cuts that are always hanging over our heads. This feels too much like Kafka's In the Penal Colony, where our terrible future is written on our bodies in indelible ink. Every practicing doctor I know is worried about this future.
Increasing government oversight will not only hurt doctors in the pocketbook, as reimbursements are inevitably cut. It will also lead to greater bureaucratic inefficiencies. There will be more paperwork, less approvals and less time for cures.
Today, my patient Julia is wondering where the H1N1 swine flu shot is; it was supposed to be here weeks ago. I don't have the heart to tell her that since the Centers for Disease Control and the state health departments took over distribution a few weeks ago, it is nowhere to be found. I have filled out form after form, applied for new ID numbers, and still I can't get on the right list to receive the shot.
This is the future. And as the Baucus bill glided through the Senate Finance Committee last week, I can see that the future is here.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel_print.htmlThey're being subversive, or better obscurantist, about it the better to slip it by.
These are the people Redux is such a big fat fan of. :headshake
This is why sensible people stop voting Democrat, in some cases since sometime in the previous century.
Passage of a "healthcare" bill that is unwritten, and much more productive of dependency upon the public sector, the State, than it ever will be of healthcare or even medical coverage, will make it imperative that I never vote for a Democrat for any office in any place for the rest of my days. It just offends my Libertarian principles -- government should never be confused with a service industry, for it cannot function well that way. The Democrats do not understand this, while the Libertarians do. The Republicans -- they're a bit more amenable to libertarian logic, and the conservatives particularly so. Incidentally, none of the, um, plans will cover any more people than are actually chronically not covered now, somewhere between ten and twenty-five millions rather than the forty-seven million figure bandied about by the vehemently Statist, [capitalization intended] and they have openly said as much. Wow, such achievement! The 10M-25M estimate is made fuzzy primarily because of the "illegal aliens not covered" estimates. They are not precisely known, only quite imprecisely -- lack of data.
The health insurance market is at present unhelpfully regulated. By law, insurance companies are kept confined to given states, which measure is monopolistic. It takes only partial economic literacy to be aware of how unfortunate monopolies are for the economy that must contain them. Better not to. Lose the monopolistic -- government-created and government-imposed -- measures, and watch the efficiencies of the free market go right to work. Deregulation worked just fine for the airline industry once their lobbyists stopped whining. (Yeah, I know about the rags where there should have been screw caps. Doing well for twenty years doesn't absolutely guarantee you'll do well the twenty-first -- but which way would you bet? And how fast do problems that come to public light get corrected?)
There is no such thing, sayeth the Libertarian Party, as a natural monopoly. The case they make for their argument is pretty robust. It would, I think, be enlightening to take a look at it. Why, for instance, did people so often grouse about their cable service? The law, not the inherent nature of the telecommunications industry, tried to hedge cities about with only a single cable provider. Were the results any good from a content or service point of view?
There is the matter of tort reform, specifically limiting damages recovery from astronomical stakes to something less like hitting the lottery on Super Ultra Mega Powerball. This is intended to reduce exorbitant medical malpractice rates, which allows doctors to prosper once again, which indirectly benefits their patients, as doctors can either reduce fees, or confine them to covering, well, more rational cost figures. Medicine is not immune to Adam Smith. Stop making it attractive to the lottery-players, both within and without of the U.S. legal profession.
The lack of transparency continues.
Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 26, 2009
updated 04:51 a.m., October 26, 2009
Health reform written behind closed doors
Jennifer Haberkorn
By day, Democrats tout how open they have been while crafting a bill to reform the nation's health care system. By early evening, they're behind closed doors.
Three times last week, White House officials went to Capitol Hill to meet in closed sessions with top Senate Democrats to put together a health bill. They left with not much more than a thumbs up or a "we're making progress"-type comment to the reporters waiting outside.
It's not exactly the level of transparency that President Obama promised during the campaign, when he said health care talks would be aired live on C-SPAN.
"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table," he told a town hall audience in Chester, Va., in August 2008. "We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think, is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
The small group of White House officials and three senators met in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office three evenings last week to discuss what kind of bill to send to the Senate floor. The negotiation team includes Mr. Reid, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who led the work on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill.
White House officials seen leaving the meetings include Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, health care "czar" Nancy-Ann DeParle, and Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
It's hardly unexpected that major legislation on Capitol Hill, particularly on an issue as complex as health care reform, would be done in a small group and behind closed doors. The reform debate is now at a particularly sensitive stage, as House and Senate leaders have to make major political and policy decisions on what kind of legislation to send to their chambers' floors.
But Mr. Obama's campaign promises have provided Republicans and other opponents of the Democrats' reform plans with an easy criticism of how he's crafting the legislation.
"They're writing a health care bill in secret, even though the president called for all of this to be out on an open table and have C-SPAN cameras in the room," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said last week.
"We're about to significantly alter one-sixth of the economy, and if there was ever a need for transparency it is now," Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska warned in a recent Republican address.
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference, has made repeated reference to the health care debate moving "into the smoke-filled rooms" of the Capitol. (Though technically smoking has been banned in the public spaces of the Capitol for two years.)
Mr. Obama argued in a January 2008 Democratic debate that transparency would ensure that special interests couldn't overtake the reform bill.
"If the drug companies or a member of Congress who's carrying water for the drug companies wants to argue that we should not negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs, then I want them to make that argument in front of the American people," he said.
When asked in a July press conference about the level of transparency, Mr. Obama defended the process.
"You will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here on C-SPAN and, at a certain point, you know, you start getting into all kinds of different meetings," Mr. Obama said. "Senate Finance is having a meeting; the House is having a meeting. If they wanted those to be on C-SPAN, then I would welcome it. I don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there."
A White House official did not return a request for comment Friday.
Senate Democrats involved in the conversations defended their process. After the discussions in Mr. Reid's office, one of the lawmakers or spokesmen have given reporters a broad outline of what topics were discussed. Last week, they talked about the employer mandate and the public option.
Mr. Dodd, who led the health bill through the HELP Committee as a stand-in for then-ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, defended the process.
"The suggestion, somehow, that this is being done otherwise is just blatantly false and a distraction from what, really, we need to be talking about, and that is what's in these bills, what are we trying to achieve?" he said.
The Finance Committee posted its overhaul legislation and proposed amendments on its Web site, and its mark-up sessions were aired on C-SPAN and the Internet.
"The Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, there were countless hearings, all public, all in the open," Mr. Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, told reporters.
"I have not been involved in such an open and transparent process as this, and I'm very, very proud that we've done it," Mr. Baucus said. "We embarked on this process because it's the right thing to do, but also to help give senators the comfort that we had a good idea of what it is that we're doing."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/health-reform-transparency-opaque-to-critics/?feat=home_headlinesWell Harry finally pulled the trigger. It is about time. I seriously doubt he ever considered not including it but he just didn't have the balls to admit it since he is doing so poorly in his home state and next year he is up for election. I figure he just sees the writing on the wall and if he is not re-elected it will be a hard long fall from grace for him.
Harry pulls the trigger:
Reid announced today that he’s backing the inclusion of a public option in the Senate’s healthcare legislation.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/harry-reid-nevada-democratic-politics.htmlAn interesting report. I would like to see more about how they arrived at their numbers. I believe much of it sounds plausible.
Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.
The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.
"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," Kelley said in a statement.
"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."
One example -- a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.
"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.
Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:
* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.
* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.
* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.
"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.
"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.
All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country's $2.5 trillion healthcare system.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59P0L320091027?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0$800 billion? Holy moolah! You could invade Iraq for that kind of money.
And stop for burgers afterwards!
$800 billion? Holy moolah! You could invade Iraq for that kind of money.
No, Iraq costs way more than that. But hey, look at all the <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> things that have come out of it. Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands crippled and maimed. Millions of Iraqi people displaced. Hundreds of thousands of Iraq people murdered, tortured, and imprisoned who did nothing illegal, embarrassing America throughout the world, etc.
...well thats one view.
Yes. The right one.
Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps one day.
While you're here I'll have one with mustard and a lil onion.
How about the trillions in Obamas giveaways? We could even fight a war in Afghanistan with that. Oh, wait, we've got to think about it for a few months.
How about the trillions in Obamas giveaways? We could even fight a war in Afghanistan with that. Oh, wait, we've got to think about it for a few months.
Better than jumping in asshole first, quick like a bunny, for no good reason. It was Bush's fault.
Perhaps, only time will tell.
And any failure of the proposed health plan will be Obama's fault.
And there you have it. The microcosm of plans at reform is failing.
Three years after Massachusetts enacted its sweeping health-reform legislation, rising health costs continue to bedevil the state and threaten to derail reform efforts.
Despite a significant restructuring of the state's health sector and dominance of nonprofit health plans, Massachusetts still has the highest health-insurance costs in the nation, averaging $13,788 for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
One of the reasons so many people supported the reform effort in Massachusetts is that they were told universal coverage would lead to lower costs. With universal coverage, Massachusetts politicians argued, as many in Washington do today, people would no longer have to pay the medical bills of those who don't have insurance—the "free riders"—and therefore health-insurance premiums would fall, or at least level off.
Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who led the reform effort, wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal (April 11, 2006) at the time the law was adopted, saying: "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced."
An Opposing Viewpoint
A Great Success: The facts tell the story of Massachusetts' remarkably successful health-reform law But such a reduction is proving much more difficult to achieve. Indeed, the state's major insurers plan to increase premiums by 7% to 12% next year, with small businesses facing the largest increases.
In fact, those premiums may be going up because more people are in plans that pay doctors and hospitals at lower, government rates, causing a shift in costs to private insurance payers. The Seattle-based actuarial firm Milliman Inc. estimates that the average U.S. family in a private plan pays an additional $1,788 a year to compensate for lower payments by public plans, representing a hidden tax on private insurance.
The nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, in Washington, D.C., conducted a 2008 study of the Massachusetts reforms that included interviews with representatives of employer groups, benefits consultants, health plans, health-care providers and policy makers. Many of these parties said they were concerned that unless the costs of health care in the state were brought under control, "the current trajectory of the reform is financially unsustainable."
continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454893530315578.htmlAnd any failure of the proposed health plan will be Obama's fault.
And its success will be credited to all Democrats.
And its success will be credited to all Democrats.
Tell it to those who are left without insurance.
Tell it to those who are left without insurance.
You can tell them right now. The repubicans want to keep it that way.
You can tell them right now. The repubicans want to keep it that way.
Don't half to. The new Demoncratic plans will neither fix health care nor provide insurance to every single legal American.
Don't half to. The new Demoncratic plans will neither fix health care nor provide insurance to every single legal American.
The current repubican plan has broken healthcare and the bank.
Generally speaking, both parties are to blame. - It's ridiculous to entirely blame anything on one party or the other. Thats what they want - a divided people. Then they - oh nevermind.
Generally speaking, both parties are to blame. - It's ridiculous to entirely blame anything on one party or the other. Thats what they want - a divided people. Then they - oh nevermind.
It's all Merc's fault!:p
The current repubican plan has broken healthcare and the bank.
What plan? They have had no input.
What plan? They have had no input.
The reality, as it exists now.
The reality, as it exists now.
How about you explain to all of us how any one party is responsible for 60 years of the development of the US Healthcare system?
How about you explain to all of us how any one party is responsible for 60 years of the development of the US Healthcare system?
repubicans have had the presidency 28 of the last 40 years and the only thing they've done about healthcare was to block reform during the Clinton administration. Assholes.
repubicans have had the presidency 28 of the last 40 years and the only thing they've done about healthcare was to block reform during the Clinton administration. Assholes.
What a whinny cop out. You fail.
What a whinny cop out. You fail.
Your face fails.:p
Do you know what those numbers represent, Bruce? I didn't see an explanation of them on the site, but maybe I overlooked something.
Typically, numbers signify a 'quantity' or a 'unit' of something.
:lol:
Do you know what those numbers represent, Bruce?
They compare life expectancy to cost of health care in different countries. Lots of different ways to interpret that thought.
I want the Mexican plan - then there will be no reason for them to come here.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="White"]KIDDING![/COLOR][/SIZE]
We should all go there... they have the cheap drugs and the nice weather... srsly, I'm in.
I would like to see some other numbers added... like
*number of hours spent on ass
*percent of overweight or obese
*percent of meals made up of processed garbage
*percent of population on ANY prescribed medication
*percent on high priced (compared to other countries) daily dose medications that end up causing more harm than good and eventually in a class action lawsuit
*percent on drugs to make their eyelashes thicker, help them quit smoking, fall asleep faster, lose weight etc etc
The mexican drug cartel plan?
Well I wonder what in the new nearly 1 Trillion dollar plan from the Dems has done to address these findings?
26 Oct 2009
Waste in the U.S. Healthcare System Pegged at $700 Billion in Report from Thomson Reuters
Ann Arbor, MI October 26, 2009 - The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $600 billion and $850 billion annually, according to a white paper published today by Thomson Reuters.
The report identifies the most significant drivers of wasteful spending - including administrative inefficiency, unnecessary treatment, medical errors, and fraud - and quantifies their cost. It is based on a review of published research and analyses of proprietary healthcare data.
"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," said Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters and author of the white paper. "The good news is that by attacking waste, healthcare costs can be reduced without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care.
"That's the point of this report - to identify areas in the healthcare system that can generate game-changing savings," Kelley said.
Here are some of the study's key findings:
Unnecessary Care (40% of healthcare waste): Unwarranted treatment, such as the over-use of antibiotics and the use of diagnostic lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure, accounts for $250 billion to $325 billion in annual healthcare spending.
Fraud (19% of healthcare waste): Healthcare fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion each year, manifesting itself in everything from fraudulent Medicare claims to kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services.
Administrative Inefficiency (17% of healthcare waste): The large volume of redundant paperwork in the U.S healthcare system accounts for $100 billion to $150 billion in spending annually.
Healthcare Provider Errors (12% of healthcare waste): Medical mistakes account for $75 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year.
Preventable Conditions (6% of healthcare waste): Approximately $25 billion to $50 billion is spent annually on hospitalizations to address conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes, which are much less costly to treat when individuals receive timely access to outpatient care.
Lack of Care Coordination (6% of healthcare waste): Inefficient communication between providers, including lack of access to medical records when specialists intervene, leads to duplication of tests and inappropriate treatments that cost $25 billion to $50 billion annually.
http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/tsh/waste_US_healthcare_system
further:
"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.
"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.
Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.
All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59P0L320091026We should all go there... they have the cheap drugs and the nice weather... srsly, I'm in.
I would like to see some other numbers added... like
*number of hours spent on ass
*percent of overweight or obese
*percent of meals made up of processed garbage
*percent of population on ANY prescribed medication
*percent on high priced (compared to other countries) daily dose medications that end up causing more harm than good and eventually in a class action lawsuit
*percent on drugs to make their eyelashes thicker, help them quit smoking, fall asleep faster, lose weight etc etc
:p
Now, about the ass hours: do they count if your job requires extensive ass-sitting?
Statistics, you can make them say just about anything!
CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion
Nice....
The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200910291728dowjonesdjonline000980&title=cbo-puts-house-health-bill-total-cost-at-1055-trillionCBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion
Nice....
by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200910291728dowjonesdjonline000980&title=cbo-puts-house-health-bill-total-cost-at-1055-trillion
Yep...very nice!
The bulk of that $572 billion in tax increases are surtaxes on income over $500K (single) and $1 million (couple).
The bulk of the savings are from cutting payments to insurance companies providing enhanced services to those seniors who can afford to pay more through Medicare Advantage and rolling those services back to basic Medicare for all seniors.....minimizing the current two-tier Medicare system.
I like it! :thumb:
Yep...very nice!
The bulk of the savings are from cutting payments to insurance companies providing enhanced services to those seniors who can afford to pay more through Medicare Advantage and rolling those services back to basic Medicare for all seniors.....minimizing the current two-tier Medicare system.
I like it!
Fail. Why do you want to take away insurace from seniors? Who says you know what they can or cannot afford as a block group? Why should older people pay for the younger people who are healthy by cutting their insurance? In his Joint Session speech President Obama promised that no one on Medicare would be forced to lose the coverage they have now. So he basically lied to the seniors. How do you save money on Medicare when the government has been unable to control waste, fraud, and abuse since the inception of Medicare? More smoke and Mirrors by the Demoncrats....
The cost of cutting Medicare Advantage. I share this opinion.
Medicare, the nation’s health insurance program for disabled and elderly persons, turned 44 this week. The President and many Democrats want to make changes to the aging program as a part of health care reform. For instance, President Obama told the American Association of Retired Persons on July 28 that he wants to eliminate 177 billion in subsidies to the popular Medicare Advantage programs.
Although the President told the AARP, “nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits,” many senior citizens are worried. And those who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans may have reason to worry. Although Mr. Obama considers Medicare Advantage an example of wasteful spending, the plans are popular with seniors because they offer benefits and care coordination which basic Medicare plans do not provide.
Some physicians and health plans are nervous as well.
For instance, this week, Dr. Mark Hoffing of Palm Springs, California, led a delegation of elderly patients to the capital for some citizen lobbying. They presented 10,000 signatures to legislators in an attempt to persuade them to leave Medicare Advantage plans intact.
Truly, Medicare Advantage plans are popular. According to John O’Brien, Assistant Professor of Clinical and Administrative Sciences, College of Notre Dame School of Pharmacy, the proposed cuts are “a step backward” and would undermine plans which seniors appreciate.
"Medicare Advantage plans are innovative health insurance products that have led the way in patient-centered care; 97% percent of MA enrollees are happy with the affordability and access their plan provides,” O’Brien explained.
According to a CBS News report, the President also told the AARP that reform “would put more focus on prevention and wellness efforts and incentivizing quality of care rather than quantity. That's what health care reform will mean to folks on Medicare."
Ironically, that is what Medicare Advantage plans are designed to do now.
Basic Medicare covers outpatient, inpatient and some prescription costs, but there are significant gaps. Using federal funds, Medicare Advantage allows private insurers to manage the basic Medicare benefits plus provide additional services that Medicare does not cover, such as wellness services, dental care, hearing and vision screening. Most Medicare Advantage plans also provide prescription drug options which are often easier to use and understand than the basic Medicare, Part D coverage.
Speaking of Part D, the President promises that his reform plan will close the gaps in prescription coverage. However, he fails to note that Medicare Advantage plans frequently cover prescription drugs more fully than basic Medicare. It is difficult to understand how the current House backed plan will save 177 billion while at the same time erasing the gap in current basic drug coverage.
President Obama claims the subsidies paid to insurers are “waste” which can be cut. However, what this assessment misses is the fact that the need for health care covered by Medicare Advantage plans will not go away because the funding scheme is altered. Somebody has to pay. According to Andrea Zachar with Knepper Insurance in Somerset, Pennsylvania, Medicare Advantage plans provide an important option for Medicare beneficiaries.
“We are seeing people gravitating toward the Medicare Advantage because monthly costs are lower than purchasing a supplemental insurance plan along with straight Medicare,” Zachar said. “If Advantage plans go away, then some seniors may not access certain services because they cannot afford them,” she added.
This amounts to a cost shift from the government to senior citizens and the disabled.
In practice, seniors who are now in Medicare Advantage plans may well see their benefits reduced if the funding structures are altered. The President is technically correct when he says, “nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits,” if by that he means the basic Medicare benefit package. However, for people, often low income and rural residents, who rely on those additional services covered by Medicare Advantage, reductions in benefits or increases in premiums seem likely. The other possible outcome, which no one likes to talk about, is that seniors will simply avoid preventative care, doctor’s visits, and other needed services, thereby putting their health at risk.
There is some evidence that Medicare Advantage plans improve important aspects of patient care. According to a study reported this month by the America’s Health Insurance Plans, Medicare Advantage plans had lower hospital utilization rates and fewer hospital readmissions among groups of patients with heart disease and diabetes. Some preliminary data indicated better health status as well. Perhaps Medicare Advantage plans should be studied, not eliminated.
For sure, there are aspects of Medicare Advantage that need tweaking.
“The bizarre thing about these plans is that the government does not pay insurers equally nationwide. Moneys are distributed by counties, based on previous year utilization.” Katalin Goencz, with MedBillsAssist told me. Ms. Goencz added that in many parts of the country, the plans are working well; elsewhere, not so much. When asked if she thought the Medicare Advantage should be cut, she said, the government “…should make some cuts to eliminate some of the poorly performing plans, but that is about all.”
Making those poorly performing plans either improve or get out of the Medicare market is a good idea. The President cannot raise benefits in basic Medicare and maintain his promise to cut spending and he cannot cut Medicare Advantage without low income seniors losing benefits, spending more or avoiding necessary care. As configured, the President’s plan for Medicare is not the change we need.
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-obama-s-medicare-cuts-not-the-change-we-needFail. Why do you want to take away insurace from seniors? Who says you know what they can or cannot afford as a block group? Why should older people pay for the younger people who are healthy by cutting their insurance? In his Joint Session speech President Obama promised that no one on Medicare would be forced to lose the coverage they have now. So he basically lied to the seniors. How do you save money on Medicare when the government has been unable to control waste, fraud, and abuse since the inception of Medicare? More smoke and Mirrors by the Demoncrats....
I see a trend here.
Obama is a liar and/or a bulshitter on nearly every issue.
And those who disagree with you are failures and narcissists.
Now its your turn to flood the discussion with 10 or so more cuts/pastes.
And, I'll chime in again after that. ;)
I see a trend here.
Obama is a liar and/or a bulshitter on nearly every issue.
I wouldn't go that far, he is no different than anyother scumbag in D.C. He lied to get votes and now he can't pull it off without being caught.
And those who disagree with you are failures and narcissists.
Anyone who gets all upset because people don't believe what they believe is truely narcissistic, eh don't care that much if you believe what I believe.
Now its your turn to flood the discussion with 10 or so more cuts/pastes.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your support for the Demoncratic propaganda. You are really no different. As soon as someone challenges your ideas you yell "racist" in an attempt to stop the discussion. Certainly you should be able to defend my questions to you and those points raised in the opinion that I posted?
....As soon as someone challenges your ideas you yell "racist" in an attempt to stop the discussion...
Now that ignorant comment does piss me off.
I defy you to link ANY post of mine when I yelled "racist" :headshake
Now that ignorant comment does piss me off.
I defy you to link ANY post of mine when I yelled "racist" :headshake
I should have rephrased it. You are like the guy who does that to stiffle the conversation when they are losing. It is your Modus operandi.
You don't think care is going to be hard to come by?
Health Bills In Congress Won't Fix Doctor Shortage
The number of residency training positions for all doctors has been flat for years. That's because in a budget-cutting move in 1997, Congress froze the number of Medicare-funded medical residency positions. Since then, the U.S. population has increased by more than 30 million — making the need for additional medical residents particularly acute, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. While some teaching hospitals have added residency positions using their own money, those slots have largely gone to train specialists who can improve the facilities' bottom line.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your support for the Demoncratic propaganda. You are really no different. As soon as someone challenges your ideas you yell "racist" in an attempt to stop the discussion. Certainly you should be able to defend my questions to you and those points raised in the opinion that I posted?
:eyebrow:
Now that ignorant comment does piss me off.
I defy you to link ANY post of mine when I yelled "racist" :headshake
I should have rephrased it. You are like the guy who does that to stiffle the conversation when they are losing. It is your Modus operandi.
:headshake
I'm calling more bullshit. Merc, dude...think about this. Even when I read your post I thought "no, Redux does not call racist."
So Redux calls you out on that, and you say you should have rephrased? Rephrased? How about just saying "yeah, that was a bunch of bullcrap and a lie."
Seriously, man. One who lives in modus operandis shouldn't throw stones.
CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion....
Which is about a 10% increase over current levels.
The ones who are going to be hurt the most are those with the smallest political clout. The disabled, the elderly and the chronically or terminally ill. Many programs designed to care for these Americans have already lost their funding or been frozen for months.
Which is about a 10% increase over current levels.
But the original promise was that we were going to SAVE money. That was my original argument way back at the beginning. How are we going to insure so many more while spending less. I already knew the answer, we weren't. And if you really think that its not gonna cost about 20% more than that number, you, and many others, are gonna be sadly mistaken.
The ones who are going to be hurt the most are those with the smallest political clout. The disabled, the elderly and the chronically or terminally ill. Many programs designed to care for these Americans have already lost their funding or been frozen for months.
This is the first I heard of that. I am on disability and I still get health care and prescriptions thru Medicaid. HUD helps me with my rent, and I'm still getting my food stamps. On one hand, I think certain government programs could be changed to better help those with disabilities. On the other hand, I am very grateful to the American people for the help I do recieve.
OBRA hasn't had any money for months. The other two programs haven't either. There are people I know that have been waiting for their assessments since December . . . Thats almost a year without any help. They are both disabled and now confined to their homes with no therapies nor care. They have to be assessed first. I won't go on, but I am doing my homework and the more I learn, the less I want the gov't involved. State, Fed, local... doesn't matter. The gov't screws up just about everything they try to do. Unfortunately, I NEED their help.
[QUOTE=Shawnee123;604467
I'm calling more bullshit. Merc, dude...think about this. Even when I read your post I thought "no, Redux does not call racist."
So Redux calls you out on that, and you say you should have rephrased? Rephrased? How about just saying "yeah, that was a bunch of bullcrap and a lie."[/QUOTE]Because it was neither. As I restated it I clarified it for him. Whether he likes the analogy or not is not the issue. That is how I see his responses. All is cool till he can't respond anymore and then he is like the guy who trys to redirect the conversation by calling someone a "racist". I am not looking for agreement from you.
OK Mr Circular Argument Modus Operandi What The Hey Are You Talking About?
:lol:
You must, certainly, confuse even yourself from time to time with this dance!
OBRA hasn't had any money for months. The other two programs haven't either. There are people I know that have been waiting for their assessments since December . . . Thats almost a year without any help. They are both disabled and now confined to their homes with no therapies nor care. They have to be assessed first. I won't go on, but I am doing my homework and the more I learn, the less I want the gov't involved. State, Fed, local... doesn't matter. The gov't screws up just about everything they try to do. Unfortunately, I NEED their help.
The ARRA (stimulus bill) included about $120 billion (nearly 1/6 of the total $$ in the bill) for COBRA and Medicaid, as well as $40 billion for extended unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, etc.
Are there examples where people get "screwed".....undoubtedly. But I think the vast majority of those who benefit from those programs would not describe it as a government screw up.
But the original promise was that we were going to SAVE money. How are we going to insure so many more while spending less. I already knew the answer, we weren't...
We will insure millions more hard working Americans by making health insurance MORE affordable (not free or government-paid) by encouraging greater competition, promoting preventive care and ending insurance company discriminatory practices. Currently, it cost you and me $billions every year when those w/o insurance go to the emergency room for basic care.
We will also invest in productivity improvements, and save in the longer term, by making the health care system and infrastructure more efficient.
That point has been made, Redux, the difference between affordable primary care and going to the emergency room because they "have" to treat you.
This point has fallen upon deaf ears. You have to repeat it a few more times before that point could be conceded and the argument could go on to other issues which aren't so clearly resolved. ;)
Don't forget affordable/available preventive care, so that neither of those options are necessary.
We will insure millions more hard working Americans by making health insurance MORE affordable (not free or government-paid) by encouraging greater competition, promoting preventive care and ending insurance company discriminatory practices. Currently, it cost you and me $billions every year when those w/o insurance go to the emergency room for basic care.
We will also invest in productivity improvements, and save in the longer term, by making the health care system and infrastructure more efficient.
And the insurance industry is going to push down all those cost through much higher premiums and the Dems are going to tax the hell out of everyone with jobs to pay it. So in the end it will cost us the $billions every year in paying for insurance for everyone else.
Oh and don't forget none of this really starts for a few more years and in the end the lie of giving everyone insurance will come to fruition as all estimates say there will still be some 12million people without insurance.
Not covering illegals will make it way more than 12 million, but I'm ok with that.
Not covering illegals will make it way more than 12 million, but I'm ok with that.
You know the bleeding hearts would never stand for that. I still say we come up with a way to charge their country of origin for their care. Maybe we could dock their monetary support from the federal government.
Too complicated, just throw the fuckers out.
That point has been made, Redux, the difference between affordable primary care and going to the emergency room because they "have" to treat you.
This point has fallen upon deaf ears. You have to repeat it a few more times before that point could be conceded and the argument could go on to other issues which aren't so clearly resolved. ;)
The House bill has provisions encouraging preventive care and wellness programs including the elimination of co-pays for
annual hearing and vision exams. ;)
The ARRA (stimulus bill) included about $120 billion for COBRA and Medicaid, as well as ~snip~
OBRA not COBRA. There hasn't been any money in there for a long time.
What has been allocated to COBRA has been great, I have not said one bad thing about it.
After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.
That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.
The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.
Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.
"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits."
The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured by providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant share of their own health care costs.
The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.
It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the insurers a little.
Link
Hmm I wonder if those secret meetings with the Healthcare industry leaders & the White House discussed this.
Link
Hmm I wonder if those secret meetings with the Healthcare industry leaders & the White House discussed this.
I agree that all the fear-mongering about the public option (and govt take over) crowding out private insurers was just that....baseless rhetoric. Or, on the other side that it would be a cure all for the system.
I am still of the opinion that the public option is critical to stimulate competition and keep the private insurers honest (or more honest) as well as fill a niche to prevent more people falling through the cracks.
But it is far from a European socialist model or the first step in a secret plan to move the country to a single payer system.
Two percent?! What the ???????
Two percent?! What the ???????
Two percent of the population younger than 65 = 5+ million people either unemployed or currently uninsured and above the poverty level.
But because they represent a higher risk -- generally unable or unlikely to have had regular check-ups or practice preventive care and many of whom might have chronic health issues -- they are the least insurable.
Should they be ignored?
Should they be ignored?
Perhaps, perhaps not - depends upon the cost.
Why is this "Public Option" now renamed the "Consumer Option" (lol) such a big deal if it only covers 2% of the people?
That's 2% of people who say right now that they know for sure they would choose it (presumably because they have no other choice.) If the plan actually got in place, and we were able to directly compare costs/coverage to our current plan, it's entirely possible we'd sign up for it if it were better. I bet other people would do the same.
snip~
But it is far from a European socialist model or the first step in a secret plan to move the country to a single payer system.
Unfortunately.
Unfortunately.
The "socialist card" was on display again in speeches and signs at yesterday's rally at the Capitol...even a couple of B actors chimed in:
[INDENT]
"Obama has his own obsession to ram this health care bill through Congress and to turn America into a socialist country." -- Jon Voight
"Remember, these are Woodstock Democrats.Their philopsophy doesn't come from America it comes from overseas". -- John Ratzenberger[/INDENT]
But the most offensive award goes to:
[INDENT]This sign with a pile of dead bodies from Dachau, titled "National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945"
[/INDENT]
Just when you think they can't sink any lower....one (or many more) of those true freedom loving patriots will find a way.
And not one of the Republican leaders speaking at the rally condemned that prominently displayed (or any of the other ignorant and offensive) signs.
The sign is offensive. The agenda of the the Demoncrats and Obama is a socialist one.
...The agenda of the the Demoncrats and Obama is a socialist one.
I dont doubt that patriotic non-partisan "real" Americans like you really believe it.
But then again, you believe Pelosi is a Nazi.....which IMO is not all that different than the sign you agree is offensive.
I dont doubt that patriotic non-partisan "real" Americans like you really believe it.
But then again, you believe Pelosi is a Nazi.....which IMO is not all that different than the sign you agree is offensive.
That bitch is an oxygen thief.
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Link
Link
That is probably the most misleading misrepresentation of the bill I've seen...from who else but the queen of the "death panels for grandma" and "the government will make your health care decisions for you" -
Betsy McHaughey!
I know she gives Merc a hard-on with her insightful perspective, but I thought you were more open-minded to the facts.
At the very least, you forgot to add that it is certainly a partisan piece (as you correctly noted in another recent partisan hit job on the truth about the health bill that you posted today)!
Added:
How is it misleading or just plain bullshit?
Start with her opening salvo:
[INDENT]
What the government will require YOU to do....
Secs 202, 224, 303, 412....
[/INDENT]
...only apply to those currently w/o insurance and who would purchase insurance through the new Insurance Exchange.
And then she misrepresents the choices and options (and respective costs) of plans that would be available through the Exchange.
If
YOU are currently insured through an employer-based plan, NONE of those sections apply to
YOU or would impact your current plan or coverage in any way.
The rest of her bullshit is no better.
Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
Huh - I wasn't aware this was a "hit job"
Huh - I wasn't aware this was a "hit job"
There is absolutely no provision in the bill under which your "your employer WILL....switch you to a "qualified plan..."
In 2016, if you currently get your insurance at work, your employer MAY (not WILL), if they chose, "shop" on the Exchange for a new plan or additional plans to offer employees, providing more options, with different levels of coverage (and priced respectively) to employees than most companies currently provide.
Hell, if you get your insurance at work, there is currently nothing to prevent your employer from switching plans every year that would end up costing you more and covering less..and many employers are doing just that.
The bill will give you more options and greater protections.
In a cameo in the White House briefing room yesterday, President Obama trumpeted the American Medical Association's endorsement of the House health-care plan. "These are men and women who know our health-care system best and have been watching this debate closely," he said of the doctors lobby.
Actually, what they've been watching is a formula that automatically cuts Medicare reimbursements to physicians—by 21.5% next year—and have made it clear that they'll endorse virtually anything, no matter how damaging to medicine, as a quid pro quo for eliminating this cut. They didn't get even that. Democrats amputated the "doc fix" from ObamaCare because preventing the cuts will cost more than $200 billion and pushes the price tag well above $1 trillion. They claim they'll instead pass a separate bill with the fix, adding all of that to the deficit.
President J. James Rohack was careful to note that the AMA was endorsing both bills as a package, and on a conference call with reporters he wouldn't say if he would pull support if ObamaCare passes and the doc fix doesn't. Yet that's what his political gullibility is likely to get his members. A Democratic revolt last month already killed the two-bill deception in the Senate in a sudden onset of fiscal sanity. In the stampede to pass ObamaCare, Democrats won't give even a passing thought to leaving the AMA behind—especially now, given that the group has shown how cheaply it can be bought.
Unmentioned by Mr. Obama was that 20 other physician groups came out against his health-care takeover yesterday, which they wrote "will threaten patient access and harm quality." Led by the American College of Surgeons, these doctors argued the Senate's bill "will do little to fix" health care's "underlying problems, and may make them worse." The letter was signed by groups representing neurological and orthopaedic surgeons, urologists, anesthesiologists, gynecological oncologists and others.
Mr. Rohack will also face an uprising among his own members at a meeting in Houston this weekend. But presumably Mr. Obama would say that all these men and women don't know our health-care system "best."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574518013218640066.htmlThere is absolutely no provision in the bill under which your "your employer WILL....switch you to a "qualified plan..."
In 2016, if you currently get your insurance at work, your employer MAY (not WILL), if they chose, "shop" on the Exchange for a new plan or additional plans to offer employees, providing more options, with different levels of coverage (and priced respectively) to employees than most companies currently provide.
Hell, if you get your insurance at work, there is currently nothing to prevent your employer from switching plans every year that would end up costing you more and covering less..and many employers are doing just that.
The bill will give you more options and greater protections.
Talk about bull shit. The "exchanges" are pure fantasy. There is absolutely nothing in the bill which says that any plan offered in the fantasy exchange is going to offer you "more options and greater protections". In fact it gives the insurance companies great leeway in what is offered and no evidence of cost control. There is nothing which controls how much an employer charges you as a chunk of your income, only a percent. As in most of the plans failures there is no cost control of health care with the exception of a few targeted areas.
Unmentioned by Mr. Obama was that 20 other physician groups came out against his health-care takeover yesterday, which they wrote "will threaten patient access and harm quality." Led by the American College of Surgeons, these doctors argued the Senate's bill "will do little to fix" health care's "underlying problems, and may make them worse."
Right. :headshake
Those physician groups prefer the more comprehensive House bill over the Senate bill:
[INDENT]On behalf of the more than 74,000 members of the American College of Surgeons, I write to express the College's support for the....America's Affordable Health Choices Act (HR 3962)...
In addition, the College supports the goals of HR 3962 that collectively expand coverage, promote and incentivize high quality health care and help to ensure patient access to surgical care...
We look forward to working with you to advance these important pieces of legislation....
http://www.facs.org/hcr/dingell110409.pdf
[/INDENT]
Talk about bull shit. The "exchanges" are pure fantasy.
Sounds like what the wingnuts said about Medicare 30+ years ago up until it was enacted and millions of seniors had access to affordable health care for the first time.
Sounds like what the wingnuts said about Medicare 30+ years ago up until it was enacted and millions of seniors had access to affordable health care for the first time.
Right. Tell that to those who note a 500 billion dollar cut to Medicare.
Right. Tell that to those who note a 500 billion dollar cut to Medicare.
A more complete interpretation:
[INDENT]
RNC: PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM: President Obama and Congressional Democrats are promoting a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to be used to pay for their plan. Medicare should not be raided to pay for another entitlement.
[/INDENT]
FactCheck.org: As we noted in our article More ‘Senior Scare,’ the bill that’s currently pending in the House would indeed "cut" $500 billion or so from Medicare, but it would also increase expenditures in some areas. The net amount that would be taken from the program would be about $219 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s a 10-year figure, by the way. And
any implication that seniors’ Medicare benefits would be cut is false. Rather, the bill calls for holding down payments to hospitals and other providers, other than physicians.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/rncs-bill-of-rights/
Much of the cuts are to Medicare Advantage companies that have been overcharging by about 15% for years.....according to CBO and the Medicare Review Board.
You are spreading misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts?
Dont you feel at all dirty and slimy covered in all that bullshit?
Whats next, dude?
Demoncratic smoke and mirrors. Factcheck states:
The Senate Finance Committee bill proposes to cut subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies, and it’s possible that seniors would lose such plans if companies dropped out because of the extra cost.
You are spreading misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts?
Dont you feel at all dirty and slimy covered in all that bullshit?
Whats next, dude?
Someone has to rebut your misinformation about physician organizations...misinformation about the Insurance Exchange...and misinformation about Medicare cuts and expose your dirty and slimy bullshit.
The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.
The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.
In the long term, I agree that a single payer system provides the best system.
But with 200+ million currently covered through employer-based plans, we cant get there from here....and the bills provide signficant cost containment and coverage guarantees for those as well as providing affordable coverage for those currently uninsured.
I think it is a big step forward.
I see a major failure that will leave the GOP's actual national socialist program in control.
The problem to be solved was covering people who could not afford coverage. Forcing people to buy coverage with money they don't have doesn't really address that. They should have gone for a full-blown single-payer system financed through a national sales tax. As it is the system will get a lot worse and the Dems will lose power before the government option can be grown into a useful replacement. This plays into the GOP's core value of forcing people to pay connected private industry for services they don't think they need. Health care should be either an actual free market or a government program as all half measures will be more expensive, more coercive, and less useful than either alone.
I have to agree. I think they should have gone all in or nothing and used a VAT or something similar to pay for it.
And now let's debunk the Demoncratic talking point over the health insurance exchanges. Very few people will be able to use them:
Sen. Claire McCaskill discussed health care reform on This Week with George Stephanopolous, mentioning her support for a public option on a proposed health insurance exchange. The measure isn't a government takeover of health insurance, she said.
"Keep in mind, not everybody can even go to this exchange and buy insurance with any kind of subsidy. This is going to be a fairly limited number of people — 25 million to 30 million are the estimates — that would even be on this insurance exchange," she said. "By and large, most of this country is going to continue to get their health insurance through their employer."
And this keeps us at the trough of big insurance companies and passing costs on to those who have jobs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/26/narrow-door-health-exchange/I have to agree. I think they should have gone all in or nothing and used a VAT or something similar to pay for it.
Your team demonized that.
Your team demonized that.
Your mistake is that they are "my" team. I proposed the use of VAT or something similar a long time ago. The Republickins are the last people I want to fix Health Insurance.
And now let's debunk the Demoncratic talking point over the health insurance exchanges. Very few people will be able to use them:
The Democrats have never said the Insurance Exchanges are for those currently covered by employer-based plans.
In fact, they have repeatedly said that if you currently have insurance, you can keep it.....the plan simply offers more protections.
It was your industry whore, Betsy McHaughey who is spreading the bullshit that if you are currently insured, you will be forced into the Exchange.
The Democrats have never said the Insurance Exchanges are for those currently covered by employer-based plans.
In fact, they have repeatedly said that if you currently have insurance, you can keep it.....the plan simply offers more protections.
It was your industry whore, Betsy McHaughey who is spreading the bullshit that if you are currently insured, you will be forced into the Exchange.
No you idiot. You are the Demoncratic Mouth.
You said it.
In 2016, if you currently get your insurance at work, your employer MAY (not WILL), if they chose, "shop" on the Exchange for a new plan or additional plans to offer employees, providing more options, with different levels of coverage (and priced respectively) to employees than most companies currently provide.
No you idiot. You are the Demoncratic Mouth.
You said it.
Right...starting in 2016, if you have an employer-based plan, you (and your employer) MAY have the opportunity for more options than currently provided.
Employers will not be forced into the Exchange as McHaughey implied
Right...starting in 2016, if you have an employer-based plan, you (and your employer) MAY have the opportunity for more options than currently provided. Employers will not be forced into the Exchange as McHaughey implied.
Most people can't just go to the Fantasy Insurance Exchange as you implied. That is false and misleading. People will be stuck with what ever their employer foist on them and stuck with the bill that the insurance companies force people to pay for substandard plans with high deductables. Again the bill does not fix what is wrong with costs of health care.
:lol2:
Now there's a fix! In 7 years.
For those 200+ million currently covered through an employer-based plan, the bill will::
[INDENT]a) end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions.
b) prevent insurance companies from raising rates or dropping coverage for those who suddenly face a serious illness.
c) cap annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces significant unanticipated expenses or goes bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis.
d) drop all copays for preventive care.
e) ends any existing lifetime caps on what insurance companies will currently pay.[/INDENT]
No controls on what insurance companies can charge or limits on deductability for all others in the plan.
It will:
[INDENT]f) end the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies so that they are no longer shielded from liability for price fixing.
g) place limits on the administration costs as percent of premiums, thus limiting premium increases.
h) end the market monopoly in many states, where choices are currently severely restricted, thus opening those markets to increased competition....and increased competition breeds lower costs for consumers.[/INDENT]
None of those things address my points.
None of those things address my points.
I am still trying to figure out which of the provisions (
a-e) and
(f-h) that you think will not benefit consumers at the expense of the insurance industry that has been ripping us off for years.
Premium and deductable increases will also be limited in order for any company to participate in the Insurance Exchange...so that if the provider currently providing you coverage through your employer-plan wants to expand into the 30+ million market of the uninsured, you will benefit as well with those limitations.
In light of
Merc's post misrepresenting the support of 20 physician associations for health care reform.
The following organizations (not a complete list) supporting the House bill:
[INDENT]AARP
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
AIDS Action Council
AIDS Institute
Alliance for Children and Families
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology
American Academy of Dermatology and AAD Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician’s Assistants
American Art Therapy Association
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence
American Association of Health and Disability
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
American Association of Pastoral Counselors
American Cancer Society – Cancer Action Network
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American College of Surgeons
American Counseling Association
American Diabetes Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Gastroenterological Association
American Group Psychotherapy Association
American Heart Association – American Stroke Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Mental Health Counselors Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychiatric Nurses Association
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Psychological Association
American Psychotherapy Association
American Public Health Association
American Society for Radiation Oncology
American Society of Addiction Medicine
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons
American Thoracic Society
Americans for Democratic Action
Anxiety Disorders Association of America
Association for the Advancement of Psychology
Association of American Medical Colleges
Autism Society of America
Betty Ford Center
Campaign for America’s Future
Campaign for Better Health Care
Campaign for Mental Health Reform
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Center for Clinical Social Work/ABE
Center for Health Care Policy, Research and Analysis
Center for Health care Services (San Antonio, Texas)
Center for Rural Affairs
Child Welfare League of America
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Children Now
Clinical Social Work Association
Consumer Health Coalition
Consumers for Affordable Health Care Coalition
Consumers Union
CWA
Easter Seals
Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action
Ecu-Health Care, Inc
Families USA
Health Care for America NOW
Health Care for America NOW – Southern Oregon Coalition
Leadership Council of Aging Organizations
Medicare Rights Center
Mental Health America
NAACP
NAADAC – The Association for Addiction Professionals
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
National Alliance for Medication (NAMA) Recovery
National Alliance on Mental Illness
National American Indian Housing Council
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care
National Association for Children of Alcoholics
National Association for State Alcohol/Drug Abuse Directors
National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers
National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders-ANAD
National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC)
National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
National Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory Councils
National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Social Workers, Maine Chapter
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Breast Cancer Coalition
National Coalition of Mental Health Consumer/Survivor Organizations
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
National Congress of American Indians
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
National Council of Urban Indian Health
National Council on Aging
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
National Disability Rights Network
National Education Association (NEA)
National Farmer’s Union
National Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
National Foundation for Mental Health
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Indian Health Board
National Medical Association
National PACE Association
National Patient Advocate Foundation
National Research Center for Women & Families
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
National Student Assistance Association
Native American Health Center, Inc.
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
Partnership for Prevention
Rock the Vote
Service Employees International Union
U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce
United Auto Workers
United Cerebral Palsy
United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
United Neighborhood Centers of America
United Spinal Association
United Steel Workers
[/INDENT]
Quite a comprehensive and diverse list of health care professional organizations, patient advocacy organizations, consumer organizations, senior organizations, child advocacy organizations, worker organizations, minority organizations, religious groups.....
Real Americans...they just dont pass the Merc test, so they must all be bullshitters or socialists :eek:
House
narrowly passes landmark health care bill
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BR59EO0.htmlHouse narrowly passes landmark health care bill
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BR59EO0.html
This is just the first step but it makes me proud to be a Democrat.
Not simply because the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the bill, but also because it is a party that does hold you in contempt if you dont vote with that majority.
Another Democratic landmark health/welfare bill from which millions of Americans will benefit....like Social Security Act in 1935 and the Medicare Act in 1965....and to a lesser extent, even the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
Where are those Republican landmark bills...hmmmmm.
As long as you spend more time hating Democrats and the government than helping the American people...you will be on the wrong side of the issue.
But you too will benefit from these Democratic landmark acts because Democrats even care about angry bitter old men like you. :D
As long as you spend more time hating Democrats and the government than helping the American people...you will be on the wrong side of the issue.
But you too will benefit from these Democratic landmark acts because Democrats even care about angry bitter old men like you.
:lol2: And you Demoncrats will tax and spend this country into bankruptcy for generations on end.
:lol2: And you Demoncrats will tax and spend this country into bankruptcy for generations on end.
Not until we finish redistributing the wealth. ;)
Not until we finish redistributing the wealth. ;)
"All will be well my people once your wealth has been evenly distributed. Trust us, we are your Government."
/
/
Feel better now?
Or perhaps you need to rant about Pelosi as well...the one you like to compare to Nazis...who brilliantly forged the consensus on this landmark bill.
Feel better now?
Or perhaps you need to rant about Pelosi...the one you like to compare to Nazis as well...who brilliantly forged the consensus on this landmark bill.
She is a nazi. Someone needs to take her out of Congress in a big way. Brilliant cunt.
She is a nazi. Someone needs to take her out of Congress in a big way. Brilliant cunt.
Very classy :thumb:
Very classy :thumb:
Why thank you. Thank you very much. :D
:lol:
Dems ask Pelosi for autographs
There's no way to predict what the final vote on the health care bill will be, but the body language of Democrats in the chamber today suggests they are, for whatever reasons, breathing a little easier.
During a series of procedural votes earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), wearing a tomato-red dress and a relaxed smile, was drifting from member to member -- even sharing a laugh with Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who forced a vote on abortion over Pelosi's objections.
At some point, people began unwrapping copies of bill and handing it to the speaker for her autograph.
The first member I saw ask was Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). Pelosi seemed stunned but obliged, resting one of the two four-inch thick volumes on the back of a bench and inscribing it with a Sharpie. Several other members approached her with copies as she made the rounds, like high school seniors on Yearbook Day.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) approached House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who sat down next to him and wrote a long inscription.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/The most gratifying vote for the House bill was the lone Republican - Anh "Joseph" Cao.
Cao is the first Vietnamese immigrant in Congress, conservative to the core, having grown up in an anti-communist family in Saigon during the Viet Nam war.
He was elected in 08 and represents a heavily Democratic district in New Orleans, but has towed the Republican line on nearly every vote.
When he was elected, John Boehner proclaimed..."The future (of the Republican party) is Cao"
[INDENT]"The Cao victory is a symbol of our future....with new faces like Joseph Cao and...the rest of the incoming GOP freshman class in our ranks, by presenting principled, superior solutions to the challenges facing our country..."
[/INDENT]
More Cao's please!
Feel better now?
Or perhaps you need to rant about Pelosi as well...the one you like to compare to Nazis...who brilliantly forged the consensus on this landmark bill.
Did you seriously just use Pelosi and brilliant in the same sentence?
Did you seriously just use Pelosi and brilliant in the same sentence?
Did you seriously just use Pelosi and brilliant in the same sentence?
Yep.
Getting those 220 votes was not easy as you may think and not a done deal til hours before the vote.
Unlike the Republicans in the House, where you can pick any one of them out of the hat and they all sound the same, with virtually no ideological differences, the Democrats have a much more diverse caucus, making it much more difficult to achieve consensus on an issue like this.
There were Democrats with hard core positions on both sides of the public option, both sides of the surtax, both sides of the abortion issue, etc.
Pelosi had a very challenging balancing act that IMO was handled pretty damn well.
But what is more amusing is that you question my characterization of Pelosi's handling of the bill...but have nothing to say about the characterization of her as a "Nazi cunt". :eyebrow:
But what is more amusing is that you question my characterization of Pelosi's handling of the bill...but have nothing to say about the characterization of her as a "Nazi cunt". :eyebrow:
Oooo, Oooo I do, I do!:D
In the coming weeks, a crucial debate surrounds health care reform: Will the process resemble that of the economic stimulus bill, a $787 billion measure passed in February with no Republican support? Or will it more closely resemble the push to pass climate change legislation, another overhaul effort (estimated price tag: $864 billion over 10 years) the House passed in June with just eight Republican votes, and which has an uncertain fate in the Senate?
These three very different legislative efforts, all priorities of the Obama administration, are more similar than it might appear. On their own, each of the measures cost more than the entire $455 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2008, a record until Uncle Sam went $1.4 trillion in the red during FY2009.
Their effectiveness is also questionable. It's not clear whether health care reform will actually curb rising health care costs; in fact, it's largely paid for by raising taxes. The stimulus bill seems to have contributed to overall economic output, but the 10.2% national unemployment rate shows that it's not having the fully desired effect. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), climate change legislation could dampen families' purchasing power an average of $455 each year between 2012 and 2050. What that means is uncertain, but it doesn't sound promising.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/07/health-care-congress-vote-business-washington-house.htmlShe is a nazi. Someone needs to take her out of Congress in a big way. Brilliant cunt.
You're an idiot to say that Pelosi is a nazi. And you're wrong. Look up the definition of nazi.
Merc, you say you are in favor of reform, then you degrade every suggestion made by anyone. You don't have initiate any ideas, either. Whaaaat Theeeee Fuuuuuuck?
Read the last 87 pages for my "ideas". I have posted many of them. As I have said many times I am not against Healthcare Reform, just the ones being passed by this Congress which will not fix the problems in the industry. Look at Mass HC reform as an example of how this may fail.
Read the last 87 pages for my "ideas". I have posted many of them. As I have said many times I am not against Healthcare Reform, just the ones being passed by this Congress which will not fix the problems in the industry. Look at Mass HC reform as an example of how this may fail.
I recall your ONE idea.
A regressive VAT (or national sales) tax and totally eliminating insurance companies from having any role in providing health insurance....thus throwing the current insurance coverage for 200+ million Americans into disarray and bringing complete chaos to the system.
Read the last 87 pages for my "ideas". I have posted many of them. As I have said many times I am not against Healthcare Reform, just the ones being passed by this Congress which will not fix the problems in the industry. Look at Mass HC reform as an example of how this may fail.
You mean all those quoted passages were your ideas? I'll be right back.
You mean all those quoted passages were your ideas? I'll be right back.
Nope, but ok, I don't think I'll hold my breath. :rolleyes:
Another cautionary tale. As in Mass, now as in Maine.
BAR HARBOR, Me. — When his car repair shop’s health insurance premiums doubled between 2000 and 2002, David White saw the problem as akin to a sputtering engine. So he got under the hood of the state’s health system and tried to fix it.
Seven years later, Mr. White is on seven health advocacy and improvement boards, has helped devise the state’s public insurance plan and has a library of health care books and research papers. He spent so much time on the issue that his business suffered. But he still has no health insurance for himself or his lone remaining mechanic, an experience that is emblematic of his state’s.
Maine is the Charlie Brown of health care. The state’s legislators have tried for decades to fix its system, but their efforts have always fallen short: health insurance premiums are still among the least affordable in the nation, health care spending per person is among the highest and hospital emergency rooms are among the most crowded. Indeed, many overhauls to the system have done little more than squeeze a balloon — solving one problem while worsening another.
But like the Peanuts character, the state keeps trying. Indeed, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Maine’s senior United States senator and so far one of only two Republicans in Congress to vote for an overhaul, spent two years in the late 1970s as chairwoman of the State Legislature’s joint Health and Human Services Committee pushing small reform efforts. “That’s where I garnered an enormous deference to the issue of health care and its complexities,” Ms. Snowe said in an interview.
Maine’s history is a cautionary tale for national health reform. The state could never figure out how to slow the spiraling increase in medical costs, hobbling its efforts to offer more people insurance coverage. Many on Capitol Hill have criticized national reform legislation for similarly doing little to tame costs.
To Ms. Snowe, Maine’s past shows that change, while needed, should be incremental because mistakes are common. This is among the reasons she opposes an immediate public insurance option. “I mentioned to the president that people can’t digest everything at once,” she said in an interview.
To conservatives, Maine proves that government efforts to strictly regulate the nation’s health insurance market are doomed. Many of the reform proposals circulating on Capitol Hill have already been tried in Maine.
But a state-sponsored insurance plan has been capped at fewer than 9,000 because of financing problems, and the most common choice of those buying new plans in the state requires them to spend at least $15,000 a year before the insurer pays anything — leading many to avoid important medical visits.
Russ Sargent, 50, the owner of Yes Books in downtown Portland, has a shock of frizzy hair and a $10,000 annual deductible. He pays doctors in cash and recently scheduled a colonoscopy for which he agreed to pay $900 up-front. He is not confident that his insurer would pay if he ever got truly sick.
“I have friends in the same situation as me, and we all go through life with our fingers crossed hoping we never get sick,” Mr. Sargent said. “If I got cancer or needed a kidney, I’d go bankrupt. We all would.”
To help people like Mr. Sargent, the state is one of 17 that limit how much insurers can charge people for being older, and it does not allow exclusions for previous illnesses — both policies that are part of national reform proposals.
But one result is that premiums for younger people are relatively high. Although national proposals would require that nearly everyone get coverage or pay a penalty, Maine’s Legislature rejected such a mandate so many young people do not or cannot buy insurance — further skewing the insured pool to sicker and older people and making premiums that much higher.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/health/policy/11maine.html?hpwWait a second... they got rid of the "no pre-existing conditions" rule, but then they didn't require everyone to get insurance? Who in their right mind wouldn't just wait until they got sick and only then buy into the insurance system?
I thought the same thing. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Pelosi raises my hackles. The way people swooned over Obama was quite strange yet I am a democrat. I do not believe this issue is a partisan issue or should be.
If I were doing a health care reform I would start at the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists. That is as far as my grand idea goes though.
The problems of health care and it's reform cannot be resolved by ideologies. Who can see clearly the right path through all the agendas?
Pelosi raises my hackles. The way people swooned over Obama was quite strange yet I am a democrat. I do not believe this issue is a partisan issue or should be.
Agreed.
If I were doing a health care reform I would start at the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists. That is as far as my grand idea goes though.
Thats a great start! Service providers and the manufacturers must be addressed.
The problems of health care and it's reform cannot be resolved by ideologies. Who can see clearly the right path through all the agendas?
The right path for whom? When these people are basically being bribed on a daily basis, it obscures ones perspective, I would imagine.
Until we address cost control, insurance premiums, and reimbursement, among others, any of the programs on the table are doomed to fail to fix the problems in health care. The state programs in Mass and Maine show it.
The right path for whom?
Exactly
Who is standing up for the people.
Until we address cost control, insurance premiums, and reimbursement, among others, any of the programs on the table are doomed to fail
It sure feels that way.
Problem is common sense and politicians rarely meet. Its like a rule or something.
Health reform's hidden land mines
© November 16, 2009
By Carrie Budoff Brown and Chris Frates
After all the controversy over the public option, people might think that everyone can sign up right away if Congress passes health reform.
Or that insurance premiums will go down.
Or that they’ll be able to shop around for insurance if they don’t like what their company offers.
Think again.
When it comes to the public option, for instance, only about 1 in 10 Americans will be eligible, mainly people who don’t get insurance through work. Only about 6 million are expected to enroll. The plan doesn’t even start until 2013.
And most people who get insurance on the job would have to stick with it. No shopping in the new “insurance exchanges” for them.
President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress stand to reap the political rewards if they can pull off health reform, by achieving near-universal coverage, toughening regulations on private insurers and transforming the way health care is delivered.
But Democrats have glossed over nagging details of just how limited reform’s reach would be for some Americans. And if voters figure it out, experts warn there could be a political backlash.
“These things can be enormously popular early on,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University health policy professor and co-director of a polling project by the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But if the expectations are wrong, then they start to become much less popular.”
Other hidden problems lurk in the plan. Cutting costs relies on everyone owning insurance, but penalties in the Senate Finance Committee bill to force compliance are weak. Skip the fine, and all you’re asked to do is to one day pay up. A so-called millionaires tax in the House bill could eventually snare more and more families.
If the bill becomes law, Blendon said, the campaign for maintaining support for health care reform would only just begin. “It is not really over in people’s mind,” he said.
Here is POLITICO’s list of the biggest land mines in the bill:
http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2009/11/health-reforms-hidden-land-mines Skip the fine, and all you’re asked to do is to one day pay up.
But the fine would be filed as part of your taxes, right? You can't really skip the fine unless you skip filing taxes altogether, which has the potential for jail time. No one in their right mind thinks the IRS is a bunch of pansies who don't make good on their punishments.
Lobbyist Healthcare Talking Points Non-Scandal Shows Reform is Too Much, Too Fast
Saturday, the New York Times reported on its website that in the healthcare reform debate, "Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies."
The outrage on the talk shows began immediately. This morning, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan kept a running tally of the number of lawmakers caught using the Genentech talking points on a big billboard-type graphic—22 Republicans and 20 Democrats.
While the media was professing shock at this, the working stiffs I know in town were privately laughing. That's because, as an unnamed lobbyist told the New York Times, "This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it." He or she is right. Working as a speechwriter here in Washington, D.C., I can't tell you how many times I've been hired to write similar press statements, opinion editorials, and talking points on any number of issues. That's what lobbyists and public relations firms here in Washington do—they try to get lawmakers to agree with their clients' positions, and they try to get them to say so publicly. The ones who drafted the statements were just doing their jobs.
The problem is not that lobbyists wrote press statements and talking points. The problem is that lawmakers—and really, their staffs—did not reword the boilerplate language and make it their own. The lobbyists were doing their jobs; the lawmakers weren't.
So was it just laziness? Or are members and their staffs too overworked to drill down and do it right? Maybe it's both: Maybe they're too overwhelmed to understand healthcare reform without help from the outside, and so they took the easy way out. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing is going on with the economic bailouts, cap-and-trade, and any number of issues we're dealing with these days. Life is complicated lately in Washington, and I'm sure it is overwhelming at times.
No matter what the reason, the fact is that the people in the center of all this—the ones who have to write the legislation and vote on it—are relying word-for-word on what others tell them instead of analyzing the issue for themselves. That says something.
Maybe what it says is that this is all too much, too soon, too fast.
Link
This isn't new, but I thought/hoped things were gonna be different.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Dunno how valid this is, but it may answer some questions . . .
HEALTHCARE Q & A
Abortion, wellness and other healthcare bill questions
Also: Benefits available under the 'public option' in the House bill, and who wouldn't be covered under the legislation.
LinkCMS: House health bill will hike costs $289B
The House-approved healthcare overhaul would raise the costs of healthcare by $289 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
(READ THE FULL REPORT HERE)
The CMS report is a blow to the White House and House Democrats who have vowed that healthcare reform would curb the growth of healthcare spending. CMS's analysis is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the cost estimate conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) because CMS did not review tax provisions, which help offset the price tag of the Democrats' measure.
However, the CMS analysis clearly states that the House bill falls short in attaining a key goal of the Democrats' effort to reform the nation's healthcare system: "With the exception of the proposed reduction in Medicare... the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future healthcare cost growth rates."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67791-cms-house-health-bill-will-hike-costs-289bGovt: Medicare paid $47 billion in suspect claims
WASHINGTON — The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.
Excerpts of a new federal report, obtained by The Associated Press, show a dramatic increase in improper payments in the $440 billion Medicare program that has been cited by government auditors as a high risk for fraud and waste for 20 years.
It's not clear whether Medicare fraud is actually worsening. Much of the increase in the last year is attributed to a change in the Health and Human Services Department's methodology that imposes stricter documentation requirements and includes more improper payments — part of a data-collection effort being ordered government-wide by President Barack Obama this coming week to promote "honest budgeting" and accurate statistics.
Still, the fiscal 2009 financial report — covering the first few months of the Obama administration — highlights the challenges ahead for a government that is seeking in part to pay for its proposed health care overhaul by cracking down on Medicare fraud. While noting that several new anti-fraud efforts were beginning, the government report makes clear that "aggressive actions" to date aimed at reducing improper payments had yielded little improvement.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1-e3AW6RglZGaSK98EdgH97WgKQD9BVQ8Q00WASHINGTON — The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.
What percentage is that? It sounds rather small offhand.
Well, the article quoted above describes the $440 billion Medicare program. $47 billion of that makes it less than 10%. I am curious as to the percentage of waste in private health care programs.
Well, the article quoted above describes the $440 billion Medicare program. $47 billion of that makes it less than 10%. I am curious as to the percentage of waste in private health care programs.
Waste in the private healthcare programs is also known as profit. You will never see those numbers.
Well, I can see a doctor or a hospital profitting from unnecessary procedures or operations, but I don't see how the insurance company that pays for them would call that a good deal.
Senate health care legislation expected this week is likely to include a new long-term care insurance program to help the elderly and the disabled avoid going into nursing homes, Democratic officials say.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is expected to incorporate the voluntary program in legislation to be unveiled as early as Wednesday, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a final decision has not been made.
Known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act, the program was a top priority for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. It would begin to close a gap in the social safety net that's received little attention in the health care debate.
Fiscal conservatives and government economists have questioned whether the program would be financially sustainable over the long run, and insurance companies are lobbying to strip it from the health care bill.
Nonetheless, the House included the program in its health care legislation, with the approval of the Obama administration. In the Senate, the Health Committee bill had included it, but the Finance Committee omitted it. The approach Reid is considering in a combined bill would address the objections of fiscal conservatives by stipulating that premiums from the program could not be counted in offsetting the cost of the broader health care bill. Reid's office had no comment on Tuesday.
The cost of nursing homes averages $70,000 a year, and a home care attendant runs about $29 an hour. Medicare only covers temporary nursing home stays. Middle-class households have to exhaust their savings before an elder can qualify for nursing home coverage through Medicaid.
Under the proposed program, people would pay a modest monthly premium during their working years. If they become disabled, they would get a cash benefit of at least $50 a day that could be used to pay a home care attendant, buy supplies and equipment, make home improvements such as adding bathroom railings, or defray the costs of nursing home care.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the program would be fiscally solvent over a 75-year-period with the income from premiums, and no taxpayer financing. That assumes an initial monthly premium averaging $123, and a $75 daily benefit. People would sign up for the program at work through a payroll deduction. They would have to pay premiums for five years before they could qualify for benefits. Both the premiums and benefits would be adjusted annually.
Link
lol - fiscally solvent after 75 years.
I think is more the type of program needed than the proposals that the congress just passed, but I'm biased.
I think is more the type of program needed than the proposals that the congress just passed, but I'm biased.
What? Are you for this or against this? A program that avoids throwing people on the expense of Medicaid seems like a good one to me. :eyebrow:
Keep reading. You are going to be butt fucked in the end.
Not that end, the other end...
Link
lol - fiscally solvent after 75 years.
I think is more the type of program needed than the proposals that the congress just passed, but I'm biased.
What? Are you for this or against this? A program that avoids throwing people on the expense of Medicaid seems like a good one to me.
I am for this TYPE of program. The claims of fiscal solvency after 75 years must be a joke though. Nice of them to project something so far out after they are all dead and buried.
I am for this TYPE of program. The claims of fiscal solvency after 75 years must be a joke though. Nice of them to project something so far out after they are all dead and buried.
Provisions regarding a long-term care insurance program and assisted living programs are included in the House bill.
I would agree with you that these programs are essential for serving those who currently are grossly under served in meeting their health care needs.
It is also true that these provisions are probably among the more expensive provisions.
Where I might disagree with you is why the bills should exclude other equally necessary provisions to serve the 30+ million uninsured and/or to address the failures in the current system for those covered through employer-based plans.
Most of the provisions below are in both the House and Senate bills, with minor differences..... the form of a public option and the structure of an Insurance Exchange, the revenue sources, mandates on small businesses, and the anti-trust exemptions.
Both bills:
[INDENT]end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions.
prevent insurance companies from raising rates or dropping coverage for those who suddenly face a serious illness.
cap annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces significant unanticipated expenses or goes bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis.
drop all copays for preventive care.
ends any existing lifetime caps on what insurance companies will currently pay.
provide affordable choices to the uninsured through an Exchange offering multiple plans with different levels of coverage at different costs.
place limits on the administration costs as percent of premiums, thus limiting premium increases.
end the market monopoly in many states, where choices are currently severely restricted, thus opening those markets to increased competition....and increased competition breeds lower costs for consumers.
[/INDENT]
I still dont know which of these provisions you dont think are essential or, at the very least, an improvement over the current system.
You can't just sell the good parts. The parts with unintended consequences cannot be ignored. Costs are not controlled the bill will not fix the problems in Health Care today.
You can't just sell the good parts. The parts with unintended consequences cannot be ignored. Costs are not controlled the bill will not fix the problems in Health Care today.
In terms of the fiscal consequences, the CBO and the CMS both note that their respective findings are highly speculative. The CBO projects $billions in deficit reductions over 10+ years, the CMS projects $billions in additional costs...IMO, most likely it will be somewhere in between (there is a $500 billion guaranteed revenue source with the surcharge on the top .5% of taxpayers but much of the "savings through efficiencies and fraud reduction" are speculative and would only likely occur in the out years rather than immediately)....or you could cherry pick the cost studies that you like.
In terms of "fixing" the problems, the so-called unintended consequences, for the most part, are driven by ideology (your friend McCaughey) and/or corporate interests (insurance lobby, small business lobby, etc).
Tell it to the people who have been laid off in the name of expected changes due to the health care legislation.
Tell it to people who are experiencing skyrocketing deductibles in mandatory employer based plans.
The "highly speculative" findings are exactly the point.
More on the Medicare Commissions which operate now and will receive a significantly new role in the Healthcare Reform Bills now before Congress.
The Rationing Commission
Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.Article
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.
Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."
AP
On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."
As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.
The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission's decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn't agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board's decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.
Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.
So the Montana Democrat bowed and carved out exemptions for such providers, along with hospices and suppliers of medical equipment. Until 2019 the commission will thus only be allowed to attack Medicare Advantage, the program that gives 10 million seniors private insurance choices, and to raise premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage, which is run by private contractors. Notice a political pattern?
But a decade from now, such limits are off—which also happens to be roughly the time when ObamaCare's spending explodes. The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions.
Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excess cost growth," meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," as President Obama put it in June.
In other words, the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn't pretty.
The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.
So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.
Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."
If Democrats impose such a commission nationwide, it would constitute a radical change in U.S. health care. The reason that physician discretion—not Washington's cost-minded judgments—is at the core of medicine is that usually there are no "right" answers. The data from large clinical trials produce generic conclusions that rarely apply to individual patients, who have vastly different biologies, response rates to treatments, and often multiple conditions. A breakthrough drug like Herceptin, which is designed for a certain genetic subset of breast-cancer patients, might well be ruled out under such a standardized approach.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.htmlIn terms of the fiscal consequences, the CBO and the CMS both note that their respective findings are highly speculative.
They are also widely disparate. This is one thing that concerns me. Why would the administrations figures be any different?
Where I might disagree with you is why the bills should exclude other equally necessary provisions to serve the 30+ million uninsured and/or to address the failures in the current system for those covered through employer-based plans.
Don't put words in my mouth err (text in my posts?)
You must have me confused with someone else.
...
Don't put words in my mouth err (text in my posts?)
You must have me confused with someone else.
Sorry if I misunderstood this recent post:
I think is more the type of program needed than the proposals that the congress just passed, but I'm biased.
I willl rephrase the question.
Why do you think long-term care insurance and assisted living programs are "more the type of program needed" than basic coverage for 30+ million uninsured or ending exclusions based on pre-existing conditions for millions or capping out-of-pocket expenses so that other millions dont face bankruptcy every year as a result of a medical crisis or....
I understand that we all have our personal reasons for prioritizing what is needed and what should be covered in any health care reform.
But I believe we need to look beyond our personal experiences to what provides the best opportunity for assisting the greatest number of people in need.
The way they are being handled not the actual objectives.
More on the Medicare Commissions which operate now and will receive a significantly new role in the Healthcare Reform Bills now before Congress.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html
Oh Man...this opinionated writer used all the buzz word except "death panels" -- we have ObamaCare, government run, health care rationing, making your medical decisions for you.....blah blah blah.
Come on, Merc.....give us something new and original, that pretends, at least to some degree, to actually cite facts.
Come on, Merc.....give us something new and original, that pretends, at least to some degree, to actually cite facts.
Which parts do you think are not factual.
Which parts do you think are not factual.
The Independent Medicare Commission proposed in the Senate bill is charged with developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare to curb the anticipated exploding growth with the baby boomers so that it remains sustainable.
That might include more comprehensive and coordinated research on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments as well as specific cost cutting measures to providers.
It will not establish clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment. It will not adversely impact essential medical services to seniors.
There is specific language in the bill:
[INDENT]
The proposals (of the Commission) shall not include any recommendation to ration health care....or Medicare beneficiary premiums....or increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria....[/INDENT]
Another scare tactic...like the death panels.
The Independent Medicare Commission proposed in the Senate bill is charged with developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare to curb the anticipated exploding growth with the baby boomers so that it remains sustainable.
That might include more comprehensive and coordinated research on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments as well as specific cost cutting measures to providers.
It will not establish clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.
There is specific language in the bill:
[INDENT]The proposals (of the Commission) shall not include any recommendation to ration health care....or Medicare beneficiary premiums....or increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria....[/INDENT]
Another scare tactic.
But Medicare already does this. Why do you think it is going to change. None of that language prevents them from doing what they already do. They do establish payments by procedure, which they low ball, and they dictate coverage by only paying for certain procedures in certain enviroments but not in others. And they dictate what is covered and what is not. Nothing will really change in that matter. They do it every single day. Only now thay are going to add more to the rolls. I don't think you are familiar with how billing works. What they hell do you think "developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare" means?
But Medicare already does this. Why do you think it is going to change. None of that language prevents them from doing what they already do. They do establish payments by procedure, which they low ball, and they dictate coverage by only paying for certain procedures in certain enviroments but not in others. And they dictate what is covered and what is not. Nothing will really change in that matter. They do it every single day. Only now thay are going to add more to the rolls. I don't think you are familiar with how billing works.
I agree. For the most part, it is nothing new...so why the new scare?
Why didnt the WSJ writer acknowledge that it is "nothing new" rather than characterize it as "ObamaCare rationing...government making health care decisions...."?
The biggest change will drastically cut payments to MA providers, who had agreed to hold costs to 5% of Medicare schedules and are now at 15+%.
IT might mean that Medicare wont continue to pay MA private providers to subsidize grandma's membership in a health club.
I agree that neither bill "fixes" the Medicare problem.....but they do address some of the waste and fraud...particularly to MA providers that have been overcharging for years.
On an entirely different level, we need long-term entitlement reform.....Social Security and Medicare and it wont be easy....but IMO, those issues should be handled separately.
I agree. For the most part, it is nothing new...so why the new scare?
Why didnt the WSJ writer acknowledge that it is "nothing new" rather than characterize it as "ObamaCare rationing...government making health care decisions...."?
The biggest change will drastically cut payments to MA providers, who had agreed to hold costs to 5% of Medicare schedules and are now at 15+%.
Oh I never read it as a "scare". If it is nothing new why are you trying to say it is not happening and will not happen in the future. It is rationing. We have had rationing of healthcare since the insurance industry was invented. So why are you saying it is not? As go Medicare payments so go many private insurance companies. And now the government will add millions of people the rolls.
IT might mean that Medicare wont continue to pay MA private providers to subsidize grandma's membership in a health club.
Why choose one tiny aspect of Medicare Advantage? That is right out of the liberal talking points. Why don't you want to support preventive care and activities that keep seniors healthy?
Why choose one tiny aspect of Medicare Advantage? That is right out of the liberal talking points. Why don't you want to support preventive care and activities that keep seniors healthy?
I support preventive care...I dont support lining the pockets of MA providers with excessive profits. The savings is not tiny and other providers will fill the niche at lower costs.
I also support equity. Why should wealthier retirees get free or discounted gym memberships through MA while those might need it more are excluded because of more limited income.
I support preventive care...I dont support lining the pockets of MA providers with excessive profits. The savings is not tiny and other providers will fill the niche at lower costs.
I also support equity. Why should wealthier retirees get free gym memberships?
Who says they are wealthier? Where is the data that shows that seniors who use Medicare Advanatge to support health maintenance at a gym are all wealthy?
BOHICA! Taxes are going to go up and the pass through of fees will be felt by the consumer.
The CBO may grab all the headlines in wonky conversations about the costs and effects of big health-care bills. But the Joint Committee on Taxation, another nonpartisan body, also plays a key role: Estimating how much revenue new taxes are likely to generate.
Last night, JCT put out this handy PDF estimating the effects of the new tax rules included in the Senate health-care bill. The document shows how many different sources the Senate bill would draw on to pay for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.
We won’t repeat the whole list, but here’s how much revenue some of the provisions are estimated to generate over the next decade:
Tax on high-end health insurance plans: $149.1 billion
Capping flexible spending accounts at $2,500: $14.6 billion
Fees for drug makers: $22.2 billion
Fees for medical device makers: $19.3 billion
Fees for health insurance companies: $60.4 billion
Higher floor for deducting medical expenses: $15.2 billion
Higher payroll tax for top earners: $53.8 billion
Tax on cosmetic surgery: $5.8 billion
Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages
in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint)
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of
$8,500/$23,000 indexed for inflation by CPI-U
plus 1% and increased thresholds for over age 55
retirees or certain high-risk professions; levied at
insurer level; employer aggregates and issues
information return for insurers indicating amount
subject to the excise tax; nondeductible; high 17
state transition relief
http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3635Reid has decided to raise the Medicare payroll tax on individuals making more than $106,800
And this whole tax on cosmetic surgery. Does this not bother anyone? Talk about a attacking a narrow group of people. Do they think that only rich people get cosmetic surgery? Anybody here ever have their teeth whitened? Is it a value statement about people who get cosmetic surgery? The effective date is 1 Jan 2010.
Page 2045
SEC. 9017. EXCISE TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES ''Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.
''SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
''(a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby imposed on any cosmetic surgery and medical procedure a tax equal to 5 percent of the amount paid for such procedure (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.
''(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which-
''(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and
''(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.
''(c) PAYMENT OF TAX.-
''(1) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the individual on whom the procedure is performed.
''(2) COLLECTION.-Every person receiving a payment for procedures on which a tax is imposed under subsection (a) shall collect the amount of the
tax from the individual on whom the procedure is performed and remit such tax quarterly to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided
by the Secretary.
''(3) SECONDARY LIABILITY.-Where any tax imposed by subsection (a) is not paid at the time payments for cosmetic surgery and medical procedures are made, then to the extent that such tax is not collected, such tax shall be paid by the person who performs the procedure.''.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 48 the following new item:
''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES''.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to procedures performed on or after January 1, 2010.
Statistics concerning cosmetic surgery:
http://www.cosmeticplasticsurgerystatistics.com/statistics.htmlThe Full Report from the CBO November 18, 2009 about the impact and details of the Senate Bill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdfAnd this whole tax on cosmetic surgery. Does this not bother anyone? Talk about a attacking a narrow group of people. Do they think that only rich people get cosmetic surgery? Anybody here ever have their teeth whitened? Is it a value statement about people who get cosmetic surgery?
Nope, doesn't bother me. In-office teeth whitening cost:
$650 per visit (on average) nationwide. 5% tax on that amount = $32.50.
It's just another luxury tax. It's true that it's not only rich people who get cosmetic surgery--
which ought to make you happy, since you're always upset about the idea that rich people would be unfairly taxed more than others. You can't seem to reconcile whether you want everything to be fair for everyone, or for government to stop targeting us average middle-class folks. If you think there should be no taxes for anything, just come out and say it.
You can't seem to reconcile whether you want everything to be fair for everyone, or for government to stop targeting us average middle-class folks. If you think there should be no taxes for anything, just come out and say it.
Nope. I want everyone to be taxed the same. Picking out cosmetic surgery is stupid. Why not pick out people who own boats? Ummm, how about any family with more than 3 kids? It is stupid on it's face.
How Democrats Buy Votes:
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:
What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?
Here’s a case study.
On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.
How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
Here’s the incredibly complicated language:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.htmlWhy not pick out people who own boats?
:lol:
Because they already do.
Nope. I want everyone to be taxed the same. Picking out cosmetic surgery is stupid. Why not pick out people who own boats? Ummm, how about any family with more than 3 kids? It is stupid on it's face.
I say just tax conservatives and repubicans.:p
:lol: Because they already do.
Ah, yes, but that is in the state of Texas and it is a state tax used for their general fund. It is not a federal tax used to pay for healthcare. Lots of states tax boats.
I say just tax conservatives and repubicans.:p
I say tax everyone who gets contact lenses, since that is purely cosmetic. I am going to have to look into that one! :lol2: I am writing Reid now.
Congressional Budget Office analysis of the dramatically scaled-down public plan that Reid (D-Nev.) included in his $848 billion measure said it would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge "somewhat higher" premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers.
The decision to permit states to opt out of the public plan is partly to blame for the Reid proposal's lack of reach, as it would leave about a third of the people in the country without access to the program, according to the CBO's calculation. But even the national plan approved by the House this month would attract only about 6 million people, the nonpartisan group has said, primarily because it would lack the tools to keep costs and premiums down.
"This is an example of a weak version of the public option, and it raises the question: Why are we doing this at all?" said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Research Center at the liberal Urban Institute. "If your goal is cost-containment and lower government subsidy costs, this isn't working, and the CBO is telling them that."
But he added that ***he would "probably" offer an amendment to strengthen the public plan by requiring it to pay hospitals and other providers based on Medicare rates, which are typically much lower than those paid by private insurers.***
Health policy experts said that would give the public plan a big competitive advantage over the version proposed by Reid and approved by the House. Both of those provisions would require federal health officials to negotiate rates directly with providers, a system that would leave the government generally paying the same rates paid by private insurers, the CBO said.
The public plan would probably charge higher premiums, however, because federal health officials would be unlikely to employ the sort of hard-nosed tactics private firms use to keep costs down, such as denying certain medical procedures, according to the CBO analysis. That would attract sicker people to the public plan, forcing it to charge higher premiums.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111902631.html
So if premiums are going to be HIGHER than the private sector how the hell is that a deal for the taxpayers? So the public option is not less expensive it is more expensive.
I say tax everyone who gets contact lenses, since that is purely cosmetic. I am going to have to look into that one! :lol2: I am writing Reid now.
I agree! :lol2:
I agree! :lol2:
As long as it is 40% of the retail price.
As long as it is 40% of the retail price.
Sure! Except therapetic lenses. All others are unnecessary, so go ahead and tax them.
Sure! Except therapetic lenses. All others are unnecessary, so go ahead and tax them.
No one gets a break. Let them wear glasses.
No one gets a break. Let them wear glasses.
Some people can't get good vision with glasses (see
keratoconus). Do you want people with poor vision driving on the same roads that you do?
I would like people with poor vision driving on the same roads merc does.
kidding, I kid. :lol:
Some people can't get good vision with glasses (see keratoconus). Do you want people with poor vision driving on the same roads that you do?
No, they should be denied a drivers license. :) and given glasses.
If they really want to tax something that will help healthcare tax all tobacco products and all alcohol 40% of the retail price. Just make sure that the money goes directly to paying for healthcare and not siphoned off like they have with the Social Security Tax.
Tax guns and pick up trucks, 50%.
Tax guns and pick up trucks, 50%.
Try it. :D
Tax Birth control Pills.
Tax viagra.
I'd be cool with that.
I'd be cool with that.
Are you still using Cialis?
Are you still using Cialis?
Never tried it, how do you like it? Still drawing stick figures of your fantasies and posting them on safe for work threads on The Cellar?
This is the CBO's analysis of how the Reid bill will cut Medicare.
November 20, 2009
Have Democratic Leaders Gone Mad?
With the introduction of Harry Reid's health care bill - talk will inevitably focus on whether the public option or the Stupak amendment will undermine the legislation. Yet, if the bill dies, I do not think either of these will be the primary cause of death.
I think this will be the culprit:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/have_democratic_leaders_gone_m.htmlThis is the CBO's analysis of how the Reid bill will cut Medicare.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/have_democratic_leaders_gone_m.html
Of the $491 billion in projected cuts:
* $118 billions results from setting payment rates to MA providers on the basis of the average of the bids submitted by those providers in each market...these are the guys who have been overcharging by an estimated 15%. Will it impact services? Probably not. The contracts just wont go the guys who have been overcharging the most..and others will step up.
* Another $192 billion are not really cuts...but reductions in the annual rate of increase for most services in the basic fee-for service program....starting in the out years and based on assumptions of savings through greater efficiencies and fraud detection. A realistic number...probably not. But in any case, the legislation stipulates that any efficiency improvements can not be based on modifying (reducing) eligibility or benefit levels.
Of the $491 billion in projected cuts:
* $118 billions results from setting payment rates to MA providers on the basis of the average of the bids submitted by those providers in each market...these are the guys who have been overcharging by an estimated 15%. Will it impact services? Probably not. The contracts just wont go the guys who have been overcharging the most..and others will step up.
* Another $192 billion are not really cuts...but reduction in the annual rate of increase....starting in the out years and based on assumptions of savings through greater efficiencies and fraud detection. A realistic number...probably not. But in any case, the legislation stipulates that any efficiency improvements can not be based on modifying (reducing) eligibility or benefit levels.
Smoke and mirrors. Right out of the Demoncratic talking points, "Not really a cut but a reduction..." :lol:
A realistic number...probably not.
Bingo!
I think we agree that the projected savings are questionable. The savings from cuts to MA providers is real, with no likely impact on patients.
But it still means no cuts in eligibility or benefit levels.....at least in these bills.
Which we also agree is unsustainable in the long-term.
Which is why there needs to be a hard look at entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid -- but, IMO, in a separate discussion.
If you take ONLY the part that the savings are questionable then it throws off the whole idea that the plan is "Deficit Neutral". Hence, services will be reduced. That mean cuts. If you have a program at level X and you reduce services, regardless of what value you placed on a service like MA, then that means the program is being cut. You and your guys sure like to use smoke and mirrors to pretend that what is really happening is not really happening.
If you take ONLY the part that the savings are questionable then it throws off the whole idea that the plan is "Deficit Neutral". Hence, services will be reduced. That mean cuts. If you have a program at level X and you reduce services, regardless of what value you placed on a service like MA, then that means the program is being cut. You and your guys sure like to use smoke and mirrors to pretend that what is really happening is not really happening.
Merc....we simply disagree.
You call it smoke and mirrors by Democrats and I call it fear-mongering by Republicans and the impacted industries (insurance companies, small businesses - investing $tens of millions in lobbying and media buys to protect their own interests).
Merc....we simply disagree.
I agree.
You call it smoke and mirrors by Democrats and I call it fear-mongering by Republicans and the impacted industries (insurance companies, small businesses - investing $tens of millions in lobbying and media buys to protect their own interests).
I agree to some degree. But why would you attack small business? They are not the evil entity here.
I wouldnt penalize the small businesses if I had my way.
The best way to fund any revenue shortfalls, IMO, would be to extend the surcharge on the top taxpayers....from the top 1/2 of one percent to the top 2%....leaving 98% of taxpayers not impacted by the costs.
But then you and UG would call me a socialist....:jig:
I wouldnt penalize the small businesses if I had my way.
The best way to fund any revenue shortfalls, IMO, would be to extend the surcharge on the top taxpayers....from the top 1/2 of one percent to the top 2%....leaving 98% of taxpayers not impacted by the costs.
But then you and UG would call me a socialist....
If you want to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to make money and give it to those who haven't been so fortunate, you are promoting a socialist ideal. Wealth Redistribution. :3eye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economicsIf you want to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to make money and give it to those who haven't been so fortunate, you are promoting a socialist ideal. Wealth Redistribution. :3eye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
Or as I proposed a long time ago in this discussion...raise the FICA rate, which is currently capped on wages over $100k. Those under $100K pay 6% and the rate effectively goes down as wages go up. A person making $300K only pays 2% (6% on the first $100K, then 0% on the last $200K).
Is it "fair" that you pay a 6% FICA tax and a guy with a $1 million salary pays less than a 1% tax? Does he work harder than you?
Or as I proposed a long time ago in this discussion...raise the FICA rate, which is currently capped on wages over $100k. Those under $100K pay 6% and the rate effectively goes down as wages go up. A person making $300K only pays 2% (6% on the first $100K, then 0% on the last $200K).
Is it "fair" that you pay a 6% FICA tax and a guy with a $1 million salary pays less than a 1% tax? Does he work harder than you?
I could actually support something like that as long as all wages are taxed equally across the board and no one is exempt from paying the tax at the lowest end as well. Just do away with other taxes.
The best way to fund any revenue shortfalls, IMO, would be to extend the surcharge on the top taxpayers....from the top 1/2 of one percent to the top 2%....leaving 98% of taxpayers not impacted by the costs.
But why penalize the people who already pay the majority of taxes. Why not let the portion that pays the least pick up some of the slack?
November 20, 2009
Progressive Taxation is punishing success
Scott Strzelczyk
According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 1% of federal income tax filers paid 36.89% and 40.42% of all federal income taxes in 2004 and 2007, respectively. That equates to a 9.6% increase in the percentage of taxes paid over the four year period.
Total tax collected increased by 44% from 2004 to 2007; however the top1% actual taxes paid increased by 54% in the same period. The top 25% paid nearly 87% of all federal income taxes in 2007, while the bottom 50% paid 2.89%.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/progressive_taxation_is_punish.htmlI could actually support something like that.....
Oh man, we were SO close, I thought I saw
But then there was this:
...and no one is exempt from paying the tax at the lowest end as well.
and this:
But why penalize the people who already pay the majority of taxes. Why not let the portion that pays the least pick up some of the slack?
Those who pay the least and/or living from paycheck to paycheck have no slack!
But why penalize the people who already pay the majority of taxes. Why not let the portion that pays the least pick up some of the slack?
November 20, 2009
Progressive Taxation is punishing success
Scott Strzelczyk
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/progressive_taxation_is_punish.html
My heart simply breaks for the plight of those earning $400,000 or so per year. We must help these people anyway we can before its too late. If we continue to treat them this way they may retaliate by going on welfare. :rolleyes:
My heart simply breaks for the plight of those earning $400,000 or so per year. We must help these people anyway we can before its too late. If we continue to treat them this way they may retaliate by going on welfare. :rolleyes:
No, but I fully support them all paying a same percentage of their income as everyone else.
Those who pay the least and/or living from paycheck to paycheck have no slack!
Yea, they have so much extra lets just take it from them. When are you going to start the killing people in certain tax brackets so you can take their money and give it to those who pay little to no tax?
You don't kill people in certain tax brackets to take their money. You kill people in certain tax brackets to take their organs.
What about their piano's?
The upper 1 percent may have seen a 9.4% increase in taxes, but:
Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908
Why not let the portion that pays the least pick up some of the slack?
Because the portion that pays the least is living paycheck to paycheck, trying to get by. Their incomes didn't show anywhere near the increase that the upper 1% did, and they can least afford higher taxes.
Why all this hand wringing over millionaires? Baby needs a new Mercedes? :eyebrow:
During times of economic growth, the rich get richer faster. During times of economic contraction, the rich get poorer faster. So when they pick
from 2002 to 2007
...as the timeframe to measure, when one recession started in 2001 and another in 2008, that's pretty much the expected result.
According to the US Census Bureau:
From 2000 to 2007, workers at the 20th percentile saw a 6.0% decline in income, followed in 2008 by a further decline of 1.7%. Workers at the 95th percentile saw an increase of 1.2 percent from 2000 to 2007, but a decrease of 2.1% in 2008
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/income_picture_20090910/
So, the upper income bracket is still much better off over all. Let them eat cake.
Because the portion that pays the least is living paycheck to paycheck, trying to get by. Their incomes didn't show anywhere near the increase that the upper 1% did, and they can least afford higher taxes.
People figure out how to get by. We could have a completely socialized system if every swinging dick paid the same percent of their income. Ask a guy who makes $1000 a week if he would be willing to give up $60 a week for free health care I bet he would agree in a heart beat. Everyone should pay for it.
People figure out how to get by...
Figure out how to"get by"....Now that is an impressive stat. :eek:
Your compassion is overwhelming!
Figure out how to"get by"....Now that is an impressive stat. :eek:
Your compassion is overwhelming!
Compassion lies in the ability to learn how to get people how to help themselves, not do it for them.
Compassion lies in the ability to learn how to get people how to help themselves, not do it for them.
Compassion is also providing a social safety net for those facing temporary set-backs....or easing the tax burden on those who have little to spare beyond meeting basic needs.
Every westernized capitalistic country in the world understands that and have such policies.
Compassion is also providing a social safety net for those facing temporary set-backs....or easing the tax burden, bla, bla, bla...
Talk about
tax burden :lol:, you mean on those that pay little to no Federal Income Tax?
You learn pride by contributing to your station. Not having people continually had in to you on a silver platter. I doubt you would find many people who wouldn't be willing to give 6% of their income for free healthcare at the lower end of the socioeconomic scales. Esp anyone who has ever had a health problem which significantly impacted their income.
Oh look!
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE: $300 MILLION FOR MY VOTE!
By Dana Milbank
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.
On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping -- the bill survived Saturday's procedural test without a single vote to spare -- and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn't enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were "not the reason" for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. "My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform," she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes -- and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.
And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.htmlTalk about tax burden :lol:, you mean on those that pay little to no Federal Income Tax?
You learn pride by contributing to your station. Not having people continually had in to you on a silver platter. I doubt you would find many people who wouldn't be willing to give 6% of their income for free healthcare at the lower end of the socioeconomic scales. Esp anyone who has ever had a health problem which significantly impacted their income.
Merc....I understand what you're saying.
You want a single mom, working two jobs and still barely able to afford food, clothing, rent....to be assessed at the same tax rate as Paris Hilton.
Very compassionate of you!
Let's not forget we've addressed Merc's magical 6% number before. 6% of everyone's income will not pay for healthcare for everyone. I believe the number we arrived at was around 20% the last time we discussed this, if you spread the tax rate equally among everyone. Or you can tax the lower end 6% after all, and the upper end 45%, and call it a day.
... and the upper end 45%, and call it a day.
It already is that if you include state tax... and we still can't pay for it.
Seriously, why don't we just kill them and take all their money? Gates, Clinton's, Kennedy's, Bush's, all of them...
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000” a year, could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aPO6Hrw_x85AIt already is that if you include state tax... and we still can't pay for it.
Then why do you keep spouting arguments about a "6% rate for everyone" when you know it's foolish?
Then why do you keep spouting arguments about a "6% rate for everyone" when you know it's foolish?
Actually it is not foolish if you make everyone pay for it. Not as the sole source of tax, only a tax that everyone would pay for health care. Actually a number of 12-15% would be more realistic. I chose 6% as a starting point arbitrarily to make the point everyone should pay.
People figure out how to get by. We could have a completely socialized system if every swinging dick paid the same percent of their income. Ask a guy who makes $1000 a week if he would be willing to give up $60 a week for free health care I bet he would agree in a heart beat. Everyone should pay for it.
Somebody who makes a $1,000.00 per week will figure out how to get by. A single mom who makes a $1,000 or so a month is going to be hard pressed to come up with that extra money every month. Forcing a person into a situation where they either get health care or don't get quite enough to eat is not called allowing them to "contribute to their station." Its called putting them between a rock and a hard place.
Where did you ever get "contributing to their station," anyhow? You come off as sounding like some arrogant member of the Victorian upper class. :headshake
Where did you ever get "contributing to their station," anyhow? You come off as sounding like some arrogant member of the Victorian upper class.
That is not my intention. Do you not believe we live in a stratified society? Every Western culture does. I believe we should help everyone help themselves. The money a single mother with have to come up with may be cheaper than the money she will have to come up with for mandatory insurance. Very few people would be on the lowest end. Everybody should pay into a system they benefit from. No one gets a pass.
Check out 60 Minutes NOW. Death in America and cost control of Healthcare. Read it and weep.
If Democrats succeed in passing their legislation, it may leave consumers feeling a little cheated.
Many middle-class families who'd be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.
Both House and Senate bills now provide for a government insurance plan, but Reid's bill would let states opt out.
If all the states opt out, does it still exist?
Link temporary coverage for people with health problems
I'm confused. If a person currently has health problems and no health insurance, in all likelihood they'd save money by jumping onto a government plan. It's the people who have no coverage and aren't sick that are getting sucked in against their will...
Me too, The problem is that I'd bet most of those who voted for this don't know the answer either.
The most important thing any of you can understand is that there is no LIMIT on what the insurance companies can charge you or pass on to you in the form of deductables.
NO PLAN in Congress at this time fixes the problems with healthcare in America today. None of them.
Look at how they bought the Senate vote frome LA. It is all frigging smoke and mirrors. You are about to butt screw your grand children.
I'm confused. If a person currently has health problems and no health insurance, in all likelihood they'd save money by jumping onto a government plan. It's the people who have no coverage and aren't sick that are getting sucked in against their will...
Clod...it is not jumping into a government plan.
Those w/o insurance would have the opportunity to purchase through the Insurance Exchange administered by the government, but with plans offered by the private sector.
To participate in the Exchange, insurance companies would be required to offer 4 plan levels, from basic to premium, priced accordingly....envision those companies competing for those millions of new consumers through more competitive pricing than presently exists. The public option would simply be one more plan to further drive competition.
The added benefit for those currently with insurance is that companies participating in the Exchange would be required to offer the same more competitive pricing to employer-based plans.
As to mandated those who have no coverage arent sick, consider that 1) insurance is not just for the sick, but as a safeguard against an unanticipated medical emergency and 2) when they many of those uninsured now get sick and go to the emergency room for routine treatment or face a catastrophic medical emergency and renege on the bill, then the rest of us pay for it in higher premiums.
Me too, The problem is that I'd bet most of those who voted for this don't know the answer either.
If I know the answer, I dont think it is unreasonable to think that most members of Congress do as well.
Redux, you've been on the defensive for too long. I'm in favor of health care reform.
But you still didn't explain the thing that was confusing me. The news article stated that
Many middle-class families who'd be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.
These two sentences seem to be non-sequiturs to me. Say you have a hypothetical middle class family, the Smiths, and they currently have no insurance (thus, they fall into the category outlined in sentence #1, those who would be required to now purchase coverage under the new plan. If the Smiths have no health problems, then yes, for them,
right now, they will be paying more money and that will presumably make them sad. (Forget whether it's better for them in the long run, because that's not important right now.) But sentence #2 starts talking about people with health problems. If the Smiths have health problems, and have no insurance (as we inferred from sentence #1,) then they are currently paying a shit-ton out of pocket for their medical expenses. The new government plan that they are "required" to buy into will be a good deal for them, because it in all likelihood will cost less than their current health problems are costing them.
So why do we need a temporary fund to give these people coverage, when they will already be able to buy the coverage for less than they're currently spending on their health problems? Unless the assumption is that they have no insurance, and are not treating their health problems in any way, and also have no intention of getting them treated under the government plan either. In which case letting them continue to choose to live with their health problems doesn't seem to require a special federal fund.
The temporary fund is to assist those family on the cost of premiums until the Insurance Exchange is established and the more competitively priced plans by private insurance companies who chose to participate in the Exchange are in place...a period of probably 2+ years to write regulations, put those regulations out for public comment, revise the regulations.....
The mandate to purchase insurance wont kick in until the Exchange is in place, so no one will be forced to buy insurance until that time....so many folks currently w/o insurance will not see immediate relief.
Neither bill is an overnight fix...the temporary funds will help.
I'll try to keep the defensiveness to a minimum, even with the massive misinformation campaign in place, much of which is perpetuated and regurgitated here on a regular basis. ;)
I'll try to keep the defensiveness to a minimum, even with the massive misinformation campaign in place, much of which is perpetuated and regurgitated here on a regular basis. ;)
I'm afraid the misinformation is being regurgitated by you, Redux. You're working from the flawed assumption that 1) it will work, and better than the VA does, 2) that it will not eviscerate the dollar when the inflation they're buying at length arrives, and 3) that a bureaucracy will be a less expensive means of determining medical need than the patient-doctor relationship now. Bureaucracies do not save money or generate wealth. Only the private sector can do that.
We question these three points through actual experience of government programs, Redux. Oddly, for a man of your parts, you believe in the efficacy of all of them. There is a disconnect between your raw intellectual powers and your politics and social values which I cannot fathom, nor credit. Perhaps you have no experience of government.
No, no: we'll all live much better once we minimize government involvement in our lives down to the barest-bones necessary minimum, which is far lower than what you seem to prefer. Privatization is salvation.
I'm afraid the misinformation is being regurgitated by you, Redux. ~snip~ Perhaps you have no experience of government.
:headshake :eyebrow: :right:
I'm afraid the misinformation is being regurgitated by you, Redux. You're working from the flawed assumption that 1) it will work, and better than the VA does, 2) that it will not eviscerate the dollar when the inflation they're buying at length arrives, and 3) that a bureaucracy will be a less expensive means of determining medical need than the patient-doctor relationship now. Bureaucracies do not save money or generate wealth. Only the private sector can do that.
We question these three points through actual experience of government programs, Redux. Oddly, for a man of your parts, you believe in the efficacy of all of them. There is a disconnect between your raw intellectual powers and your politics and social values which I cannot fathom, nor credit. Perhaps you have no experience of government.
No, no: we'll all live much better once we minimize government involvement in our lives down to the barest-bones necessary minimum, which is far lower than what you seem to prefer. Privatization is salvation.
More than 200 mllion people will retain their employed-based privately-administered health insurance.....with added protections and benefits - no more denials for pre-existing conditions, annual caps on out-of-pocket expenses which will eliminate the number cause of personal bankruptcy in the country, etc. No single payer system, no socialized medicine...no such bullshit.
The Insurance Exhange is not based on a VA model, but on the FEHB model where private insurance companies will compete for the uninsured by offering a range of plans, with premiums priced respectively.
Read the legislation...not the Merc/tea bag talking points.
There are no controls on what the employer based plans can charge you in premiums. There are no controls on what the employer based plans can charge you for deductables. It is not bull shit or "Merc/tea bag talking points" ala Reflux.
After Saturday’s procedural vote in the Senate, health care legislation will finally move forward to a full floor debate and transparent amendment process. With that in mind, it is important to analyze some of the most troubling aspects of the Senate health care legislation, particularly the increase in the payroll tax that many are calling the “Medicare AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).” Putting aside for a moment the other problems with increasing the payroll tax, the current proposal is not indexed for inflation. This means it will hit an increasing number of middle class families each year, just like the Alternative Minimum Tax does today. This is a big deal, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s start at the beginning.
In an effort to raise money to finance $841 billion in new health care subsidies, Senate Democrats propose increasing Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax. This tax increase is billed by supporters as something that “will not only help fund health care reform, but will also extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.” With this one sentence, Senate Democrats not only perfectly capture the absurdity of current “trust fund” accounting conventions, but also signal a total lack of seriousness when it comes to offsetting the new costs associated with health “reform.”
The HI tax was originally set at 0.35% when it was established in 1966 as a new payroll tax to fund Medicare. Since then, the tax has increased more than eight times over to the current combined rate of 2.9%. As fast as the tax rate has risen, its growth has been unable to keep up with the increase in the wage base to which the tax is applied. In 1966, the HI tax applied only to the first $6,600 of wages. In 1991, the HI taxable maximum earnings base was raised to $125,000, and in 1994 the cap was eliminated entirely.
Revenues from the HI tax are “deposited” in the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, which is running a $20.5 billion deficit (p. 56 of pdf) in 2009. The Trust Fund is expected to continue to hemorrhage money for the next seven years until 2017 when it is expected to be bankrupt. Should Congress elect to keep the program running beyond this date (a safe assumption), the cost to the rest of the budget is estimated to be over $13 trillion in present value. This is the money Congress would need to invest today to keep Medicare Part A solvent over the 75 year window. And this figure does not include the additional funds that would be necessary to close the even more gaping holes in the other parts of Medicare, principally Part B (doctors’ visits) and Part D (prescription drug coverage), which are actually several times larger than the Part A deficit.
Senate Democrats propose raising the HI tax rate by 0.5% to 3.4% on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) beginning in 2013. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this tax increase will raise $54 billion over ten years. Given the scale of the Medicare funding deficit, some might argue that these additional HI revenues are necessary. But this is not what Democrats propose; this $54 billion would be used to finance entirely new health insurance subsidies for non-Medicare beneficiaries. The money just gets counted as though it’s deposited in the Medicare Trust Fund because the tax is deducted as part of the FICA line item on a worker’s paycheck.
While the person who devised this scheme has no doubt received hearty congratulations from the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus, the cynicism embedded in this strategy is breathtaking. Each dollar raised from the tax increase gets counted by the Joint Committee on Taxation as offsetting new health spending at the same time that very same dollar is treated by the Medicare Actuaries as being deposited in the Medicare Trust Fund. But if this sort of double counting is such a good idea, why stop at $54 billion? Why not pay for the entire health care reform bill through HI tax increases that also extend the solvency of the HI trust fund?
continues:
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/payroll-tax-increase-loophole-and-ticking-time-bombA Year of Magical Thinking
The Democrats' health care dream is everyone else's nightmare.
Next time you run into a group of Democrats, offer to splash water on their faces. They've spent 2009 in a dream state, and it's time they wake up. They're convinced that they can subsidize health insurance for millions of people while also "bending the cost curve" of health care spending. They want to sign us up for the political equivalent of one of those three-step "eat more to lose weight" diets. Step one: Pile on the expenditures, regulations, taxes, and fees. Step two: Close your eyes. Step three: Pray it all works out in the end.
Sorry, it won't. Entitlements cost money, and they almost invariably cost more than the government's initial predictions. When you increase demand for a product and the supply remains fixed, the price rises. Thanks to the individual mandate, the Democratic health care bills lasso Americans into a heavily regulated health insurance oligopoly. All these new consumers will wander through the government-run "exchanges," buying the plans they can afford with taxpayer subsidies. As demand for health care increases, so will the cost.
The idea that expanding coverage will save the country money has always been a fantasy. True, the Congressional Budget Office found that, under certain assumptions that the authors of the legislation in effect required the CBO to make, the House and Senate health bills might not blow up the deficit over the next decade. But that won't happen in the real world. For one thing, doctors' reimbursements just aren't going to be cut 20 percent.
The situation with respect to the long-term deficit is even worse. The Lewin Group, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the government's own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have all said that Obamacare won't control costs in the long term. When the experts at Peterson and Lewin looked at the template for legislation now under debate in the Senate, they found that it "does not bend the total health care cost curve downward as a percentage of the economy."
Consider what's happened in Massachusetts since its 2006 health care reform went into effect. More people in the Bay State have health insurance--and costs keep on rising. RAND recently found that health care spending is growing 8 percent faster in Massachusetts than the state's GDP. To deal with this situation, the state government has had to trim coverage and raise taxes. Even the New York Times editorial board has admitted that Massachusetts hasn't figured out "how to slow the relentless rise in medical costs and private insurance premiums."
continues:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/267aexag.asp
Consider what's happened in Massachusetts since its 2006 health care reform went into effect. More people in the Bay State have health insurance--and costs keep on rising. RAND recently found that health care spending is growing 8 percent faster in Massachusetts than the state's GDP. To deal with this situation, the state government has had to trim coverage and raise taxes. Even the New York Times editorial board has admitted that Massachusetts hasn't figured out "how to slow the relentless rise in medical costs and private insurance premiums."
Is this the same Massachusetts they were telling us was so "successful"?
There are no controls on what the employer based plans can charge you in premiums. There are no controls on what the employer based plans can charge you for deductables. It is not bull shit or "Merc/tea bag talking points" ala Reflux.
I will be happy to discuss it further and in private (PM) with anyone else interested in an honest discussion of the health reform proposals. :D
Go start a blog. Everyone will flock to you.
Go start a blog. Everyone will flock to you.
or maybe just the 4-5 members here who have PMed me over the months asking why I waste my time with you.
or maybe just the 4-5 members here who have PMed me over the months asking why I waste my time with you.
Well there you have it! 4 or 5 immediate people to read the Demoncratic talking points. Go for it man. Stop wasting your time. :rolleyes:
Well there you have it! 4 or 5 immediate people to read the Demoncratic talking points. Go for it man. Stop wasting your time. :rolleyes:
Actually, most of them dont agree with me..but have given up on participating in discussions in which you are involved and are unanimous in their disdain for your style of "debate"
So keep posting all those op eds....maybe one person actually reads them.
:lol2:
So keep posting all those op eds....maybe one person actually reads them.
Oh, I will. As long as I can counter the lies from the Dems and BS from the Repubs, I'll be good. Maybe I will have someone actually try to refute my points who have more crediblity than you. :lol2:
Actually, most of them dont agree with me..but have given up on participating in discussions in which you are involved and are unanimous in their disdain for your style of "debate"
There you go! more fans for your new blog!
Oh, I will. As long as I can counter the lies from the Dems and BS from the Repubs, I'll be good. Maybe I will have someone actually try to refute my points who have more crediblity than you. :lol2:
We'll see how long it takes before you drive that person away. I think I lasted longer than most.
The Cellar Politics Forum is all yours at least unitl I can have fun with UG again. :)
We'll see how long it takes before you drive that person away. I think I lasted longer than most.
The Cellar Politics Forum is all yours at least unitl I can have fun with UG again. :)
Did you want a warm plate of milk with that or just cheese?
Did you want a warm plate of milk with that or just cheese?
I'm gonna go play with the big kids.
You're the king of this sandbox. We'll see who wants to play with you.
Enjoy it!
I'm gonna go play with the big kids.
You're the king of this sandbox. We'll see who wants to play with you.
Enjoy it!
:thumb: Why do you keep coming back?
I am not here for "play".
Read it and weep... I know that our state will be taking it in the shorts due to the amount we pay for Medicaid.
OBAMACARE = BIG STATE TAX HIKES
Anxious to avoid raising taxes too much to pay for their health care proposals, the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies hit on a great new idea: Make the states raise their taxes to fund the program instead.
Both the House and the Senate bills require that states cover a larger percentage of their people under Medicaid – a joint state and federally funded program. The idea was to force the state to raise their taxes to cover a big part of the health care bill for treating poor people. Since the Feds can simply charge any increase in spending to their already overdrawn bank account, but the states have to balance their budgets, the increased state spending for Medicaid will cause sharp increases in state taxes. And the Governors will get the blame, not Obama and not the Congress.
The House bill requires states to give Medicaid to those whose incomes are less than 150% of the poverty level while the Senate requires coverage up to 125%. For most states, this is a hefty increase.
In some states, like New York, where Medicaid covers everyone making 150% of the poverty level already, there will not be any extra required spending.
But not so in California, which only covers 100% of the poverty level. Were the House bill to pass, the already fiscally beleaguered state would have to increase its Medicaid spending on poor people by 50%, at least an extra $2 billion a year and perhaps more.
In many Southern states, the Medicaid program only covers a portion of those living below the poverty level. For these states, the requirement to cover all those in poverty and then 50% more will cause enormous increases in taxes. In Arkansas and Louisiana, where swing Senators Pryor, Lincoln, and Landrieu come from, the cost could exceed $1 billion for each state each year.
Unfunded mandates for state spending imposed from on high in Washington have always rankled governors. The Senators and Congressmen in Washington get the credit for spreading largesse but the Governors in the states get the blame for the taxes that are needed to pay for it.
Since Democrats currently control the vast majority of governorships, this process of making their own party members take the rap for raising taxes is politically self-destructive in the extreme. But Obama is so desperate to pass his health care legislation that he doesn’t care what havoc in his party he reaps in the process.
The question now is whether the governors of the fifty states, particularly the Democrats, are going to sit idly by and let their budgets be destroyed by the health care bill.
When the Republicans in Congress insisted on tacking big cuts in aid to legal immigrant benefits for disability and other areas onto the welfare reform bill, it was the Republican governors who forced them to repeal the pernicious cuts the very next year. They did not want to have to raise taxes to make up for the withdrawal of federal funding.
Now the Democratic governors face the same situation. If Obamacare passes with its expansion of Medicaid benefits – but with no federal funding of the extra spending – it is these Democrats and their legislatures that will have to bite the bullet and pass new taxes to pay for it.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/11/20/obamacare-big-state-tax-hikes/On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new
government-run health plan.
Congressman John Fleming (a Louisiana physician) has proposed an
amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us
(under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).
If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!
Why the hell does this need to be an amendment? That should have been like - on page 1 of the friggin bill.
dickmorris
Seriously? Dick friggin Morris?
C'mon Merc.
Seriously? Dick friggin Morris?
C'mon Merc.
Well, the Clinton's thought he was awesome enough to bring close to the heart of the Presidency and all of a suddened he has no idea what he is talking about? Few know how the system works as well as he does. Even if you don't like his message...
This is a pretty good assessment of some of the problems being proposed in the current plans.
There Be Dragons: The Fiscal Risk Of Premium Subsidies In Health Reform
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office weighed in on the biggest economic imponderable in the health care debate: how private health insurance premiums will behave under health reform. Building on its December 2008 CBO health insurance market analysis, CBO forecast largely benign effects from health reform’s private market reforms and subsidies on the vast majority of the presently insured (e.g. voting public).
According to CBO, only 17% of Americans in the so-called nongroup market–largely individuals–would see premium increases in 2016 (the CBO reference year), because they would be required to purchase fatter benefits with less economic risk. CBO believes that the other 83% of the presently insured will see little or no change.
Analysis of how the health insurance market will behave under health reform has become ferociously politicized. After the infamous PriceWaterhouseCoopers study sponsored by health insurers suggested possible large premium increases, the CBO report might provide cover for members of Congress who are contemplating irreversibly tying the federal budget to a volatile “private” insurance market. I think the fiscal risks of a partially federalized private health benefit are significantly greater than CBO has suggested.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/12/09/there-be-dragons-the-fiscal-risk-of-premium-subsidies-in-health-reform/This bit is what I have been talking about for months...
Medicaid cuts will probably accelerate next year when the eighteen-month Medicaid stimulus funding pulse runs out. Since Medicaid enrollment could increase by more than 30% due to health reform, we can expect low Medicaid rates to be a potent cash-flow offset to all of those new privately insured people. So the Medicaid trend is ugly for providers: enrollment way up, rates down, perhaps sharply. Almost half of those newly enfranchised by health reform will be Medicaid patients. There will also still be 25 million uninsured in 2016 according to CBO.
Further, providers expect Medicare to cut their rates, as well as their disproportionate-share hospital (DSH) subsidies. So providers, where they are able, will increase their rates to private health plans to compensate for these anticipated losses. Since many of them–hospitals and specialty physicians–are in monopoly or quasi-monopoly positions in their markets, they can still get net cash flow from private insurance rate increases. Cost shifting is a powerful tidal force despite the planned reduction in uninsured. (CBO could use some providers on their Healthcare Advisory Panel! It might affect its findings.)
You saying this healthcare plan is a dead horse? Not sure I get your point there spexster.
I will be laughing as he as his premiums double.
In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’
ASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
...
Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, “I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.”
Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALL Americans.”
Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”
In nearly identical words, three Republicans — Representatives K. Michael Conaway of Texas, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Lee Terry of Nebraska — said they had criticized many provisions of the bill, and “rightfully so.”
But, each said, “I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options.”
Sad but true. Although thats nothing new.
I agree that the spending (upwards of $!/4 billion) has influenced the legislation...watering it down to their benefit.
They (particularly the insurance industry) are now spending $billions more on media buys with the hope of killing the bills completely...because in the end, it is not particularly favorable to their interests.
On balance, IMO, the benefits to most Americans far outweigh the marginal benefits to the affected industries.
Or we could simply go back to the status quo of the last 40+ years, with no meaningful or comrpehensive health care reform.
Or we could simply go back to the status quo of the last 40+ years, with no meaningful or comrpehensive health care reform.
I'm still not sure that this is comprehensive reform. I'm not sure it really addresses the problems within the system. It definitely adds a lot more people, no doubt there. But there are still inherent systemic problems that have been around a long time.
I'm still not sure that this is comprehensive reform. I'm not sure it really addresses the problems within the system. It definitely adds a lot more people, no doubt there. But there are still inherent systemic problems that have been around a long time.
It addresses far more than just adding people (30+ million uninsured whose health care costs impact all of us in the form of higher premiums, lost productivity, etc.).
For the first-time, it provides protections to the vast majority of those currently insured.....protections against being dropped for pre-existing conditions...protections against excessive out-of-pocket expenses so that millions wont face bankruptcy as a result of a medical emergency...protections against rating discrimination against women....protections against collusion and rate-fixing by insurance companies.....
For the record, I dont think these bills will fix every problem with the current system...particularly the long-term solvency of Medicare....but, IMO, it represents a giant leap in the right direction as opposed to just a small step..or even worse, just standing still.
There are no guarantees. yet, for all the bitching and whining from the right, I have yet to see a better solution.
The only thing we know for certain is that doing nothing and letting the current system continue to fester will not result in that system healing itself in the public interest.
I dont think these bills will fix every problem with the current system...
particularly the long-term solvency of Medicare....
Huge issue - especially for me. The changes could be potentially huge and destructive.
but, IMO, it represents a giant leap in the right direction as opposed to just a small step..or even worse, just standing still.
Giant leap - IMO thats a stretch - a Step forward, yes. It is a beginning. Standing still would be a bad thing. On that we agree.
There are no guarantees. yet, for all the bitching and whining from the right, I have yet to see a better solution.
I've not heard one either - In fact, I haven't heard ANY realistic proposal. Perhaps the agree with some of this and their only argument is funding it. I don't think so, but maybe.
The only thing we know for certain is that doing nothing and letting the current system continue to fester will not result in that system healing itself in the public interest.
In this case I agree. Conversely, GM should not get bailed out over and over. It should be broken up and sold/given/transferred/merged with companies that have success productive business models instead of keeping that decaying carcass on life support.
I will be laughing as he as his premiums double.
2X0=0. Bwahahahahahahahahaha! It is to laugh.
This bill does very little to fix the problems in our system. The insurance industry will take some hits but in exchange for a huge increase in income provided by the taxpayers. In the end it will cost every single working person who has a job and pays for their insurance a significant increase in costs. Preimums are not controlled and deductables are not controlled. Very few costs are controlled. Costs will be shifted to the taxpayer and taxpaying public.
In the end an estimated 25 million people will still be without healthcare according to the CBO. That is not fixing the problem. It is a half ass solution and they are missing a chance to fix the problems. Just like the economy the Congress is throwing money at the problem and getting everyone to believe they are fixing it when in fact this is just a few bandaids.
The current bill in front of the Senate was crafted not by Baucus but by his senior aid Liz Fowler who also directs the Finance Committee's health-care staff. She worked for his staff from 2001 - 2005 and then left to work for WellPoint one of the nations largest health insurance corps. The list of Demoncrats is long and large when you look at who is paying back their big supporters and lobbying for support of special interests.
Glad that the ones voting on this don't have to use it?
From Newsweek.
Premiums rise to 23% of median family income under proposed health plans.
Let's start with the numbers. Unfortunately, the word "savings" is used misleadingly. It doesn't mean (as is usual) actual reductions; it signifies smaller future increases. There's a big difference.
In 2009, national health spending will total an estimated $2.5 trillion, or 17.7 percent of gross domestic product. By 2019, it's projected to rise to $4.67 trillion under present policies, or 22.1 percent of GDP. With CAP's "savings," it rises a little less sharply to $4.49 trillion, or 21.3 percent of GDP, according to Harvard economist David Cutler, the study's co-author who provided these figures. Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP's "savings."
The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control. It absorbs more of government, business and family budgets. Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare "savings" are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the various health bills a "failing grade" and said they wouldn't "control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care." Quoted in Newsweek, Dr. Delos Cosgrove, head of the Cleveland Clinic, said much the same. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, doubts the cost-saving provisions touted by CAP would save much money. He's also skeptical that Congress, facing complaints from hospitals and a squeeze on services, would allow all the Medicare reimbursement cuts to take effect. True, Congress has permitted some reimbursement reductions to occur but has repeatedly blocked the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors, which most resembles the new proposals.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/14/get_real_about_health_costs_99526.html*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.
WASHINGTON -- We are now witnessing a determined counterattack by the Obama administration and its political allies on the matter of health care costs. Many critics (including me) have argued that President Obama's "reform" agenda wouldn't control rapidly rising health spending and might speed it up. The logic is simple. People with insurance use more health services than those without. If government insures 30 million or more Americans, health spending will rise. Greater demand will press on limited supply; prices will increase. The best policy: Control spending first; then expand coverage.
How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.
Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, [SIZE="1"] I got mine. Srew you.[/SIZE]
Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated. :eyebrow:
You will not find a quote by me anywhere that states that we do not need healthcare reform. The problems which I have pointed out is that the bills do not address the problems in healthcare today. What we do have is a health insurance crisis and the reforms being put before the people have been crafted to do nothing more than give more to health insurance companies under the guise of reform. They have sold us out to 20 more years of servitude.
*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.
How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.
Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, [SIZE="1"] I got mine. Srew you.[/SIZE]
Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated. :eyebrow:
I'm just continually befuddled and bemused by the tin foil hat brigade.
One day...its all about government take-over of health care.
The next day...its all about a pay-off to the insurance lobby.
Is it all about socialism or are the tin foil hats opposed to greater competition and a significant role for free market in which (gasp!) the insurance companies will make money while at the same time, consumers get more accessible and affordable health care, with first-time protections against industry abuses?
But wait...why is the insurance lobby spending so much to defeat this bill?
Help! I dont what to believe. :lol:
Or maybe I do..and I know bullshit when I see it.
Its the tin foil hats talking out of both sides of their mouths. ;)
I have stated numerous times that they should have gone all in and taken it over completely or not.
Nothing done to date will fix the problems with the healthcare in the US.
The Dems are in bed with the insurance companies on this bill and we are letting them get away with maintaining the status quo having our healthcare controlled by For Profit Insurance Companies, crafted by health insurance insiders like Liz Fowler (
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=616731&postcount=1452 ).
There are no controls for premiums or deductables for those who already have insurance.
As I stated earlier:
This bill does very little to fix the problems in our system. The insurance industry will take some hits but in exchange for a huge increase in income provided by the taxpayers. In the end it will cost every single working person who has a job and pays for their insurance a significant increase in costs. Preimums are not controlled and deductables are not controlled. Very few costs are controlled. Costs will be shifted to the taxpayer and taxpaying public.
In the end an estimated 25 million people will still be without healthcare according to the CBO. That is not fixing the problem. It is a half ass solution and they are missing a chance to fix the problems. Just like the economy the Congress is throwing money at the problem and getting everyone to believe they are fixing it when in fact this is just a few bandaids.
I can't wait to see all the support the Dems receive when this is all said and done, and they will pass a bill at sometime in the future. By then the damage will be done.
Wait maybe Liberman will still kill it after all. :D
:zzz::zzz::blah:
I agree, Redux is a partisan bore sucking on the teat of Pelosi. :D
I agree, Redux is a partisan bore sucking on the teat of Pelosi. :D
Now that is a very mature post. :thumb:
It is also a pretty accurate description, except for the boring part, of Redux. Whose analysis of things I do not trust: the sentences that aren't mere party talking points tend to allege that socialist policies are not socialist. Red flag -- if not red diaper.
Meanwhile,
the Daily Mail brings a report from the trenches. You can see the blame being laid upon the administrative end of things.
Wow, never thought I would agree with Screaming Howard Dean in this statement.
expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html?sub=ARImagine that....
That Health-Care Tax Pledge
The health-care bills are loaded with taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.
'If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." So spoke Barack Obama at his first address to Congress in February. We're about to find out if the President cares about that promise as much he does passing a health-care bill.
Congressional Democrats have loaded up their health bills with provisions raising taxes on the middle-class by stacks and stacks of dimes. And Senate Democrats on Tuesday made clear they won't be bound by the President's vow; 54 voted to kill Idaho Republican Mike Crapo's amendment to strip the bill of taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and individuals earning less than $200,000.
Those tax hits include a mandate of up to $750 a year for Americans who fail to purchase health insurance; new levies on small businesses (many of which file individual tax returns) that don't offer health care to employees; new tax penalties on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts; and higher taxes on medical spending, including restrictions on medical itemized deductions, as well as taxes on cosmetic surgery. A Senate Finance Committee minority staff report finds that by 2019 more than 42 million individuals and families—or 25% of all tax returns under $200,000—will on average see their taxes go up because of the Senate bill. And that's after government subsidies.
This profusion of tax hikes is central to the Democratic fiction that the Senate bill is budget neutral. And because many Senate Democrats are cool to the House proposal to fund legislation with a surtax on the "wealthy," many of these middle-tax hikes will likely remain in final legislation. Yet President Obama is embracing the bill.
Democrats are instead trying to claim that some taxes really aren't taxes. The President in September engaged in a debate with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, with the President arguing that the individual mandate isn't a tax since it is for the good of America. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow says increasing the amount of medical expenses a person must accumulate before deducting them also isn't a tax because "most Americans" don't itemize. Except the millions of middle-class Americans who do. Democrats have argued their restrictions on health savings accounts simply close "tax loopholes" and therefore also aren't new taxes.
Americans who will be paying more to the IRS can be trusted to know the difference. In April, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the President's tax promise applied to health care. He replied: "The statement didn't come with caveats." On the evidence in December, it did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574599961696425696.htmlReid buys another vote from NE to clinch a deal.
Democratic leaders said a breakthrough came when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, agreed after 13 hours of negotiations on Friday to back the bill, making him the pivotal 60th vote.
The amendment also includes a special extension solely for Nebraska: increased federal contributions to the cost of an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/health/policy/20health.htmlDisclaimer: Completely Partisan Source. To bad it is factual.
Lead StoryCash for Cloture: Demcare bribe list, Pt. II
By Michelle Malkin • December 21, 2009 02:48 AM
A month ago, I compiled Part I of the Demcare bribe list as Harry Reid rushed before Thanksgiving to secure his first cloture vote on the government health care takeover. (Quick re-cap: $300 million Louisiana Purchase for Landrieu; $300 million California doctor payments; AARP goodies; abortion and union lobby concessions.)
Here’s Part II of the Cash for Cloture bribe list all in one handy place (hat tip again to my friend ChristinaKB for the apt phrase she first coined on November 21 for the Demcare wheeling and dealing).
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell alluded to all this backroom dealing on the floor early this morning before the cloture vote, but lamely refused to name names on the Senate floor.
Screw Senate collegiality. Let the sun shine in.
1. Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback.” The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout’s special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million. The Hill reports that while Nelson credited Nebraska’s governor for giving him the idea to lobby for the government preference, Nebraska’s governor assailed the payoff:
“Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal,” Heineman said in a statement Sunday. In response, Nelson fired off a letter Sunday to Heineman saying he’s prepared to ask that the provision covering Nebraska’s Medicaid share “be removed from the amendment in conference, if it is your desire.”
2. New England’s Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska’s tab, the exclusive clique’s payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.
3. Corruptocrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s Christmas wish. He’s plunging in the polls and in need of a little bacon to bring home.
A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night. The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut. The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. …The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for “a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services.” It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States “that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” The money can cover a maximum of 40 percent of the facility’s construction costs.
4. “Some insurers are more equal than others” tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben “Blank Check” Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.
5. The Frontier freebie. Several lucky states will see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, the NYT reports, — “where at least 50 percent of the counties are ‘frontier counties,’ defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile. And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria.”
6. More Democrat hospital bennies. Also via NYT: “Another provision of the bill would increase Medicare payments to certain “low-volume hospitals” treating limited numbers of Medicare patients. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this ‘important fix’ would help midsize Iowa hospitals in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake. Another item in Mr. Reid’s package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals. Senate Democrats said this provision would benefit hospitals in Connecticut and Michigan.”
7. Bernie Sanders’ socialized medicine sop. He wanted a public option. Instead, he got socialized medicine satellite clinics funded to the tune of at least $10 billion. In his remarks early this morning before the cloture vote, he gloated about the funding as a crucial step toward universal care. Via the Burlington Free Press:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scored a big victory, too, with the inclusion in the amendment package of $10 billion to expand community health centers across the country — including at least two more in Vermont.
“We are talking about a revolution in primary care here,” Sanders said. Funding community health centers in an additional 10,000 communities would extend primary care to 25 million more Americans. The $10 billion, added at Sanders’ request, would also ensure there would be medical professionals to provide primary care by expanding the National Health Service Corps by an additional 20,000 slots. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans. The House version of the health care reform bill contains $14 billion for these initiatives. Sanders said he was hopeful the final amount, which will be hammered out in negotiations between the House and Senate, would be closer to $14 billion.
Vermont has 8 community health centers and 40 satellite offices. “New funding would make it likely centers could be opened in Addison and Bennington counties,” Sanders’ home state paper reports.
8. Fla.-Pa.-NY Protectionism. Via Politico: “Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.”
And you know there are many more untold payoffs — paid by stealing your money — yet to be stuffed into this bureaucratic monstrosity.
To quote our Chicago Way President: “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
http://michellemalkin.com/?frontpage=1&print=14. “Some insurers are more equal than others” tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben “Blank Check” Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.
What the heck are "nonprofit insurance companies"? Charities? If they don't make a profit, how would you tax them, anyhow? :eyebrow:
What exactly was the last "60th vote bought with? Anyone?
How many of these deals were made and how much did they cost the rest of us?
If it isn't the same everywhere is it really "universal"?
Also from Merc's post above
“We are talking about a revolution in primary care here,” Sanders said. Funding community health centers in an additional 10,000 communities would extend primary care to 25 million more Americans. The $10 billion, added at Sanders’ request, would also ensure there would be medical professionals to provide primary care by expanding the National Health Service Corps by an additional 20,000 slots. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans. The House version of the health care reform bill contains $14 billion for these initiatives. Sanders said he was hopeful the final amount, which will be hammered out in negotiations between the House and Senate, would be closer to $14 billion
I don't know if anyone else has lived in an isolated rural community, but I have. I lived in a very small Colorado town that was 3 1/2 to 4 hours across the mountains to the nearest town with a hospital and other medical facilities. We had one of those little rural health care centers with a real doctor, and it literally saved lives. I cannot believe that anyone would object to providing such services for rural America. There is an entire country out there beyond the beltway, folks.
But Sam, that won't be a problem when all those isolated people are moved into the Homeland security compounds, for their protection. :jail:
Let 'em try. We have CASES of Treet .
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21691&page=2
The can fits nicely in the hand and a well aimed throw can result in a concussion, at least. :p
Also from Merc's post above
I don't know if anyone else has lived in an isolated rural community, but I have. I lived in a very small Colorado town that was 3 1/2 to 4 hours across the mountains to the nearest town with a hospital and other medical facilities. We had one of those little rural health care centers with a real doctor, and it literally saved lives. I cannot believe that anyone would object to providing such services for rural America. There is an entire country out there beyond the beltway, folks.
I would have no problem with it at all.... wait for it....
Here it comes....
If it was not given as a consession for a VOTE to ONE State! While the other 49 states don't get the BENIFIT!
Do you get that? One FRIGGING STATE.
The Demoncrats Whored themselves to get consessions for votes. Prostitutes everyone of them. They were more concerned with giving Obamy a win before Christmas than doing the right thing by the American public.
Now everyone keep a close eye on your
deductables and co-pays over the next 3 - 4 years. And as they shoot up and become outrageous come back and tell me how great it is for you and your famlies, you can afford it right? It was all worth it, right?
Be careful what you wish for. You just got it.
Senior Democrat: Kill the Senate health reform bill and start over
By Michael O'Brien - 12/23/09 02:12 PM ET
The Senate's healthcare bill is fatally flawed, a senior Democrat atop a powerful committee said on Wednesday.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the Senate's bill is so flawed that it's unlikely to be resolved in conference with the bill to have passed the House.
"The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago," Slaughter wrote in an opinion piece for CNN's website.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73493-senior-dem-kill-the-healthcare-bill-and-start-overHealth bill money for hospital sought by Dodd
The Associated Press
Sunday, December 20, 2009; 11:32 PM
WASHINGTON -- A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002956.htmlThe Price of 'History'
Harry Reid delivers a bundle of special-interest favors.
Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh must feel like saps. The Arkansas and Indiana Democrats spent months caterwauling about this or that provision in the Senate health-care bill, then at 1 a.m. Monday they voted to speed its passage without getting so much as a lousy T-shirt.
In Harry Reid's Senate, this qualifies as dereliction of duty, as the Majority Leader said himself on Monday in defense of his frantic deal-making to get 60 votes. "I don't know if there is a Senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," Mr. Reid said at a press conference that offered an unintentional commentary on modern democracy. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them."
Meanwhile, the Reid bill's fine print also solves the mystery of Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who is no relation to Ben but is just as crafty. How could a Florida Democrat, who has built his career denouncing Medicare "cuts," vote for a bill that pays for a new entitlement for younger Americans by taking more than $400 billion from health-care for seniors?
His brilliant solution: Include a grandfather clause that exempts Florida seniors who currently have Medicare Advantage benefits from losing them. This little beauty is worth $3 billion to $5 billion. (Presumably Arizona, also the home to many retirees, didn't qualify because its two Senators are Republicans.)
This does mean, of course, that if you turn 65 next year and move to Florida and want Medicare Advantage, you don't qualify for the Nelson Advantage. So some seniors will be more equal than others. But at least Mr. Nelson was able to minimize the chance of a major senior revolt against his support for Medicare cuts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610473077223550.htmlI would have no problem with it at all.... wait for it....
Here it comes....
If it was not given as a consession for a VOTE to ONE State! While the other 49 states don't get the BENIFIT!
Do you get that? One FRIGGING STATE.
The Demoncrats Whored themselves to get consessions for votes. Prostitutes everyone of them. They were more concerned with giving Obamy a win before Christmas than doing the right thing by the American public.
Now everyone keep a close eye on your deductables and co-pays over the next 3 - 4 years. And as they shoot up and become outrageous come back and tell me how great it is for you and your famlies, you can afford it right? It was all worth it, right?
Be careful what you wish for. You just got it.
Go back and re-read the article you posted. It states:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scored a big victory, too, with the inclusion in the amendment package of $10 billion to expand community health centers across the country — including at least two more in Vermont.
What part of health centers
across the country don't you get? And Sanders gets two whole clinics for his entire state? BFD. :eyebrow:
Early Christmas Eve morning, Senators are due to vote aye or nay on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as their vision of how to reform health care in America.
The House wrangled its version last month. While President Obama says the two proposals are 95% "identical," that 5% difference has spurred some furious negotiations.
* The bill for the health care reform bill? The House version costs more than a trillion, while the Senate's a tad cheaper at $871 billion.
* People with comfy incomes will have to pay more taxes to help pay for reform, if the House has its way. The Senate stays away from that, but adds a 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.
* Funding for abortion and a public option are two of the more heated controversies.
* A New York congresswoman wrote an op-ed tearing apart the Senate bill for, among other things, letting insurance companies keep enjoying their antitrust status.
Outlets like AP, Bloomberg, Newsweek, The New York Times, and the Kaiser Family Foundation have taken on the daunting task to compare the two versions. Below, three charts with an overview, key similarities, and key differences between the Senate and House proposals.
LinkI rarely post here because it's not my country, my problem or something I can easily comprehend.
Just wanted to point out to Urbane that the Daily Mail is our most right wing paper. It is also a tabloid (read scare-mongering poor journalism rag). And it hates EVERYONE. It keeps old people in rural places alive by making their blood boil on a daily basis.
The end.
That comes as no surprise. Crap like that is UG's favorite reading matter. Wouldn't want to fill anyone's head with stuff that might be non-partisan or fair. :headshake
And it hates EVERYONE. It keeps old people in rural places alive by making their blood boil on a daily basis.
I knew I liked it. :D
BFD. :eyebrow:
I was mistaken and misspoke.
I was mistaken and misspoke.
:speechls::shock:
(there is no smiley for 'fainting from shock, so these will have to do).
Kudos, Merc. A lot of people would try to bull their way through after being caught in a mistake (you know who I'm talking about, UG).
I do think that Nebraska got some kind of deal.
IMO, if the Republicans had not fillibustered and even a few of them would have dealt honestly, there would have been no need for any deals. It will be a flawed bill that passes, but still better than the status quo.
Specifically, Slaughter said, the Senate bill would charge seniors higher premiums, would fail to nix health insurers' antitrust exemption and would not go far enough in extending coverage to people in the U.S.
"Supporters of the weak Senate bill say 'just pass it — any bill is better than no bill,' " Slaughter wrote. "I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills."
The New York Democrat also sounded a note similar to what Republicans have said (though for different reasons): Scrap the current healthcare bill, and start over.
"It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board," she said. "The American people deserve at least that."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly voted no before changing his vote to yes, which got a laugh in the chamber, especially from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
After the vote, Reid joked, "I spent a very restless night last night trying to figure out how I could show some bipartisanship and I think I was able to accomplish that for a few minutes."
he Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.
The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.
Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.
“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”
The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.
“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said.
There is an excellent article on health care in the September issue of Atlantic Monthly, "How healthcare killed my father." Check it out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-careTonight, Sherrod Brown (D-RI) was sent out in front of the cameras to Keith Olbermann's show to try and sell "Countdown's" liberal audience on how all of their hard work has produced a terrific healthcare bill, which will remain terrific even without a public insurance option to compete with the private ensurers who will now have 30 million Americans commanded by buy their products, and now, without a Medicare buy-in for those over 55. Brown didn't look like he quite believed what he was saying. Talking Points Memo, meanwhile, reports that perfunctory White House denials notwithstanding, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did indeed press Harry Reid to cut a healthcare deal with Joe Lieberman, and to give him whatever he wants:
An aide briefed on discussions with the White House says that there would be no story if Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hadn't interceded. The aide confirmed an account, reported by Huffington Post, that Emanuel visited Reid personally, telling him to cut a deal with Lieberman.
Then the aide provided more detail. Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers. "It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm. This is the second Senate aide to provide nearly identical accounts of the White House's intervention. It seems very much as if officials there desperately want the Senate to pass a bill, at all costs.
LinkTonight, Sherrod Brown (D-RI)
Where'd you get that link, because, um...Sherrod Brown is an Ohio senator. :eyebrow:
http://brown.senate.gov/Thanks Sam -
After the needless death of his father, the author, a business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues, that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a radical solution to an agonizing problem.
Link
An article with some great insight which mirrors my personal experiences with "the system" as well.
Oh, there you added the link for post 1489.
FAIL link!
Link works for me. I noticed that MSNBC got that wrong initially and it wasn't corrected by salon either. Guess thats the excellence in our media shining through . . . again.
It worked for me. :confused:
Link works for me. I noticed that MSNBC got that wrong initially and it wasn't corrected by salon either. Guess thats the excellence in our media shining through . . . again.
No, the link worked, I just find such a glaring error in the first sentence to be a big fail as far as making me say "egads! Say it isn't so!"
I am unable to find a corresponding MSNBC article.
Anyhow, I liked the point made in Atlantic Monthly that in our current system, health care providers are not really accountable to the consumer. Its either private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid that pays the bill and hospitals cater to Medicare's will rather than concentrating on providing quality service to the patient.
Implicit in this article is that the author's father contracted an infection due to poor hygene practices on the part of ICU personnel. This is an outrage and appears to be true when you read the author's documentation. Our health care service is a mess, and it doesn't sound to me that the reforms being contemplated really address the pertinent issues.
I am unable to find a corresponding MSNBC article.
Thats because it wasn't in an article, it was on live TV - Keith Olbermans show.
Anyhow, the link and the article are bogus.
Sorry to point out the error: I thought we was all about the correctin'
Guess that is the excellence in discerning readers shining through, again.
Keith Olberman's show incorrectly introduced him as a Democrat from Rhode Island? Link?
Mersa was contracted in the ICU when a family member was there. Within 24 hrs there were 8 other patients in the same ward testing positive for the virus.
Keith Olberman's show incorrectly introduced him as a Democrat from Rhode Island? Link?
[SIZE="4"]it wasn't in an article, it was on live TV[/SIZE] - Keith Olbermans show.
I have no link - I saw it. Sheesh.
tw sure is right about you sometimes...
I point out a glaring error. You dance and skate and can't concede your Chicken Little tendencies.
Just admit it was a bad point?
OLBERMANN: Let‘s turn now to Ohio Democratic senator, Sherrod Brown, part of the negotiating group that apparently thought Joe Lieberman was on board last week.
Senator, thanks for your time tonight.
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Keith, good to be back. Thanks.
OLBERMANN: Senator Lieberman‘s spokesman says there should be no surprise here, that he made his concerns clear earlier. Is his filibuster threat consistent with what he was telling your group last
Olbermann got it right, here's the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430893/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
Or, here:
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=504037&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
Joining us tonight is Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who co-wrote the public option language for the Senate bill.
Thanks for joining us tonight, Senator.
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Lawrence, good to be back. Thank you.
tw sure is right about you sometimes...
I point out a glaring error. You dance and skate and can't concede your Chicken Little tendencies.
Just admit it was a bad point?
So whats new?
Classic (and Merc) will find small issues to nitpick, as long as it is critical of the Democrats...then duck and weave when called out on the facts or the lack of context in their endless links.....because they care about America first!
Or they will just call you a partisan.
Its easy to nitpick the health care reform. The process and the results have been far from perfect.
But if one focuses on the big picture.....it represents the most comprehensive health care reform ever in the US.
And the results, when enacted, are that 30+ million of those currently uninsured will have access to affordable health care. And those 200+ million currently insured will have unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue....and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at unmanageable rates.
Yabbut, Sherrod Brown, a Demoncratic senator from Rhode Island...
:lol:
There is an excellent article on health care in the September issue of Atlantic Monthly, "How healthcare killed my father." Check it out: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
That actually was very good.
....it represents the most comprehensive health care reform ever in the US.
It falls far short. Gives the Insurance Industry carte blanc to charge us anything they want and raise our deductibles. It will not fix cost controls. It is far from fixing what is wrong with healthcare in America and in the end leaves 12 million people un-insured.
But you go ahead and pat your Demoncratic buddies on the ass and congratulate each other for a partisan Bill that will do little to fix the problems. You are delusional. You traded a bad bill for passing anything at all costs. A very expensive one at that.
...and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at unmanageable rates.
:lol2:
tw sure is right about you sometimes...
I point out a glaring error. You dance and skate and can't concede your Chicken Little tendencies.
Just admit it was a bad point?
I watched the show personally, I saw it. But that wasn't the main point of posting the artivle. His opinions were. Whether he was from Ohio , Rhode Island or East Jabip, is inconsequential. If it makes it easier to discuss what he actually said instead of that, fine. I must have what I saw.
Classic will find small issues to nitpick, as long as it is critical of the Democrats...then duck and weave when called out on the facts or the lack of context in their endless links.
Or they will just call you a partisan.
Sorry pal - thats not my game. Aside from you being admittedly partisan. You, however, have been doing it more and more lately though. (Look in a mirror) And please stop grouping people together. Take each of us on our own for what we each say and do.
I found an article with information I thought of value and posted it for discussion. Both you and Shaw have glossed over the point of the article and tried to, how did you put it "duck and weave." Instead of discussing what the content was, you focus on a totally insignificant point.
Its easy to nitpick the health care reform. The process and the results have been far from perfect.
We certainly agree upon that.
And the results, when enacted, are that 30+ million of those currently uninsured will have access to affordable health care.
and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at unmanageable rates.
I disagree wholeheartedly with respect to the costs and history will bear me out as being correct. There is not one Gov't program of this significance that didn't cost infinitely more than proposed and deliver far less. The numbers are and will be manipulated and shown in the best light possible for the benefit of whomever is making their point.
Same old tired tune....from both you guys.
Not your game? WTF! All you (both) do is cherry pick articles, never providing full context, and nitpicking minor issues.
Or call me a partisan and imply that you are not and make sweeping generalizations that ignore the facts or nitpick more minor points.
So whats new?
As you suggested....look in the mirror, dude and you will a phony (or two).
I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it. Posting the entire article is cumbersome and pointless when one wants to address a particular point being made.
Oh and you STILL haven't address what he said - you're still going on about nothing ... as usual.
Where is the true tort reform? What about the medicare cuts and the repeated delays in payments to providers? Why do we need to pay for four years before any change is enacted? Why the elimination of payment codes for providers to pay the specialist for performing an independent physical or for getting a separate history of the patient, or to set a correct diagnosis and returning to the referring physician a written report of the findings? Why does this or rather will this now need to be done repetitiously?
I am as much for reform as anyone, but this is not really reform its getting a bill passed so that those in power can say to the sheep that they did something for them come reelection time. The vast majority of reform was stripped out of this bill in order to pass "a bill, any bill."
I am not the enemy here and I'm a little tired of being treated as such. Since when did you all stop questioning things. Just because a bill is passed by a D or an R administration doesn't make it inherently good or bad. It still needs to be looked at, reviewed and questioned.
Oh and you STILL haven't address what he said - still going on about nothing ... as usual.
WHat he said, in effect, is that the House and Senate Democrats are not in full agreement and the White House was engaged in the process to get the Senate bill passed so that they move on to the next step that will result in a consensus bill.
So what?
We know there are disagreements between the House and Senate and changes will need to be made that wont please either side 100 percent.
That is how the process works. It is called compromise and consensus building. ...but of course, you guys will nitpick the differences and blow them out of proportion or suggest it has never happened before.
And in the end, they will agree that it would be a huge mistake to throw out a good bill in pursuit of the perfect bill.
but of course, you guys will nitpick the differences and blow them out of proportion or suggest it has never happened before.
And in the end, they will agree that it would be a huge mistake to throw out a good bill in pursuit of the perfect bill.
IMO, which I am fully entitled to have whether you like it or not, as it currently stands we as a nation are going to be saddled with an ineffective bill that doesn't truly address the cost or "reform" of our nations heath care issues. What we are doing is insuring 30 million more people (good thing) without knowing exactly how we are going to logistically provide care for them.
Where is the true tort reform?
Tort reform would have an insignficant impact and yet it is still in the bill if you look.
What about the medicare cuts and the repeated delays in payments to providers?
the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.
Why do we need to pay for four years before any change is enacted?
THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).
The vast majority of reform was stripped out of this bill in order to pass "a bill, any bill."
Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?
The public option?
I am not the enemy here and I'm a little tired of being treated as such.
Not the enemy, just a partisan.
And, IMO, which I am fully entitled to have whether you like it or no, you are a hypocrite.
IWhat we are doing is insuring 30 million more people (good thing) without knowing exactly how we are going to logistically provide care for them.
What you dont seem willing to acknowledge is that what we are also doing for those 200+ million currently insured is to provide unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits)....and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at the current unmanageable rate (over 100% in the last 10 years).
BTW, one reason for the delay for the Insurance Exchange for those 30 million more people (in addition to writing the regs) is to build greater capacity and efficiencies.
IMO...it is not a "blll just for the sake of a bill". I have said repeatedly that it is far from perfect, but what you guys wont acknowledge is that it provides real reform for the first time ever that will touch most Americans in a positive way.
And yet, those opposed still have never offered a better alternative.
That actually was very good.
Thanks, Merc. We are often on opposite sides of the question, but we can agree that this article makes a number of excellent points and some good suggestions. I would be interested in what Redux would say about it.
(Hint: Read the Atlantic article, Redux) ;)
Thanks, Merc. We are often on opposite sides of the question, but we can agree that this article makes a number of excellent points and some good suggestions. I would be interested in what Redux would say about it.
(Hint: Read the Atlantic article, Redux) ;)
Its an interesting article and offers a self-described generational solution (in very general terms and little in the way of details) that I would agree with in many respects.
Where I would disagree most is the author's suggestion to minimize the government role. Without regulation, IMO, it is a pipe dream to think that a free market approach would put consumer care above profit....be it insurance companies, hospitals or private practitioners.
And because the current system is so entrenched, I think it would be incredibly disruptive in the short-term and likely to be multi-generational, taking decades...far longer than the author suggests. And the article offers little in the way of policy proposals to address the short-term or the interim long-term period in order to get there from here.
SO my concerns is what to do in the meantime and I think the current proposals, beyond the immediate relief to those uninsured and greater security to those with employer-based insurance, also include some consumer-based remedies that move in the right direction (ie rewarding prevention, greater quality control, reducing systemic redundancies, greater information sharing on best practices, etc.)
Bottom line...if we were starting with a clean slate, it might be a good approach, even if it is bit "pie in the sky".
But that is not the case, and IMO, we need to address the shortcomings with the current system while at the same time, moving towards a more efficient and equitable "care over cost" system in the long term.
Where I would disagree most is the author's suggestion to minimize the government role. Without regulation, IMO, it is a pipe dream to think that a free market approach would put consumer care above profit....be it insurance companies, hospitals or private practitioners.
I agree with you on this. I also think our current system is so opaque that it is difficult to discern which practices, treatments, etc. are the most beneficial for patients.
I do see problems with government funded treatment, as well. For example, I am currently on medicare/medicaid. Medicaid will not cover prescriptions for many anti-anxiety drugs or sleep medications. When I came down with bronchitis, medicaid would not cover the cost of my cough syrup which contained codeine. I don't know if such limitations are a result of the war on drugs or some Puritanical refusal to cover certain medications. It makes no sense to me. I pay nothing for a drug that would cost over $200/month without insurance, yet must pay $20.00 for 30 halcion tabs (for sleep)? My generic anti-depressant is covered, but not my generic cough syrup? What?
Tort reform would have an insignficant impact and yet it is still in the bill if you look.
The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.
the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.
Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.
THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).
There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.
Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?
The public option?
I already listed them and do not care to do so again.
Not the enemy, just a partisan.
That you are, and a self admitted one.
you are a hypocrite.
more name calling - very nice. :headshake
The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.
Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.
There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.
I already listed them and do not care to do so again.
That you are, and a self admitted one.
more name calling - very nice. :headshake
You have not provided ONE fact to support any of the above..or you are just ignorant of the facts.
I provide facts and you call me a partisan....again.
Asshole.
Ahh, more name calling. Whats wrong with you? Did Santa skip your house or something? Enjoy your one-sided conversation. I'm out.
Ahh, more name calling. Whats wrong with you? Did Santa skip your house or something? Enjoy your one-sided conversation. I'm out.
You're out?
What a surprise...thats what you do when you cant respond with facts.
Whats wrong with me?
I just got tired of my opinions being called partisan bullshit by you and Merc (not to mention the facts that I cite regarding the bills that you conveniently chose to ignore...
.like the fact that the bill will provide unprecedented security to 200+ million in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue...or the facts regarding cuts to MA providers, not patients.) while you consider your opinions to be more factual and less partisan.
And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.
I had enough.....You want to play dirty. I'm in, dude.
You're out?
What a surprise...thats what you do when you cant respond with facts.
Whats wrong with me?
I just got tired of my opinions being called partisan bullshit by you and Merc (not to mention the facts that I cite regarding the bills that you conveniently chose to ignore....like the fact that the bill will provide unprecedented security to 200+ million in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue...or the facts regarding cuts to MA providers, not patients.) while you consider your opinions to be more factual and less partisan.
And I got tired of turning the other cheek when you and Merc resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.
I had enough.....You want to play dirty. I'm in, dude.
You do provide facts. You seem to be knowledgable about the subject, perhaps more so than anyone here (above and beyond the dancers, even) and I appreciate your perspective.
I don't say this because I agree with everything: I say this to let you know that it's noticed. Problem is, those you are discussing with are just what you say, and your facts are irrelevant to them.
But, keep posting. Perhpas you'll be like earwax remover and eventually they'll hear a thing or two you say.
Well now that the whores of the Congress, Landrieu and Nelson among others, have made their sweetheart deals, the effect of that fall out comes out in numbers. They should rename it, "Health Insurance Corporation and Pharmaceutical Corporation Profit Protection Act of 2009."
States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/health/policy/27states.html?_r=2&ref=politicsThe Senate Postmortem, WSJ
We are thus heading toward the first U.S. entitlement program dragged across the finish line on a straight partisan majority, a bill that even its most fervent supporters admit is "flawed" but better than nothing.
It is far worse than nothing. The bill itself is an unprecedented arrogation of federal power over one-seventh of the economy, and even its closest antecedents, Medicare and Medicaid, passed in 1965 with the support of both parties. Reflecting the political consensus that has always inspired durable social reform in America, those entitlements cleared the Senate with more than half of the GOP caucus voting in favor.
The bill Democrats approved on Christmas Eve was drafted "in the shadows, without transparency, just to garner the necessary 60 votes and nothing more," as Mrs. Snowe put it in a statement on Sunday. A law so sweeping and complex that no one can understand it but that will affect the lives of all Americans was thus rushed to passage with little real debate, and less reflection. The Senate considered only 20 of the more than 450 amendments filed.
Those votes were revealing nonetheless, showing that certain Democrats oppose core parts of ObamaCare even as they voted for the final version. Nebraska's Ben Nelson—now justly famous for a Medicaid payoff in return for his vote—and Virginia's Jim Webb voted for the McCain amendment that would have stripped out cuts totalling more than $400 billion in future Medicare spending to fund "universal" health insurance. Along with Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Evan Bayh (Indiana), the duo also supported changes that would have excluded tax increases on individuals earning under $200,000, as President Obama promised during his campaign. The tax amendment failed, 45-54.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614662877143186.htmlAnd I got tired of turning the other cheek when you [COLOR="White"]and Merc [/COLOR]resorted to the endless cheap shots directed at me.
I would really like to see all these "endless cheap shots."
I've intentionally NOT done that. Again, you want to lump me in with other posters. STOP IT.
Yea, don't get lumped in with me. :D
Let it go man. He just doesn't like people who challange the Demoncratic Party propaganda.
At least you admit it - Puts you 1/2 a step ahead of UG.
Seriously - there is enough we disagree upon that he needn't add all that stupid shit you post to any list of mine.
I would really like to see all these "endless cheap shots."
I've intentionally NOT done that. Again, you want to lump me in with other posters. STOP IT.
Oh bullshit.
This is the next step after avoiding any points: talk about how nice you are about it all.
The impact of the current tort reform is negligible. READ what I wrote - true tort reform. Not just an appeasing mention.
the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.
Thereby reducing the number of providers that will accept it = less providers for those covered.
THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).
There are virtually no benefits and the costs start immediately.
Don't tell me what I would and/or wouldn't do. You are getting to be an asshole - please stop.
Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?
The public option?
I already listed them and do not care to do so again.
Not the enemy, just a partisan.
That you are, and a self admitted one.
you are a hypocrite.
more name calling - very nice. :headshake
Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.
Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it. :lol2:
Oh, merc? It's challenge, not CHALLANGE. And, when you mean MORE THAN, as in TOO MUCH, it's T-O-O. Not TO MUCH. Unless you're going to a town called MUCH, in which case TO MUCH would be correct.
Maybe someone will learn something today after all.
Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.
Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it. :lol2:
Oh, merc? It's challenge, not CHALLANGE. And, when you mean MORE THAN, as in TOO MUCH, it's T-O-O. Not TO MUCH. Unless you're going to a town called MUCH, in which case TO MUCH would be correct.
Maybe someone will learn something today after all.
Suck my dick.
No wait, on second thought, not if your life depended on it. :D
Look, an article about merc (and I like your skanky street ho pic, we know you're attracted to that type)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_ofLook, an article about merc (and I like your skanky street ho pic, we know you're attracted to that type)
That's just because you dress up for me.
Suck my dick.
No wait, on second thought, not if your life depended on it. :D
I wouldn't suck your dick with your skank ho's mouth.
Thank you. There is a God.
Maybe if you pray real hard he'll give you a pair?
A great video of Senator Bacus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA
This guys insurance lobbyist writes his bill for him. :)
Well big business is worried now. Let the cost shifting begin!
Businesses Brace for Health Bill's Costs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126153353820802365.html
Now sick the lobbyists on them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126195440648106747.htmlYou do provide facts. You seem to be knowledgable about the subject, perhaps more so than anyone here (above and beyond the dancers, even) and I appreciate your perspective.
I don't say this because I agree with everything: I say this to let you know that it's noticed. Problem is, those you are discussing with are just what you say, and your facts are irrelevant to them.
But, keep posting. Perhpas you'll be like earwax remover and eventually they'll hear a thing or two you say.
Shawnee....thanks for the vote of confidence.
I don’t claim to be an expert on health care reform, but I have taken the time to try to understand the proposals at more than just a superficial level and to rely on more than one perspective…in part, because I am a policy wonk and that is what policy wonks do, but more importantly because it is helpful in my job which involves providing services in numerous program areas, including health care, economic assistance and other domestic programs.
In fact, I have helped create or currently administer programs that can benefit both you and your university (if I recall correctly that you work at a university).
PM me for more details, but I'll warn you that Classicman and The Mercenary (Classenary?) would probably describe the programs as socialism in action. ;)
Beyond that I don’t expect anything to change around here. Classenary will flood the place with partisan links or bold cherry-picked lines from article without providing context, and then become evasive or defensive when confronted with facts.
And course, anyone who challenges them is partisan, while they, on the other hand, are simply putting American first ….yet somehow, they never seem to offer any constructive solutions.
Just think of Cellar Politics as the Classinary version of the Limbaugh/Beck Show.
Oh bullshit.
This is the next step after avoiding any points: talk about how nice you are about it all.
Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.
Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it.
Maybe someone will learn something today after all.
Thanks for proving my point. Once I said he was starting to
act like an asshole - ONCE.
No cheap shots no, personal attacks - nothing. Just a different opinion.
And please - You can have Merc's dick to yourself - I want no part of it.
Again, thanks for all your valuable input into the discussion.
Just a different opinion.
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="7"]UNAUTHORIZED!!!! UNAUTHORIZED!!! UNAUTHORIZED!!! UNAUTHORIZED!!![/SIZE][/COLOR][/variationDrWho]
Oh, no. Emma's back! :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving my point. Once I said he was starting to act like an asshole - ONCE.
No cheap shots no, personal attacks - nothing. Just a different opinion.
And please - You can have Merc's dick to yourself - I want no part of it.
Again, thanks for all your valuable input into the discussion.
Lies.
And thanks for all your valuable input. I gave up providing valuable input a long time ago, when I realized you don't listen, you don't discuss: you dance around and throw quotes around but it's never anything with meaning or purpose.
As Redux said, when you are confronted with facts you play "who me?" and bat your eyelashes, oh so innocent, which I think is infinitely worse than a REAL and TRUE "OH YEAH? FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."
I mean, it's so passive-aggressive. That's worse than truth telling, even if the truth points out what a dick you can be.
You really don't know what you're talking about half the time, do you?
Oh, no. Emma's back! :rolleyes:
Ha. Thanks for the reminder.
Now, what are the cool kids saying about this one?
Lies.
you don't listen,
you don't discuss
you dance around
never anything with meaning or purpose.
FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."
what a dick you can be.
and yet again. You do all this trash-talking, name-calling and hurl accusations while acting like I'm the guilty party simply because I disagree. Boy I really must have struck a nerve:headshake
and yet again. "who me?" *bats eyes*
It's not about disagreeing, it's about your dancing about when you have absolutely NO argument. You're maddening as hell in that respect, and you keep at it until someone calls you out for being an ass, then you get to play like you're so flabbergasted anyone could think that.
Like G-dub Bush. No dummy. Knows some things. Plays innocent. Evil lurks beneath. Never admit a mistake.
Same tired argument when someone disagrees - that is all I've done. When you are taken off your talking points you resort to personal attacks :yawn:
Wait maybe this will be better . . .
All will be OK, Obama will take care of me. If not, then it's Bush's fault.
That better? <takes another swig>
Same tired argument when someone disagrees - that is all I've done. When you are taken off your talking points you resort to personal attacks :yawn:
Wait maybe this will be better . . .
All will be OK, Obama will take care of me. If not, then it's Bush's fault.
That better? <takes another swig>
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"
[INDENT]- Mark Twain[/INDENT]
You're in denial, dude.
I know it, you know it, Shawnee and Sam and anyone viewing this thread know it. Hell, even Merc knows it, but he's been in that river so long, he doesnt know which way is up.
Taking another swig wont help.
Anyway - back on topic.
These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades.
However, the legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.
(1)
Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years. At the same time, the legislation includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation. The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also assume that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation.
(2)
Based on the longer-term extrapolation, CBO expects that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades under the legislation—about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.(3)
Link
(1) I recognize that assumptions must be made in order to give some sort of guesstimations.
But assuming that the legislation remain untouched for 20 years is not going to happen. Therefore virtually all of the opinions contained herein regarding any budgetary cost increases or reductions are, to me, worthless. However, we must make these assumptions in porder to have some sort of discussion.
(2) So initially they make an assumption that the "Independent Payment Advisory Board"
which would hold sway over Medicare payment formulas. Under the legislation, the board would make annual recommendations to the president, Congress and private entities on actions they can take to improve quality and constrain the rate of cost growth in the private sector. Its Medicare recommendations are non-binding in years where Medicare growth is below the targeted growth rate. The board will develop its first recommendations in 2013 for implementation two year later.
Who constitutes this board, and if their recommendations are in some cases non-binding then how are there going to be savings?
Furthermore, reducing physician payments will further reduce the number of providers accepting medicare as a payment form. Medicare is already reimbursing providers at a rate of approx. 20 -35% less than standard insurance carriers. Let me put it this way, Do you support a 20%+ pay cut to physicians who see Medicare patients? How many of you would take that? What alternatives are available to these doctors - retirement or not accepting Medicare patients.
If you are not willing to pay them what they are currently receiving now and instead reduce that amount by 21% in the future, there will obviously be less providers accepting medicare as a form of payment. That is simply basic econ101.
(3) Now I know that this is from the CBO, and apparently there are provisions in the bill somewhere that specify all this quite clearly, but I couldn't find it. This is one of the troubling parts that the left says isn't rationing care, and the right refers to as the "Death Panel." I don't know how else to look at it other than as it is written. "It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care." There is no guarantee, but it seems pretty clear that that the reduction of benefits is an option according to the CBO. Even taking that the care won't be rationed, it isn't clear to the CBO whether the cost reductions are even a viability.
Lastly, What steps are being taken to ensure that there will be enough primary care physicians, medical supplies and facilities to handle the increase in demand even though a shortage already exists today? Fewer physicians are currently accepting Medicare patients, and not all of the baby-boomers have retired?
Cue the partisan talking points.
Hell, even Merc knows it, but he's been in that river so long, he doesnt know which way is up.
Up the Demoncratic river of bullshit one finds it hard to know which a-hole is dumping into it at any one time. Pretty common event in the last 2 years.
I know it, you know it, Shawnee and Sam and anyone viewing this thread know it. Hell, even Merc knows it, but he's been in that river so long, he doesnt know which way is up.
Fail.
Anyway - back on topic.
Link
(1) I recognize that assumptions must be made in order to give some sort of guesstimations.
But assuming that the legislation remain untouched for 20 years is not going to happen. Therefore virtually all of the opinions contained herein regarding any budgetary cost increases or reductions are, to me, worthless. However, we must make these assumptions in porder to have some sort of discussion.
(2) So initially they make an assumption that the "Independent Payment Advisory Board"
Who constitutes this board, and if their recommendations are in some cases non-binding then how are there going to be savings?
Furthermore, reducing physician payments will further reduce the number of providers accepting medicare as a payment form. Medicare is already reimbursing providers at a rate of approx. 20 -35% less than standard insurance carriers.
If you are not willing to pay them what they are currently receiving now and instead reduce that amount by 21% in the future, there will obviously be less providers accepting medicare as a form of payment. That is simply basic econ101.
(3) Now I know that this is from the CBO, and apparently there are provisions in the bill somewhere that specify all this quite clearly, but I couldn't find it. This is one of the troubling parts that the left says isn't rationing care, and the right says is. I don't know how else to look at it other than as it is written. "It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care." There is no guarantee, but it seems pretty clear that that the reduction of benefits is an option according to the CBO. Even taking that the care won't be rationed, it isn't clear to the CBO whether the cost reductions are even a viability.
Lastly, What steps are being taken to ensure that there will be enough primary care physicians, medical supplies and facilities to handle the increase in demand even though a shortage already exists today? Fewer physicians are currently accepting Medicare patients, and not all of the baby-boomers have retired?
Cue the partisan talking points.
All good questions. I have been asking them for quite some time now. Still no responses from the talking heads who support this BS.
Merc, I think we pretty much all know where you stand on this issue. The fact that you are "in the system" seems to be overlooked or ignored by some. Let them have at it. I know we need reform, but the question remains is this bill the reform we need or not?
Merc, I think we pretty much all know where you stand on this issue. The fact that you are "in the system" seems to be overlooked or ignored by some. Let them have at it. I know we need reform, but the question remains is this bill the reform we need or not?
Yeah....its very impressive that a guy "in the system" can only flood the site with partisan opinion columns and doesnt even know enough to offer an original thought of his own.
And my 20+ years in public policy and the fact that I post facts that neither of you ever accept, or that I have taken the time to try to explain the bill to you as I understand it from having spoken and interacted with experts across the political spectrum as part of my job, means nothing.
But I would agree that we both know a hell of lot more about health care than you.
Fail.
I stand corrected.
I should have said objective and knowledgeable.
It's not about disagreeing, it's about your dancing about when you have absolutely NO argument. You're maddening as hell in that respect, and you keep at it until someone calls you out for being an ass, then you get to play like you're so flabbergasted anyone could think that.
Quoted for truth.
Its not about you or me. Its about you and Merc consistently suggesting that your opinions are non-partisan and more credible than mine or anyone who might disagree with you.
Now back to your dodging and weaving.
I stand corrected.
That about sums it up.
What no response to the FACTS? No reply to the questions posed? Nothing? You really got nothing? I was expecting all sorts of reassurances and . . . I'm shocked. I clearly laid out FACTS from the CBO and followed up with valid opinions from them. Is the CBO now a partisan cite? wtf?
All you got is a another lame personal attack? I expected much more from you.
ETA: and to then take a complete cheap shot at Jinx? That is beyond lame.
Yeah....its very impressive that a guy "in the system" can only flood the site with partisan opinion columns and doesnt even know enough to offer an original thought of his own.
I have offered plenty of them. You can look for them over the last 100+ pages. Because you didn't look does not mean they don't exist.
And my 20+ years in public policy and the fact that I post facts that neither of you ever accept, or that I have taken the time to try to explain the bill to you as I understand it from having spoken and interacted with experts across the political spectrum as part of my job, means nothing.
You post Demoncratic Propaganda. Those are not facts. But you can try to convince yourself that they are, most know better.
Its not about you or me. Its about you and Merc consistently suggesting that your opinions are non-partisan and more credible than mine or anyone who might disagree with you.
I back up my points with subject matter experts. You are not one. Much of the stuff I have posted is non-partisan. Just because they disagree with the bull shit your whores in Congress believe doesn't make them partisan.
I expected much more from you.
My expectations of you were much lower.
You made this personal...not me.
How many posts have I contributed to answer your questions in the past? Not with partisan columns, but with facts from the bills or my best judgment of those bills. Only to be called a partisan or a mouthpiece for Obama in response.
You made this personal...not me.
And, I'm fucking tired of it.
Yeh? Too bad. Cheap shots ain't cuttin' it.
I'll wait patiently for your "objective and knowledgeable" response.
Yeh? Too bad. Cheap shots ain't cuttin' it.
I'll wait patiently for your "objective and knowledgeable" response.
Sorry...I dont have the patience for your partisanship anymore.
Not with partisan columns, but with facts from the bills or my best judgment of those bills. Only to be called a partisan or a mouthpiece for Obama in response.
Because you are a propagandist of the highest order. And your 'best judgement' as a no named non-entity of a poster on a forum does not trump subject matter experts. You are not one.
Y
I stand corrected.
I should have said objective and knowledgeable.
I've read your posts. You're not fit to judge either. Stick to things you understand, like hissy fits.
I've read your posts. You're not fit to judge either. Stick to things you understand, like hissy fits.
Well, now I am really crushed.
Now back to the Merc/Classic "we care about America first and you are a partisan hack " show
And look! It appears the show now has its first groupie....I hope she is not a jinx on your patriotism.
Now back to the Merc/Classic "we care about America first
Can't quote me on that one....
and you are a partisan hack "
you are and please quote me that I have called you that.
Can't quote me on that one....
you are and please quote me that I have called you that.
Merc....on a positive note, I am bringing a program to Savannah next month that will help the residents who are w/o health insurance.....not in a manner that is as significant as what they would gain through the health reform billl, but in a small way that will make their lives a little better in the interim.
I started the program last January and had a goal of reaching 200 cities in the first year and Savannah will be the 324th city in which the program will be implemented.
Otis and the city staff are very excited. :)
Now back to your dodging and weaving.
What? I posted a thoughtful and well cited response with "my own original thoughts, opinions and concerns." Just like you asked for. Cited and quoted by the CBO - As impartial as it gets. Heck, you've used them several times yourself.
You have not replied to any of them, yet again. Just more personal attacks and the blame game.
Weak, at best.
Merc....on a positive note, I am bringing a program to Savannah next month that will help the residents who are w/o health insurance.....not in a manner that is as significant as what they would gain through the health reform billl, but in a small way that will make their lives a little better in the interim.
I started the program last January and had a goal of reaching 200 cities in the first year and Savannah will be the 324th city in which the program will be implemented.
Otis and the city staff are very excited. :)
Good on you!
Savannah has a high number of folks who could use it.
Otis gets very excited easily. He is an elected official.
What? I posted a thoughtful and well cited response with "my own original thoughts, opinions and concerns." Just like you asked for. Cited and quoted by the CBO - As impartial as it gets. Heck, you've used them several times yourself.
You have not replied to any of them, yet again. Just more personal attacks and the blame game.
Weak, at best.
The last time I attempted to respond to your "thoughtful" comment that the bill would simply help 30+ million uninsured, you refused to acknowledge
the fact that I pointed out that the bill will also help 200+ million people currently insured by providing unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits), and
the fact that the bill provides funding to build capacity for the Insurance Exchange, in response to your concern regarding the delay in implementing that piece of the program.
In response to your "thoughtful" comment about Medicare cuts, I offered the response with
the fact that the largest percentage of the cuts are in overpayments to MA providers that wont impact patient services. Those services (with a few exceptions like gym memberships) will be provide through other MA providers willing to offer services at a rate 5% above guidelines (as opposed to the current 15%) or will be provided through basic Medicare.
In response to your "thoughtful" comment about paying for four years before any change is enacted, I responded that
the facts say otherwise and that there are numerous components of the bill that will be implemented immediately (not to mention that much of the costs are in the out-years). You want more details on that? The bill immediately prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage, imposing life-time or annual limits or denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and young adults can stay on their parents’ policies until their 27th birthday.....and those currently uninsured will be able to purchase subsidized catastrophic coverage and small businesses that provide health coverage will also be eligible for immediate tax credits.
The above exchanges over the last day or so were what I think Shawnee was referencing with this post:
It's not about disagreeing, it's about your dancing about when you have absolutely NO argument. You're maddening as hell in that respect, and you keep at it until someone calls you out for being an ass, then you get to play like you're so flabbergasted anyone could think that.
And I agree with her.
In numerous previous posts over the last weeks and months, I have tried to respond honestly only to have you ignore the facts in my post and/or characterize it as partisan or call me a partisan mouthpiece.
Fool me once (or twice, or three times), shame on me.
I just got fed up with your "dancing" and related bullshit and I wont get fooled again.
And the fact that you still cant or wont admit that your "contributions" to this discussion for the most part have been as partisan as anyone's just reinforces my opinion.
If you and Merc (and Jinx) think that I am just a mouthpiece or dont know what the fuck I am talking about....fine. Its no sweat off my ass.
Dont ask me to respond anymore ....but dont be surprised if I call you out for partisan bullshit or false or misleading cherry-picked lines to suit your agenda from your snips/pastes when I see it.
I pointed out that the bill will also help 200+ million people currently insured by providing unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits)
What increases in premiums are available to the insurance companies? How is this determined?
For those who are ill or have a pre-existing condition you state that they can get insurance - at what cost? Is it the same as a healthy person or are there increased premiums for them similar to life insurance?
I offered the response that the bulk of the cuts are in overpayments to MA providers that wont impact patient services.
Who determined that they were overpayments? How was that done, was it in comparison to other major carriers? Because my experience and research disagrees with that statement. In fact Medicare pays substantially less that standard carriers. The CBO doesn't agree either, based upon what I read and quoted.
Those services (with a few exceptions like gym memberships) will be provide through other MA providers willing to offer services at a rate 5% above guidelines (as opposed to the current 15%) or will be provided through basic Medicare.
I don't understand this last part, please clarify.
And the fact that you still cant or wont admit that your "contributions" to this discussion for the most part have been as partisan as anyone's just reinforces my opinion.
Again, I am neither an "R" nor a "D". I have very personal & private reasons for my comments, questions and opinions about this legislation. If you really want to know, PM me.
If you and Merc (and Jinx) think that I am just a mouthpiece or dont know what the fuck I am talking about....fine. Dont ask me to respond anymore ....but dont be surprised if I call you out for partisan bullshit if I see it.
For the hundredth time - STOP lumping people together. Take each on his or her own for their own merits and/or posts. You know Merc as well or should I say as little as I do, Jinx too for that matter.
Just untwist your panties and relax.
Oh, Are there links that specifically back up your claims - most importantly those referring to the pre-existing conditions? That would be most helpful.
Again, I am neither an "R" nor a "D". I have very personal & private reasons for my comments, questions and opinions about this legislation. If you really want to know, PM me.
For the hundredth time - STOP lumping people together. Take each on his or her own for their own merits and/or posts. You know Merc as well or should I say as little as I do, Jinx too for that matter.
Just untwist your panties and relax.
Oh, Are there links that specifically back up your claims - most importantly those referring to the pre-existing conditions? That would be most helpful.
Its not the letter after your name that matters, it is the nature of your responses....and when they regurgitate right wing talking points, IMO, it is partisan....and when they sound just like others, I will lump them with others.
But putting that aside.
The immediate benefits regarding pre-existing conditions is in the Senate legislation. I dont know a better source than that:
Subtitle B--Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage
SEC. 1101. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING CONDITION.
(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals during the period beginning on the date on which such program is established and ending on January 1, 2014.
(These temporary pools will be administered by the states.)
...
(In terms of costs, the insurance company has to pay at least 2/3 and there are limits on out-of-pocket expenses):
(A) provides to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage;
(B) provides health insurance coverage--
(i) in which the issuer's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under such coverage is not less than 65 percent of such costs; and
(ii) that has an out of pocket limit not greater than the applicable amount described in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the year involved, except that the Secretary may modify such limit if necessary to ensure the pool meets the actuarial value limit under clause (i)...
(see the IRS code for the latest limits that apply to medical savings accounts...the same limits would apply.)
(In terms of eligible individuals, all of the below must apply):
(d) Eligible Individual- An individual shall be deemed to be an eligible individual for purposes of this section if such individual--
(1) is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in the United States (as determined in accordance with section 1411);
(2) has not been covered under creditable coverage (as defined in section 2701(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) during the 6-month period prior to the date on which such individual is applying for coverage through the high risk pool; and
(3) has a pre-existing condition, as determined in a manner consistent with guidance issued by the Secretary.
There are also provisions to immediately extend coverage to children on a family plan up to the age of 27 (sec 2714)
For the full bill, go to
thomas.loc.gov and seach the bill number HR 3590
If this is important to you, I would suggest calling or e-mailing your Senator and requesting more information.
As I said, I dont claim to be an expert, but I do have a pretty good understanding of what are in these bills.
More here from the bill summaries on the immediate provisions of interest as described in detail in the sections in the above post.
Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.
No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the Managers’ Amendment prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.
Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans
There is also $10 billion for immediate support of Community Health Centers, which may be of less priority to you, but important to others:
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $10 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill46.pdf
IMO...these and other provisions provide s
ubstantial immediate relief.
And on the Medicare issue, you are confusing basic Medicare with the private insurance Medicare Advantage. which has been ripping the program off for years, charging 15% more than the agreed upon rates. Most of the services will be provided either by other MA providers, based on regional average (not the most excessive) cost figures or at worst, will push those patients back to basic Medicare for the same services (with the exception of a few minor enhancements like the gym memberships, eye glasses,...)
You cant be for Medicare reform w/o acknowledging that there might be a marginal loss of a few enhanced benefits under this proposal for some, but not basic, essential services.
You cant be for Medicare reform w/o acknowledging that there might be a marginal loss of a few enhanced benefits under this proposal for some, but not basic, essential services.
That is more smoke and mirrors. Seniors are going to lose benefits. You keep bringing up "gym memberships" and that is right out of the Demoncratic playbook of talking points. That is a very minor part of MA. Most seniors do not share your view of it being a "marginal loss". They are quite worried about what BS this Congress is about to foist on them.
You like to whine about how anyone who disagrees with your party and those whores in Congress must be Republikin. Just because people disagree with what this majority is doing to this country does not make them "partisan" or "Republican" or "Right-wing". If you believe that you are paranoid. Stop. You are starting to sound like Hiltery Clinton and her statements about a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
That is more smoke and mirrors. Seniors are going to lose benefits. You keep bringing up "gym memberships" and that is right out of the Demoncratic playbook of talking points. That is a very minor part of MA. Most seniors do not share your view of it being a "marginal loss". They are quite worried about what BS this Congress is about to foist on them.
Medicare Advantage will no longer pay the current (15% above the agreed upon rates) that have been ripping off the program for the last 10 years.
Instead, it will pay the average rates established for a region...it wont be the same for Mississippi as New York....but in both cases, it will no longer be the current highest rate.
Seniors will not lose unless you believe that no insurance company will come in with a proposal below the current rip-off rates. If a company offers the program at a 5% above the agreed upon rates (with fewer benefits) and the current company maintains the 15% (with many less essential enhanced benefits) ...the maxmimum rate for the region will be 10% (with benefits between the two) and then either or both can compete for patients at that rate. In any case, there is savings without loss of most patient services, with the exception, possibly of those most enhanced services (gym memberships, eye glasses) that are nice benefits but not as essential to basic health care.
[You like to whine about how anyone who disagrees with your party and those whores in Congress must be Republikin. Just because people disagree with what this majority is doing to this country does not make them "partisan" or "Republican" or "Right-wing". If you believe that you are paranoid. Stop. You are starting to sound like Hiltery Clinton and her statements about a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
Certainly, by any measure, not as much as you whine about Democrats in nearly every post.
It is not an issued of the letter after the name....it is the talking points in most of your daily opinion pieces that have an agenda....an agenda that makes them partisan.
But enough of this bullshit.....your opinion is no more valid than mine...but you wont accept that.
Certainly, by any measure, not as much as you whine about Democrats in nearly every post.
Ummmm yea, last time I checked they hold all the power and are responsible for everything that happens or does not happen in government at the current time.
It is not an issued of the letter after the name....it is the talking points in most of your daily opinion pieces that have an agenda....an agenda that makes them partisan.
Yea. Most of what they are doing is not all that great, no matter how you want to spin it. But they get the responsiblity with the authority.
But enough of this bullshit.....your opinion is no more valid than mine...but you wont accept that.
Maybe, but opinions of known subject matter experts trump those of a no named poster without the same known credentials of 90% of my 'cut and paste' on a bad day.
Redux, thanks for the input. I still don't see anything that addresses the cost issues for any of this. All it says is "eligible" "affordable" or refers to some ambiguous "out of pocket limits." I still don't see what the premiums are going to be for people with pre-existing conditions relative to those without.
Redux, thanks for the input. I still don't see anything that addresses the cost issues for any of this. All it says is "eligible" "affordable" or refers to some ambiguous "out of pocket limits." I still don't see what the premiums are going to be for people with pre-existing conditions relative to those without.
I dont think it is ambiguous at all.
The bill prohibits rate discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or gender (to the benefit of women who have historically faced rate discrimination). The only allowable rate differentials under the bill are age and smoking.
SO if you are on a group plan at work, the bill would require the insurance company to immediately (or within 90 days) cover a child with a pre-existing condition at the same cost as the healthy child of a co-worker. In 2014, group plans would be required to cover adults with pre-existing conditions at the same rate as healthy co-workers.
If you are talking about an uninsured adult with a pre-existing condition, the temporary pool sets rate limits indexed to the IRS rates for health saving accounts. I dont know the rates off of the top of my head, but I would guess a maximum out of pocket cost of $3-4,000 for an individual.
But dont take my word for it or dont buy into Merc's "smoke and mirrors" complaints....call or e-mail your Senator and have his/her policy person respond to your questions and concerns.
The bill prohibits rate discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or gender. The only allowable rate differentials under the bill are age and smoking.
At what cost? that was my question.
SO if you are on a group plan at work, the bill would require the insurance company to immediately (or within 90 days) cover a child with a pre-existing condition at the same cost as the healthy child of a co-worker.
Where did it say that? I was specifically looking for that! And I thought it said after 6 months not 3.
If you are talking about an uninsured adult with a pre-existing condition, the temporary pool sets rate limits indexed to the IRS rates for health saving accounts.
What the hell is that?
I dont know the rates off of the top of my head, but I would guess a maximum out of pocket cost of $3-4,000 for an individual.
Out of pocket is not what I was referring to. I believe that was actually $5,000. I was talking about the cost of the plan.
call or e-mail your Senator and have his/her policy person respond to your questions and concerns.
Been there done that - He was less than helpful. I think my limited knowledge was more than his. Really sad when you consider he voted on it. I'm not done with him yet and he promised to get back to me... I'll hold my breath - NOT.
Fail.
Well, actually, I mostly agree with Redux. I just wish that certain posters would stop with the name calling already. A stance of "I'm right and you're stupid" really doesn't do much for the discussion.
At what cost? that was my question.
Where did it say that? I was specifically looking for that! And I thought it said after 6 months not 3.
My mistake...6 months to cover children with pre-existing conditions on a group plan (3 months for the temp pool for uninsured). Prohibiting rate discrimination means providing coverage at the same rate currently applied to other co-workers (and families)
What the hell is that?
Out of pocket is not what I was referring to. I believe that was actually $5,000. I was talking about the cost of the plan.
The IRS sets annual rates for maximum deductables and out-of-pocket for the purpose of deducting HSA expenses for persons who currently purchase insurance on the open market (rather than through a group plan at work). These same rates will be applied to the temporary pool for adults with pre-existing conditions.
I've offered my best understanding of what all this means. I dont have anything else to add.
Been there done that - He was less than helpful. I think my limited knowledge was more than his. Really sad when you consider he voted on it. I'm ot done with him yet and he promised to get back to me... I'll hold my breath - NOT.
Keep trying...and your Congressperson as well.
Well, actually, I mostly agree with Redux. I just wish that certain posters would stop with the name calling already. A stance of "I'm right and you're stupid" really doesn't do much for the discussion.
Well, they started it! :lol:
(I'm not feigning innocence; I get tired of the crap, which is why I chimed in when I have no horse in this race...Redux has tried and tried to have discussions based on facts. He (or she) has been put into the position everyone else who has ever tried to have a discussion with those guys has been put into...so, fuck 'em. You CANNOT have reasonable discussions with those two on any matter. If I said brown hair is better they'd post article after article by some blogger who begs to differ, then say I'm stupid and didn't read the piece of shit article. God, aren't you tired of it yet? Give it a couple more years. You will be. My Chicken Little also says the sky if falling...and it's raining asshats.)
Redux has tried and tried to have discussions based on facts. He (or she)...
He
Me receiving an award from former mayor of DC for work several years ago on citizen's social services commission.
Contrary to the opinion of some, I do know a little about social services issues and policy (including health care).
Oh HAI Redux! Nice to see you! :)
:can't find the stupid wave smilie:
At what cost? that was my question.
The following is a rather long cut and paste. Please note that the study was done in 2004 so dollar amounts are probably higher now. I do think it is worth taking note of because it addresses many of the points we have been discussing here.
Kaiser Commission on uninsured and Medicaid.
It has been estimated that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. (So, we already have what amounts to a “death panel” – no insurance you are more likely to die.)
Total medical care expenditures among all of the uninsured in 2004 (including both those without coverage for all or part of the year) are almost $125 billion.
Most uncompensated care dollars are incurred by hospitals, where services are most costly. In 2001 hospitals accounted for over 60% of uncompensated care dollars; office-based physicians’ share and that of direct care programs/clinics accounted for just under 20% each.
Health services research has consistently documented an insurance disparity in access to and use of medical services. Compared to persons who have health insurance, the uninsured:
• receive less preventive care,
• are diagnosed at more advanced disease states,
• and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates.
Total spending for those who would gain coverage under a universal expansion would increase by $48 billion. Added to the current spending level of almost $125 billion (which includes all uncompensated care, out-of-pocket payments, and insurance payments for those covered for part of the year) the new dollars would bring the total to $173 billion if coverage were similar to the average low to middle income person with health insurance.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdfAt what cost? that was my question.
...
How much is your health worth? Your life? The health and lives of your loved ones?
[I]..I know it, you know it, Shawnee and Sam and anyone viewing this thread know it....
Succeed.
Sam, I think those are all valid points. But there are some things that must be considered when looking at those raw numbers. The whole story is not there.
Health services research has consistently documented an insurance disparity in access to and use of medical services.
They:
receive less preventive care,
• are diagnosed at more advanced disease states,
• and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates.
It has been my experience that many people in this group
also fails to seek care until the last minute, over uses care that they know they don't have to pay for, and is often less compliant with their care when they do receive it. I think the reason that they may receive less theraputic care because the hospitals know they are not reimbursed for much of it, so they get just what they need when the hospital has to eat all the costs. The other reason for the disparity is that healthcare is a business. It has been that way for over 20 years. Insurance companies get to cut deals to bring in the numbers (just like the Dems have done with the mandatory insurance issue) and those who end up paying cash don't get the deal and have to pay the higher costs. Those who don't pay and can't pay still will not. One of the biggest failures in this new plan is that very little has been written into the bill which controls what the insurance companies can charge those who are already insured in the matter of deductables and co-pays. The trade off for them in the advantage of dropping the pre-existing condition clauses is that they get the numbers, millions of new payers. You only need to look at the state of Mass and see how their experiment in healthcare reform to see many of the same failures in this new plan. There is absolutely no promise that people are going to go out and get insurance, mandatory or not. That is exactly what happened in Mass. People still waited to the last minute to seek care, they still did not go out and get the mandatory insurance, and the costs were shifted to the state and individually insured to pay the bills. It is breaking their bank.
How much is your health worth? Your life? The health and lives of your loved ones?
Idiotic question. Wanna think about that & try again. Perhaps what you are asking and what I am reading aren't the same thing.
Idiotic question. Wanna think about that & try again. Perhaps what you are asking and what I am reading aren't the same thing.
This is exactly what Shawnee is talking about. Or are you really just too stupid to see the connection between your question and my answer?
ch'yeah. Just what I was saying.
(note: c-man's regurgitation of my post about assholes was a conglomeration where I said I'd have more respect if he would just come out and call someone an asshole rather than prancing around playing smarter than thou martyr man.)
Here are my posts:
Oh bullshit.
This is the next step after avoiding any points: talk about how nice you are about it all.
Seriously? Oh well, at least you got merc to suck your dick again.
Oh, am I being a name-caller? Well, YES I am! I freely admit it.
Oh, merc? It's challenge, not CHALLANGE. And, when you mean MORE THAN, as in TOO MUCH, it's T-O-O. Not TO MUCH. Unless you're going to a town called MUCH, in which case TO MUCH would be correct.
Maybe someone will learn something today after all.
Lies.
And thanks for all your valuable input. I gave up providing valuable input a long time ago, when I realized you don't listen, you don't discuss: you dance around and throw quotes around but it's never anything with meaning or purpose.
As Redux said, when you are confronted with facts you play "who me?" and bat your eyelashes, oh so innocent, which I think is infinitely worse than a REAL and TRUE "OH YEAH? FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."
I mean, it's so passive-aggressive. That's worse than truth telling, even if the truth points out what a dick you can be. You really don't know what you're talking about half the time, do you?
This is what classhole man turned them into:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123
Lies.
you don't listen,
you don't discuss
you dance around
never anything with meaning or purpose.
FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."
what a dick you can be.
Posted by classicman: and yet again. You do all this trash-talking, name-calling and hurl accusations while acting like I'm the guilty party simply because I disagree. Boy I really must have struck a nerve
Stop bastardizing my quotes, correcting my grammar, and generally being a public nuisance. You hope no one will go back and check and call you on your lies. Wrong.
classhole
I kinda like that - thanks.
:ggw:Oh, honey baby doll, you're so welcome.
It has been my experience that many people in this group also fails to seek care until the last minute, over uses care that they know they don't have to pay for, and is often less compliant with their care when they do receive it.
Well, my experience has been the opposite. I think one reason the uninsured don't seek help until the last minute is probably about fear of having yet another bill that they can't pay. Plus, a visit to the ER frankly sucks. Its often over-crowded, you get to see a doc for about 5 minutes after a 3 hour wait, there is no continuity of care, etc., etc. Its also hard to be compliant when you have little or no money. It costs a fortune to fill many prescriptions. But we are both speaking anectdotally here. I would like to see some actual numbers/studies.
I think the reason that they may receive less theraputic care because the hospitals know they are not reimbursed for much of it, so they get just what they need when the hospital has to eat all the costs.
It is my understanding that the Federal Government actually makes payments to hospitals to cover care for the uninsured. This is one reason hospitals are not as interested in universal coverage.
You only need to look at the state of Mass and see how their experiment in healthcare reform to see many of the same failures in this new plan. There is absolutely no promise that people are going to go out and get insurance, mandatory or not. That is exactly what happened in Mass. People still waited to the last minute to seek care, they still did not go out and get the mandatory insurance, and the costs were shifted to the state and individually insured to pay the bills. It is breaking their bank.
I would be interested in seeing a source for this.
P.S. Thanks for the cites. I'll take a look at them.
I have to agree with sam just because it's personal now.
weirdly
I found a clinic that will take payments and an ENT specialist who I have seen before will take payments too. I am stalling. I don't want a bill. I'm thinking I'll end up paying a 300 dollars to tell me what I already know.
What should the uninsured do? I think do the minimum and if it is crucial do a surgery?I'm not saying I need surgery but I have had the same kind of thing happen twice before and I don't want it. Surely the doctors would not overtreat someone who does not have insurance and would only elect to do something like surgery if it was absolutely necessary ? after all it's their money right? Especially sense they would know my history.
I think I just convince myself it will be alright. Thanks for letting me sort of hijack but then we are talking about health care and insurance so I'm sure I'll be forgiven I hope.
No worries. I will tell you that there is a pervasive feeling among physicians that the tendency among Medicaid patients is that they will sue you first. They are prayed upon by the legal system which hawks malpractice for a living. If they can be convinced that they will get something out of it they will. I don't blame them for the way they get worked over by the predatory malpractice lawyers, because they are not all that way (the lawyers or the patients), but it creates an environment where more tests are done to cover ones ass and minimize the risk of giving anyone an excuse that something was not checked. That is my experience.
Well, my experience has been the opposite. I think one reason the uninsured don't seek help until the last minute is probably about fear of having yet another bill that they can't pay. Plus, a visit to the ER frankly sucks. Its often over-crowded, you get to see a doc for about 5 minutes after a 3 hour wait, there is no continuity of care, etc., etc. Its also hard to be compliant when you have little or no money. It costs a fortune to fill many prescriptions. But we are both speaking anectdotally here. I would like to see some actual numbers/studies.
I will look for some numbers for you.
It is my understanding that the Federal Government actually makes payments to hospitals to cover care for the uninsured. This is one reason hospitals are not as interested in universal coverage.
The feds make payments to the states. The states divi up the money to pay the hospitals. The states determine what they are going to pay individual hospitals for indigent care.
(Mass)I would be interested in seeing a source for this.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/february/massachusetts_is_no_.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iyah-romm/lessons-from-massachusett_b_380718.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/17/nation/na-health-massachusetts17
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/healthinsurance.html
This supports the changes but points out the issue of costs and costs to the patients in individual insurance.
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2135OK, I read Merc's links and I'm on information overload. I might be able to make an intelligent comment after a night's rest. :greenface
OK, I'm recovering from information and opinion overload. I don't know if anyone besides me and Redux and Merc and C-Man care about this much detail, but here goes. Critics of the bill say among other things that:
[LIST]
[*]Congress will never do any cost cutting of Medicare and the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors (SGR)
[*]If you give people insurance, they will use it (duh)
[*]Congress is dancing with special interests
[/LIST]
I checked out the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a NONPARTISAN think group)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021 and here's what they state
on Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors
Congress likely will never let the full SGR cuts take effect, and it probably won’t offset the cost of scrapping them. But that cost is neither part of, nor in any way a result of, health care reform — the federal government will incur this cost regardless of health care reform, not because of it. This fact is undeniable: if health reform legislation were to die tomorrow, the full SGR cost would remain. To be sure, it would be better if Congress offset the cost of cancelling the SGR cuts. But that issue is separate from the question of whether the health care reform bills themselves add to the deficit or not.
I also might add that the perception that Congress will not act to control Medicare costs is a false one. Again check out the documentation in the link above if you're interested.
If you give people insurance they will use it (duh)
Providing insurance coverage for tens of millions of uninsured Americans will necessarily raise total health care spending in the short term. The real issues here are: (1) whether health reform includes provisions to cover the costs of these insurance expansions so that deficits and debt do not increase; and (2) whether health reform includes steps that begin to slow the rate of health cost growth so that total health spending is lower in the longer run than it otherwise would be. The House and Senate bills meet the first test, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with the House bill reducing deficits by $138 billion over ten years, the Senate bill reducing deficits by $130 billion over that period, and both bills continuing to reduce deficits for at least a decade after that. The bills also hold promise for the second test, CBO says, although policymakers will need to do more to slow health cost growth as we learn more about how to do it, such as by applying the knowledge gained in the coming decade from pilot projects in the health bills, comparative effectiveness research, and the like.
Congress is dancing with special interests
This is just my opinion. Congress dances with special interests on EVERYTHING. And look at Dick Cheney's connection with Halliburton or Bush's tie with big oil and the Bin Laden's. I won't say that this complaint does not have some validity, but it is part of a larger over-all problem in American government. Republicans are lapdogs to one set of groups and Democrats to another. And often special interest groups will try to play one party off against another. I'm sure the Roman Empire had the same problem. It would be nice if we could cure it, but I feel it is an issue seperate from the health care debate.
Congress will never do any cost cutting of Medicare and the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors (SGR)
Have you looked at the history of Congress and how they have cut costs of Medicare over say, let's pick the last 4 years, and can you show me what a great job they have done at cutting costs?
If you give people insurance, they will use it (duh)
Nope, they will not get it unless they need it.
Congress is dancing with special interests
Absolutely!
I checked out the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a NONPARTISAN think group)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021 and here's what they state
on Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors
I also might add that the perception that Congress will not act to control Medicare costs is a false one. Again check out the documentation in the link above if you're interested.
I do not believe that for one minute. Remember now that cost controls are not just a factor of reducing payments to the providers. All that does is make more docs drop Medicare payments as reimbursements decrease. Ok, let me ask you this. If it is such a big deal why have they not fixed it until now? Why? Because of lobbyists and special interests have prevented them from doing so. All of a sudden it is a big frigging deal. So they have let us get screwed for all these years and now it is an issue?
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl857.cfm
This is just my opinion. Congress dances with special interests on EVERYTHING. And look at Dick Cheney's connection with Halliburton or Bush's tie with big oil and the Bin Laden's. I won't say that this complaint does not have some validity, but it is part of a larg Her over-all problem in American government. Republicans are lapdogs to one set of groups and Democrats to another. And often special interest groups will try to play one party off against another. I'm sure the Roman Empire had the same problem.
Agreed.
Now my brother, who is 54, reasonably healthy, and single, has decided to drop his health insurance which costs him close to $500 a month. He figures it's cheaper to pay the federal and state(MA) penalties, then buy insurance (pre-existing conditions allowed) if something serious develops.
Is there a flaw to this reasoning?
Now my brother, who is 54, reasonably healthy, and single, has decided to drop his health insurance which costs him close to $500 a month. He figures it's cheaper to pay the federal and state(MA) penalties, then buy insurance (pre-existing conditions allowed) if something serious develops.
Is there a flaw to this reasoning?
None. I would rather pay an $800 penalty when I need it and save all the money in between.
Now my brother, who is 54, reasonably healthy, and single, has decided to drop his health insurance which costs him close to $500 a month. He figures it's cheaper to pay the federal and state(MA) penalties, then buy insurance (pre-existing conditions allowed) if something serious develops.
Is there a flaw to this reasoning?
Cancer, heart disease, crippling accidents, and all the others ills that human flesh is heir to.
Now my brother, who is 54, reasonably healthy, and single, has decided to drop his health insurance which costs him close to $500 a month. He figures it's cheaper to pay the federal and state(MA) penalties, then buy insurance (pre-existing conditions allowed) if something serious develops.
Is there a flaw to this reasoning?
The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event l(like a car accident that leaves you in coma or with serious internal injuries or a massive coronary while having dinner one night or just out for a walk....not something serious developing over time in which you can scam the system and get coverage for a pre-existing condition), you face a huge bill or bankruptcy.
Sure, the odds are in your favor that it wont happen. I guess one has to decide if its worth the risk to yourself and your family.
If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.
Cancer, heart disease, crippling accidents, and all the others ills that human flesh is heir to.
Well, no, it's not the cancer, because that gets diagnosed first, and then treatment takes awhile--plenty of time to buy insurance and get the treatment covered. But a sudden heart attack: that rush to the ER and immediate bypass surgery isn't going to be covered. The crippling car accident, that surgery isn't going to be covered. There are plenty of terrible things that can happen that aren't cured over the long term, but rather incur giant costs right then and there.
Of course, the reality is we will still treat the uninsured who show up at the ER, even if they haven't paid their yearly penalties. So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.
Of course, the reality is we will still treat the uninsured who show up at the ER, even if they haven't paid their yearly penalties. So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.
Consider also that after declaring bankruptcy, if you have another catastrophic medical emergency within 6-7 years, you cant declare bankruptcy again and you should expect to have some percent of your wages garnished...or you can hire a lawyer and fight it.
The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event...
:idea: Ah yes, thanks, I'll pass that along.
So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.
No, we own considerable property, and he owns commercial buildings, so that would not be a happy prospect.
But you know how those Republicans are always scheming, although I think he's been voting Libertarian in the last few. ;)
If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.
You're an old fart aren't ya? lol
TRUST ME PEOPLE - Coming from personal experience, you do not want to go without insurance. A bad driver in another car... a fall down the stairs, there are a million things that can happen.
I'll give you a little taste of what the stakes are -
3 weeks in a trauma ward = about $1,000,000.
4 months in rehab center = $660,000 (bed fee) +++ meds, supplies...
When I started working, we used to laugh at the $1,000,000 family limit on out health insurance policies. Christ, who could ever use that up?
Now they've doubled it and I still know 4 people who maxed out. :eek:
A close friend fainted while in line at the grocery store. She landed on her jaw and broke it into five pieces. She spent a week in the hospital and was able to go home on Christmas Eve with her jaw wired shut and pins holding it together.
She was just standing there in line. No previous medical conditions.
Fortunately, she has medical insurance to pay the tens of thousands of dollars of hospital and plastic surgery bills. Unfortunately, she doesn't have dental, and she is eventually going to need bridge work to replace some of the teeth she lost.
Having no insurance is a gamble.
In that case glatt - her dental issues arose from a medical situation and should be covered by her medical insurance - not dental.
(again speaking from experience I wish I had none of)
cool. I'll mention that to her.
The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event l(like a car accident that leaves you in coma or with serious internal injuries or a massive coronary while having dinner one night or just out for a walk....not something serious developing over time in which you can scam the system and get coverage for a pre-existing condition), you face a huge bill or bankruptcy.
Sure, the odds are in your favor that it wont happen. I guess one has to decide if its worth the risk to yourself and your family.
If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.
Under the new plan if you have no insurance you just have to pay the penalty and then buy insurance to cover you. Since you are so sick you will not be able to work and have no income so you can just get the government to pay it. People with absolutely no money get that kind of care all the time.
Under the new plan if you have no insurance you just have to pay the penalty and then buy insurance to cover you. Since you are so sick you will not be able to work and have no income so you can just get the government to pay it. People with absolutely no money get that kind of care all the time.
If you have no insurance and have a heart attack, accident, sports injury....it might result in being out of work for a short period of time, but you still are accountable for the bill.
Under the new plan, these are not pre-existing conditions and you cannot suddenly decide you want insurance retroactively for such an event.
Under the new plan, these are not pre-existing conditions and you cannot suddenly decide you want insurance retroactively for such an event.
Really? It says that in the new bill? Got a link to that?
Really? It says that in the new bill? Got a link to that?
Damn, Merc.
The bill covers treatment moving forward for pre-existing conditions....not to recover retroactive expenses.
Search the bill yourself.
Damn, Merc.
The bill covers treatment moving forward for pre-existing conditions....not to recover retroactive expenses.
Search the bill yourself.
Well once the bill is passed, in whatever form it will be it allows for no clause for a pre-existing condition. So if I have a heart attack, and a week later get health insurance, they have to cover my heart conditon. Maybe not the inital bill, because I would be responsible for that first week, but since I have no income they would just have to write off the costs. But after that I should be good to go. Pay the fine, since I don't have health insurance, buy insurance, don't have enough to pay for it because I don't have a job, get the government to pay for it. Good to go!
Well once the bill is passed, in whatever form it will be it allows for no clause for a pre-existing condition. So if I have a heart attack, and a week later get health insurance, they have to cover my heart conditon. Maybe not the inital bill, because I would be responsible for that first week, but since I have no income they would just have to write off the costs. But after that I should be good to go. Pay the fine, since I don't have health insurance, buy insurance, don't have enough to pay for it because I don't have a job, get the government to pay for it. Good to go!
And if you have a job or investment income or any wealth and chose to not have health insurance and suffer an accident or injury or require immediate major surgery for a heart attack, as Bruce's brother would potentially face, you are financial responsible for those medical costs....it could be only a $couple hundred for broken bone or $tens of thousands for major surgery.
You're making a lot of assumptions. :rolleyes:
You're making a lot of assumptions. :rolleyes:
I dont like using personal examples, but if he or anyone, even if not working, has income from commercial buildings or investment income, one cannot simply write off the medical bill as an indigent.
No no, that was directed at Merc. You snuck in between while I was taking a piss. Prostrate trumps all. :blush:
No no, that was directed at Merc. You snuck in between while I was taking a piss. Prostrate trumps all. :blush:
Trump's prostrate would be covered if he develops problems after deciding to drop his insurance.
Your signature line is stellar, Bruce.
You're making a lot of assumptions. :rolleyes:
What would prevent anyone from doing that who previously did not have health insurance?
Well once the bill is passed, in whatever form it will be it allows for no clause for a pre-existing condition. So if I have a heart attack, and a week later get health insurance, they have to cover my heart conditon.
First, you're assuming your cow orkers would be interested in saving your life.
Maybe not the inital bill, because I would be responsible for that first week, but since I have no income they would just have to write off the costs.
No they don't, being in the hospital for a week is not, "not working", besides there is a matter of assets.
But after that I should be good to go.
You're assuming you'll be able to buy health insurance like a case of beer, with no delay, no waiting period.
Pay the fine, since I don't have health insurance, buy insurance, don't have enough to pay for it because I don't have a job, get the government to pay for it. Good to go!
Assets man, assets, plus income earned previously in the year with those fat contracts. If the poor people can get insurance without paying for it, why the fuck would they not have insurance? duh.:rolleyes:
It's the people that can afford it that have to make a choice, get to gamble. But that's a narrow band between, free to the poor, and we'll wipe you out with an emergency.
First, you're assuming your cow orkers would be interested in saving your life.
No they don't, being in the hospital for a week is not, "not working", besides there is a matter of assets.
You're assuming you'll be able to buy health insurance like a case of beer, with no delay, no waiting period. Assets man, assets, plus income earned previously in the year with those fat contracts. If the poor people can get insurance without paying for it, why the fuck would they not have insurance? duh.:rolleyes:
It's the people that can afford it that have to make a choice, get to gamble. But that's a narrow band between, free to the poor, and we'll wipe you out with an emergency.
I think the person with assets could get away with sheltering them if he did it prior to getting sick, your right, it would be a chance, but I do think it could be done. My example was of the guy who had none or minimal to begin with. Those are the people who are hurt the most by a catastrophic event.
Generally people having a heart attack call the ambulance rather than their lawyer. Then there's the car crash, where they don't call at all. Risky, too risky in my brother's case. Being a national director for the SCCA, he travels a lot, which make it ever riskier. For some it might work out, but I suspect there are very few in that perfect position to play that game, and certainly nobody with a family should.
For some it might work out, but I suspect there are very few in that perfect position to play that game, and certainly nobody with a family should.
I agree.
I have a few friends who have created a personal company, owned entirely by their spouse. All the legal paperwork says she owns the company. She stays at home, the other person works, the spouse pays a salary to the other one. Every thing goes through the company. The working person owns very little on paper. In fact they pay very little in personal tax because of all of it going through the company. The house, cars, furniture, everything is owned by the company.
Other people have moved assets into revokable trusts, everything is owned by the trust.
Clever people.
I personally would not be so trusting. And the older you get the more you need to keep some health insurance around.
What was that movie with Broderick Crawford and Judy Holliday, where he hid everything in her name, and she gave him an enema? Now that's risky. :eek:
You're assuming you'll be able to buy health insurance like a case of beer, with no delay, no waiting period.
How long will it take? Takes 1/2 hour to get car insurance.
And where does the CAT fund come into play.
And there you have it.... as I stated numerous times. The push back begins.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”
continues:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0Seemingly Partisan Op-ed opinion piece....
A study from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the average Advantage plan costs the government 13 to 17 percent more than conventional fee-for-service Medicare. That would seem to make the Advantage program a good target for cost-cutting.
Yet, much of that additional expense goes directly toward providing Advantage enrollees with better benefits, which results in better outcomes. A 2004 review conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans found that Advantage outperformed traditional Medicare in several key quality indicators, including annual flu vaccinations, diabetes testing, and breast cancer screenings. Researchers also found that Advantage enrollees were screened and diagnosed earlier for deadly diseases like cervical cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma.
Not only does Medicare Advantage deliver superior outcomes, it also helps keep health-care costs for other patients lower than they would be if all seniors were consigned to fee-for-service Medicare.
How so? Conventional Medicare reimburses health-care providers much less than it actually costs to treat a patient. In California, for instance, Medicare only pays about 74 cents for every dollar in hospital costs.
So providers often lose money on each Medicare patient they treat. To compensate, they charge privately insured patients more. In fact, Medicare underpayments cause privately insured Americans to pay $49 billion more each year than they would if Medicare paid private-market rates. This "hidden tax" is four times greater than the alleged over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans. By driving more seniors into traditional fee-for-service Medicare, the government will significantly increase this hidden tax.
It will also reduce seniors' access to care. Low reimbursement rates have already caused doctors to stop accepting Medicare patients. According to a 2008 survey, 36 percent of doctors report that Medicare payments do not cover the cost of providing care. A full 12 percent of those surveyed said that they'd closed their practices to new Medicare patients.
Link
This seems like a rational rationale though. I am curious - what happens if this trend continues? If it is a trend. Is there some way to curb the # of providers from not accepting medicare patients? Can we link the care provided through insurance to only those providers who also accept Medicare or something?
Again, I realize this is only a commentary on a certain aspect of the bill, but . . .
I don't know about Doc's charging more to patients with regular health care than they do Medicare/Medicaid patients. I have heard of sliding scales based on what you are able to pay. I see this more in rural clinics whose purpose is to provide care for folks far away from any other medical care. I do know that if you are a M/M patient, its next to impossible to find a GP or an internist who will take you. Currently, I am forced to drive out of town to the nearest rural clinic to recieve care. It is almost my understanding that Medicare patients may be faced with a horrendous bill which is then reduced by some formula when the payment is made to Medicare.
Frankly, I'll trade you places. I'd much prefer to have an income that makes me shell out for private insurance costs, rather than be so poverty stricken that I must rely on the M/M.
How long will it take? Takes 1/2 hour to get car insurance.
I don't know, that's why I said he was making an assumption. Like planning a trip without knowing what roads will be open/closed.
And where does the CAT fund come into play.
Fuck that... right here, this is my line in the sand... I ain't paying for anybodies cats. :headshake
I don't know, that's why I said he was making an assumption. Like planning a trip without knowing what roads will be open/closed.
Fuck that... right here, this is my line in the sand... I ain't paying for anybodies cats. :headshake
It would certainly take more time than buying car insurance.
There is an enrollment process to determine eligibility for government subsidy and the level of that subsidy, which varies by income. At the very least, it would require submission of personal tax data for income verification.
But we're still speculating, the fact is we just don't know exactly how it'll all work out. When people ask specific questions about detailed situations, they are unanswerable at this stage of the game. Even after it's signed into law, it's only Congress's framework of intent. The various agencies that create specific rules of implementation is where the questions get answered... and the courts. ;)
I don't think it will ever be repealed, but I'm sure we will see a lot of massaging, in the future, to iron out snags/unintended consequences, expand/contract coverage, and adjust for budgets.
edit:
There was a story about Switzerland on TV today. They addressed universal coverage by requiring everyone to buy health insurance, everyone. It turned out to be much more expensive than they had planed. In the range of 10 to 11 % of GNP, as opposed to the US's 15 to 16 %. But they do have the Rollex of health care systems.
Well a Big Brother just got a little bigger. The IRS is going to be the stick to the Healthcare Reform. And it is going to cost the taxpayers more money to do it and that cost is not part of the estimates for the cost of healthcare reform. So add 10 billion to the cost of any plan that comes out of Congress.
Internal Revenue Service agents already try to catch tax cheats and moonshiners. Under the proposed health care legislation, they would get another assignment: checking to see whether Americans have health insurance.
The legislation would require most Americans to have health insurance and to prove it on their federal tax returns. Those who don't would pay a penalty to the IRS.
That's one of several key duties the IRS would assume under the bills that have been approved by the House of Representatives and Senate and will be merged by negotiators from both chambers.
The agency also would distribute as much as $140 billion a year in new government subsidies to help small employers and as many as 19 million lower-income people buy coverage.
In addition, the IRS would collect hundreds of billions of dollars in new fees on employers, drug companies and device makers, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Some critics of the health bill question whether the IRS, which has struggled in recent years with budget problems, staffing shortages and outdated computer systems, will be up to the job of enforcing the mandate and efficiently handling the subsidies.
The CBO estimated the IRS would need $5 billion to $10 billion in the first decade to cover the costs of its expanded role. The IRS' annual budget is currently $11.5 billion.
Neither the House nor Senate bill includes funding for the IRS, but money could be added by House and Senate negotiators.
The IRS already has trouble meeting its primary duty: collecting taxes. By the IRS's own estimates, it failed to collect about $290 billion in taxes in 2005, the latest year for which data are available.
Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, an IRS watchdog group, says the IRS might be the "logical" agency to enforce the mandate, "but that doesn't mean things will go smoothly."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-03-IRS-health-care-role_N.htmWhy would this not surprise me. Hipocritical scumbags. Transparency my ass...
Democrats may side-step conference committee on health care
Washington Bureau - As Congressional Democrats attempt to arrive at a final healthcare bill, they appear increasingly likely to forego the formal conference committee process for merging House and Senate versions of legislation, instead opting for closely-held negotiations between leaders from the two chambers.
Under that scenario, aides said, the House would be likely to take up and amend the Senate bill before sending that bill back to the Senate for a vote.
In theory, the Senate could amend the new version and send it back to the House, triggering another round in a process sometimes called "ping-ponging.
But Democratic leaders will seek to draft a compromise version of the healthcare overhaul that would be acceptable to both the House and Senate, opening the way for final congressional action later this month or in early February.
House leaders will return to Washington this week to begin talks in earnest and to chart the path forward--and aides stressed Monday that no final decision had been made. The entire House Democratic caucus will meet Thursday before the House returns to business next week.
Typically, competing bills are reconciled by a conference committee composed of House and Senate chairmen of key committees. But Democrats on the Hill are free to fashion an alternative and more informal procedure because they aren't relying on Republican votes to pass the final bill.
For congressional Democrats and the White House, the advantages of the alternative process are numerous. Bypassing a conference committee would deny Senate Republicans--who have promised to use every procedural tactic available to delay the bill--an opportunity to filibuster motions in the Senate to appoint and instruct representatives to the committee.
And, forcing the House to vote on a Senate bill would prevent the House GOP from using a stalling maneuver known as a "Motion to Recommit" to hold up the bill there.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-dc-health-congress4,0,6833132.story:spam2:
A parliamentary procedure that is really no different than the minority using other parliamentary procedures for the sole purpose of obstruction....or the use of reconciliation (requiring only a majority to avoid cloture/filibuster) for Bush's 01 and 03 tax cuts.
I really didn't read Mercs post, but are you implying that two wrongs make a right here? That whats good for the goose is good for the gander? That simply because it was done before it is ok to do it again?
Ha. Why of course. Bush and the Republickins were very wrong when they did it and screwed everyone. But when the Savior and the Demoncrats do it is is ok. Freaking Hipocrites. It is because of attitudes like that....
I really didn't read Mercs post, but are you implying that two wrongs make a right here? That whats good for the goose is good for the gander? That simply because it was done before it is ok to do it again?
I am saying that both parties work the system and often use every parliamentary procedure or rule they can to support their positions and achieve their goal.
Parliamentary procedures that one party may use to its advantage have been around as long as Congress itself. It is not "two wrong making a right" and the procedures are not illegal or unethical, but, IMO, simply represent the nature of the system at its best or worst to give voice to the minority party but to ensure that, in the end, the majority still rules.
Republicans have used cloture/filibuster procedures over the last three years more than twice as often as previous minority party in any given session of Congress in the last 50+ years. That is their right as the minority party.
I might find it frustrating, but I dont think it makes them scumbags.
The hypocrisy is the selective outrage....the :spam2: in this case is the latest in the never-ending references to scumbags, whores and/or Nazis.....IMO, childish and more appropriately left to those at the level of the emmas and williamtalks.
added:
The follow-up reference to the "Savior".....more childish :spam2:
I am saying that both parties work the system and often use every parliamentary procedure or rule they can to support their positions and achieve their goal.
It is not "two wrong making a right" and the procedures are not illegal or unethical, but, IMO, simply represent the nature of the system at its best or worst to give voice to the minority party but to ensure that, in the end, the majority still rules.
Unfortunately I agree. I think it sucked when the R's did it and it sucks now that the D's are. I am still hoping for the time when they ALL represent us and work toward what is best for us instead of them and their "people." Yeh, I'm a dreamer. <shrug>
Unfortunately I agree. I think it sucked when the R's did it and it sucks now that the D's are....
My point was the selective outrage. It is not just the D's doing it now unless you ignore the spike in cloture/filibuster procedures (see graph above for you :) ) by the Rs in the last 2-3 years, in many cases, to disrupt the process.
One can question whether the R filibusters spiked because of other procedures initiated by the Ds or the D's resorted to the procedures because of the spike in filibusters initiated by the R....chicken and egg...although the Rs said on numerous occasions that their goal, with respect to some bills, would be to disrupt the legislative process as much as possible using any procedures available.
And as the graph further indicates, the Ds (and earlier Rs) used the cloture/filibuster much less often when in the minority than the current R minority.
But I agree a return to more cordiality and respect for the process that provides both sides a voice is preferred...but not an equal voice or what is the point of being in the majority?
The process was much more respectful 25 years ago when I worked in the Senate during the early Reagan years.
My point was the selective outrage.
By whom?
The process was much more respectful 25 years ago when I worked in the Senate during the early Reagan years.
Ahhh - another piece of the redux puzzle falls into place :)
By whom?
THe spammer who consistently calls anyone who might disagree or challenge him either a hypocrite or a partisan and whose own opinion he expects to be treated as factual while he dismisses the facts of others as partisan opinions.
You know the one...who consistently refers to one side as scumbags and whores and/or Nazis but claims not to be a hypocrite or a partisan. ;)
Well thank you for your comments.
Great points!
Wow, you really believe that?!??! What are you afraid of. You must be among the tin foil hats that fear Sarah Palin!
THe patriot who consistently calls anyone who might disagree or challenge him either a hypocrite or a partisan and whose own opinion he expects to be treated as factual while he dismisses the facts of others as partisan opinions.
You know the one...who consistently refers to one side as scumbags and whores and/or Nazis but claims not to be a hypocrite or a partisan. ;)
Ahhh yes but you are are whores. You and Nancy the Nazi Whore! :D
Ahhh yes but you are are whores. You and Nancy the Nazi Whore!
Thank you for making my point for me. :thumb:
I do feel a little bad...its like taking candy from a baby.
Thanks for your biased comments. I will pass them on to your fans.
THe poster who consistently calls my Nazi whore bitch and the woman I love what she is...
Ouch, Did I touch a nerve???? Are you offended? I am so sorry.
Emma's gone, so Merc feels the need to pick up the slack..
Oh No! are you offended?!?!?!
Cool! Check this out...
Emma's gone, so Merc feels the need to pick up the slack..
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=623969&postcount=33
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=623829&postcount=424
Because you disagree? Why do you hate people who disagree with you? Why in the world would you even put me in that same class? I really had more respect for your opinion than that. Obviously I was wrong.
I thought you bleeding hearts thought that dissent was a good thing. As long as they agree with your opinion, right?
Disagreement is irrelevant. I was referring to repetitive contentless posts and stupid pictures.
....Why do you hate people who disagree with you? Why in the world would you even put me in that same class? I really had more respect for your opinion than that. Obviously I was wrong.
I thought you bleeding hearts thought that dissent was a good thing. As long as they agree with your opinion, right?
Wow...just wow!:eek:
Talk about an over-reaction with all the pics and the new "you're un-American" rhetoric!
To question the manner in which another member posts, not the substance of that person's opinion nor any reference to that person's character, is now un-American or somehow against dissent.
Seriously, Merc. I know you dont care what I think, but take a look at yourself and see how you do exactly what you criticize others of doing...and, IMO, more.
I dont think I did anything wrong by describing your "scumbag" characterization of Democrats or your endless partisan opinion columns as spam. It was not a personal attack or an attack on your character, but what, IMO, represented the manner in which you "contribute" to discussions.
But in the spirit of comity, I will refrain from the "spam" label if it results in such an over-reaction.
And as the graph further indicates, the Ds (and earlier Rs) used the cloture/filibuster much less often when in the minority than the current R minority.
There are also more MAJOR issues going on now, wouldn't you say? I'm not defending either party's actions.
There are also more MAJOR issues going on now, wouldn't you say? I'm not defending either party's actions.
Absolutely.
Like health care reform.
And for the first time in our lifetime, Congress and the White House have taken on the issue of serious and comprehensive health care reform.
The process has taken nine months, with hearings in numerous committees in both the House and Senate and town meetings around the country.
The Democrats will use the procedures available to them to prevent any further delay or obstruction that is solely for the purpose of delay or obstruction.
I have said repeatedly that I dont think the current legislation is perfect and most Americans probably agree for various reasons...it goes too far, it doesnt far enough.
It is built on an imperfect foundation (employer-based insurance) and IMO, to tear apart that foundation and start from scratch would be far too destructive.
But it does offer significant benefits to nearly all Americans....
...affordable and accessible insurance for 30+ million hard working people who are in the unfortunate circumstance of working for a small business that is not able to offer subsidized insurance.
--- greater protections for nearly 200 million Americans who receive their health insurance through their employer...no more exclusions, no more going bankrupt as a result of excessive out-of-pocket expenses.
And IMO, once implemented, with a much larger risk pool and new restrictions on insurance companies, it will reign in the costs that have been rising at 2-3 times the rate of wage/salary increases. Others will disagree.
Time will tell.
It is a failed bill. They rushed the process to please The Savior. Now they have given the insurance companies a golden egg and allowed them to help craft the legislation. And as with the whorish spending bill in Feb, the final version is being crafted in secret with no bipartisan input. I am actually looking forward to the final bill.
It is a failed bill. They rushed the process to please The Savior....
*sigh" some things will never change around here.
Please get over "The Savior" nonsense. It is obvious to all that only those who disagree with Obama resort to that rhetoric.
Now they have given the insurance companies a golden egg and allowed them to help craft the legislation.
The insurance industry has spent $millions in lobbying to oppose the bill and $millions more recently, as it becomes closer to reality, in media campaigns against the bill.
I am actually looking forward to the final bill.
SO am I.
*sigh" some things will never change around here.
Please get over "The Savior" nonsense. It is obvious to all that only those who disagree with Obama resort to that rhetoric.
Ok, then why the rush to get it done by the end of the year. The most historic change and increase in taxes to partially fund "healthcare for all"? So the Congress could get home before Christmas?
The insurance industry has spent $millions in lobbying to oppose the bill and $millions more recently, as it becomes closer to reality, in media campaigns against the bill.
Half harted attempts. Why did Bacus let a insurance insider basically craft the bill for him? An industry that I have no doubt she will return to when this is over at what will most likely be a heafty income.
SO am I.
Me too, so I can point out it's failures.
Eight clips of Obama promising a public and open debate on healthcare.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/Well this event has been a source of topic around the hospitals I work at for the last week or so. And more and more people agree they are just going to opt out of the care of these patients in their offices. They will still have to care for them in the hospitals, they just are going to no longer take on new patients or allow them to have lower cost care in the surgicenters and treatment centers. And the beat goes on.....
“Look at what the Mayo Clinic is able to do,’’ the president proclaimed at a rally in September. “It’s got the best quality and the lowest cost of just about any system in the country. . . . We want to help the whole country learn from what Mayo is doing.’’ On the White House website, you can find more than a dozen examples of Obama’s esteem.
So perhaps the president will give some thought to the clinic’s recent decision to stop accepting Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Ariz. More than 3,000 patients will have to start paying cash if they wish to continue being seen by doctors at the clinic; those unable or unwilling to do so must look for new physicians. For now, Mayo is limiting the change in policy to its Glendale facility. But it may be just a matter of time before it drops Medicare at its other facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota as well.
Why would an institution renowned for providing health care of “the best quality and the lowest cost’’ choose to sever its ties with the government’s flagship single-payer insurance program? Because the relationship is one it can’t afford. Last year, the Mayo Clinic lost $840 million on its Medicare patients. At the Glendale clinic, a Mayo spokesman told Bloomberg News, Medicare reimbursements covered only 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients. Not even the leanest, most efficient medical organization can keep doing business with a program that compels it to eat half its costs.
In breaking away from Medicare, the Mayo Clinic is hardly blazing a trail. In 2008, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries - more than 1 in 4 - have trouble finding a primary-care doctor willing to treat them. A survey by the Texas Medical Association that year found that only 38 percent of the state’s primary-care physicians were accepting new Medicare patients.
But if you think that sounds grim, wait until Congress enacts the president’s health care overhaul. A central element of both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare is that Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors - already so low that many providers lose money each time they treat a Medicare patient - will be forced lower still.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, estimated last month that the Senate bill would squeeze $493 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years. As a result, it cautioned, “providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and . . . might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).’’ In short, the Democratic understanding of health care reform - more government power to set prices, combined with reduced freedom for individuals - will make medical care harder to come by: an Economics 101 lesson in the pitfalls of price controls.
Nearly six months ago, the Mayo Clinic tried to sound an alarm. Instead of making American health care better and more affordable, it warned, the legislation working its way through Congress “will do the opposite’’ and “the real losers will be the citizens of the United States.’’
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/06/medicare_and_the_mayo_clinic/Ok, then why the rush to get it done by the end of the year.
Because if you don't set a deadline, it won't happen. Evah. Have you noticed the urgency the Iraqi government has in taking over their own security? No? Maybe because there's no deadline.
it will reign in the costs that have been rising at 2-3 times the rate of wage/salary increases. Others will disagree.
But this HIGHLY Scientific chart shows that healthcare costs aren't rising as some would have us believe. :rolleyes:
Because if you don't set a deadline, it won't happen. Evah. Have you noticed the urgency the Iraqi government has in taking over their own security? No? Maybe because there's no deadline.
That was not the case and it was all the talk in Washington. They did it because Obamy wanted done before the end of the year. So now they have a shit bill that still leaves some 12 million people uncovered. Great job.
:lol2: This is just to good not to post in FULL :D
The Tom DeLay Democrats
So much for the President's pledge of C-Span transparency.
Rehabilitating Tom DeLay's reputation always seemed hopeless, or so we thought—but then again, President Obama ran on hope. Against the odds Democrats are making the former GOP Majority Leader look better by comparison as they bypass the ordinary institutions of deliberative democracy in the final sprint to pass ObamaCare.
Instead of appointing a formal conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate health bills, a handful of Democratic leaders will now negotiate in secret by themselves. Later this month, presumably white smoke will rise from the Capitol Dome, and then Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the college of Democratic cardinals will unveil their miracle. The new bill will then be rushed through both chambers with little public scrutiny or even the chance for the Members to understand what they're passing.
Evading conference has become standard operating procedure in this Congress, though you might think they'd allow for the more open and thoughtful process on what Mr. Obama has called "the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health-care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s."
This black-ops mission ought to be a particular embarrassment for Mr. Obama, given that he campaigned on transparent government. At a January 2008 debate he said that a health-care overhaul would not be negotiated "behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so the American people can see what the choices are."
The C-Span pledge became a signature of his political pitch. During a riff at the San Francisco Chronicle about "accountability," he added that "I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion and that you can shame Congress into doing the right thing if people know what's going on."
Apparently this Congress knows no shame. In a recent letter to Congressional leaders, C-Span president Brian Lamb committed his network to airing "all important negotiations," which if allowed would give "the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." No word yet from the White House.
At a press conference in December, even Mrs. Pelosi said that "we would like to see a full conference." One reason she mentioned was that "there is a great deal of work involved in reviewing a bill and seeing what all the ramifications are of it," though her real motive at the time was that a conference seemed like a chance to drag the bill closer to the House version.
With public support collapsing, however, Democrats now think the right bill is any bill—and soon. Democrats know that a conference forces the majority party to cast votes on awkward motions and would give the Republicans who have been shut out for months a chance to participate. This sunlight, and the resulting public attention, might scare off wavering Democrats and defeat the bill. Ethics rules the Democrats passed in 2007 also make it harder to "airdrop" into conference reports the extra bribes they will no doubt add to grease the way for final passage.
Democrats howled at the strong-arm tactics Mr. DeLay used to pass Medicare drug coverage in 2003, and so did we. But they've managed to create an even more destructive bill, and their tactics are that much worse. We can't even begin to imagine the uproar if the Republicans had tried to privatize Social Security with such contempt for the democratic process and public opinion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640293357268598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTopAnd so it becomes the Secret Healthcare Bill of 2010....
President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders agreed Tuesday to forgo a formal conference committee for reconciling the Senate and House health care bills, according to three Democratic congressional aides.
The decision means that the White House, Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will attempt to reach an agreement through private negotiations with key lawmakers. Once a deal is struck, the bill will go back to the House for passage, then to the Senate and on to the president’s desk — a legislative path that has been described as “ping pong.”
The decision to bypass the conference committee, which the aides said came during an Oval Office meeting Tuesday, formalized what many Democrats had long known: If they have any hope of passing the health care bill quickly, they would need to circumvent the normal order of business.
But the move — though not unusual in the increasingly gridlocked Congress — has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and even some Democrats, who say Obama is not living up to his promise of a transparent process.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31188.html#ixzz0bqoReeUoThat was not the case and it was all the talk in Washington. They did it because Obamy wanted done before the end of the year. So now they have a shit bill that still leaves some 12 million people uncovered. Great job.
Wrong. Fail.
"My attitude is, I want to get it right, but I also want to get it done promptly," Obama said. "And so as long as I see folks working diligently and consistently, then I am comfortable with moving a process forward that builds as much consensus as possible."
And so it becomes the Secret Healthcare Bill of 2010....
Yeah, it sounds like Bush's
Energy Task Force and the resulting legislation.:headshake
Wrong.
That link is from July 23, 2009 Thats pretty old news.
"I am very confident that we will be on schedule and we will be able to present a wonderful gift to the American people -- gift of confidence and of peace of mind," Pelosi said in a news conference.
Obama said. "And that's why I pledge that I will not sign health insurance reform. As badly as I think it's necessary, I won't sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade -- and I mean what I say."
Obama used the presidential bully pulpit to project his talking points...
He reiterated that message today in Cleveland, veering off script to admonish the previous administration.
"I have to say that folks have a lot of nerve who were -- helped us get into this fiscal hole and then start going around trying to talk about fiscal responsibility," Obama said. "I'm always a little surprised that… that people don't have a little more shame about having created a mess and then try to point fingers."
"We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year,"
President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.
In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
Wait what?
House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.
Pelosi and four committee chairmen met with the president Wednesday as they scrambled to resolve differences between sweeping bills passed by the House and Senate. The aim is to finalize legislation revamping the nation's health care system in time for Obama's State of the Union address early last month.
"We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."
Congressional staff members stayed at the White House into the evening to continue work and a conference call of the full House Democratic caucus was scheduled for Thursday.
Hey Redux, Is this just the normal course of business in Washington or is this something special?
Seven hundred billion dollars. That's a ballpark estimate of how much money is wasted in the U.S. medical system every single year, according to a new Thomson Reuters (TRI) report. A sum equal to roughly one-third of the nation's total health-care spending is flushed away on unnecessary treatments, redundant tests, fraud, errors, and myriad other monetary sinkholes that do nothing to improve the nation's health. Cut that figure by half, and there would be more than enough money to offer top-notch care to every one of America's 46 million uninsured.
None of the health-care reform bills on the table in Washington do anything meaningful to address that wasted $700 billion. Nor do they call for changes in the underlying flaw that drives much of the waste—the fee-for-service system that pays doctors and hospitals for the amount of medical care delivered rather than for its quality. Under fee-for-service there is no financial incentive for doctors to eliminate waste, since they wouldn't pocket any of the resulting savings. They would just earn less.
By leaving this perverse reward system in place, Congress is virtually guaranteeing that health-care reform legislation, if passed, will do nothing to "bend the curve" of rising health-care costs, as President Barack Obama originally set out to do. Even the few cost-cutting efforts that the bills do include won't go into effect until at least 2013. As a result, U.S. health spending is on track to double over the next 10 years, to $5.2 trillion, about 21% of the gross domestic product.
Or possibly not. Politicians may be reluctant to rein in the medical-industrial complex, but the private sector is forging ahead. Faced with health-care costs that keep rising 6% to 7% every year—even during this year of negative overall inflation—plenty of insurers, hospitals, employers, and communities are figuring out how to offer better care for less money. They are willing to take experimental leaps in an attempt to solve some of the health system's most intractable problems.
A BIG STEP FORWARD
BusinessWeek has looked at 10 such attempts to lower health-care costs and improve patient care. These innovations cannot have the same impact as a comprehensive federal bill. Nor are the gains from private efforts assured. Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the nonprofit Center for Studying Health System Change, cautions that "there are a lot of things we know can improve health, such as wellness programs. But we don't know if they can save money on a large scale."
Still, companies and hospitals are taking the initiative, and some results are in plain view. "Three years ago, professional medical organizations were very reluctant to talk about inappropriate treatments, but I already see that changing," says Robert Kelley, vice-president for health-care analytics at Thomson Reuters. He points out that the American College of Cardiology recently published several standards of care for angioplasty and other common treatments, aimed at preventing unnecessary and costly interventions. Given that about one in six U.S. health-care dollars is currently spent on cardiovascular procedures, "that's a big step forward," says Kelly. Here are some others.
LinkAny attempt to fix that will be called "rationing" and "death panels".
President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.
YAY, Classicman! The person speaking up for the rights of those in gated communities. I'm sure they're opening offshore accounts even as we speak. How DARE they give back even a little to their own nation which has helped make their success possible.
And as far as party gravey trains and kickbacks, are you expecting us to be shocked somehow? Republicans get New York strip steaks and the Dems get lobster. This has been happening since the first Congressional Congress and will continue. So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny. :eyebrow:
[QUOTE=]President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.[/QUOTE=]
YAY, Classicman! The person speaking up for the rights of those in gated communities. I'm sure they're opening offshore accounts even as we speak. How DARE they give back even a little to their own nation which has helped make their success possible.
And as farm as party gravey trains and kickbacks, are you expecting us to be shocked somehow? Republicans get New York strip steaks and the Dems get lobster. This has been haooening since the first Congressional Congress and wil continue. So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny. :eyebrow:
You are attacking the wrong people here.... It is the blue collar unions who are demanding the Dems get it out of the bill...
Obama tells em, "Fuck Some Transparency boys and girls, get one done for The Man and get a bill on my desk no matter how shitty!"
The White House was put on the defensive Wednesday after President Barack Obama pushed congressional leaders to fast-track health care legislation behind closed doors despite his campaign promises of an open process.
"The president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said as reporters questioned him repeatedly about Obama's decision to go along with House and Senate leaders in bypassing the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed.
The decision was made in an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined in by phone.
They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/06/white_house_put_on_the_defensive_on_health_care.htmlWait what?
The House and Senate bills differ on the funding sources...the House has a surcharge on personal income over $500K and the Senate has a tax on high end health plans.
I expect it will end with a little of both. The level of income for the surcharge and the type of high end policies that will be taxed with both be modified as compromise. There are other differences to be resolved as well.
Personally, I prefer the House bill (taxing the rich, including a public option, stronger anti-trust provisions) but the Senate usually gets its way and the final bill will probably look pretty much like the Senate bill...and might even attract a few more Democrats in the House who voted against it the first time around because of the cost..the Senate version is about $150 billion cheaper.
Hey Redux, Is this just the normal course of business in Washington or is this something special?
The process is normally to have a conference committee made up of a small number of members from both the House and Senate to work out the differences and normally from both parties.
But there are numerous examples over the years, with either party in the majority, where that process has been expedited...for various reasons.
The conference committee does not look for new amendments or new proposals to dramatically change either bill, but to find the way to address the differences that those who voted FOR the bills can accept.
In this case, since NO Republicans voted for the bill in either the House or Senate AND.they have made it clear that they will not vote for either bill, the only role they would play on the conference committee would be to further obstruct and delay the process.
And to answer your question...normal? No, but hardly unprecedented either. And more often than the critics would lead you to believe.
Link
I think it is great that the private sector is looking for ways to cut costs. It is long over-due.
But that still wont address the needs of the uninsured to have access to affordable health insurance and to the security to those with insurance that they wont face exlusions for pre existing conditions or potential bankruptcy from excessive out of pocket costs.
And the bills include incentives and tax breaks for the private sector when it does demonstrate cost containment.
So, for heaven's sake let's stop playing Henny Penny.
Whats that? I'm not familiar with that expression.
The process is normally to have a conference committee made up of a small number of members from both the House and Senate to work out the differences and normally from both parties.
But there are numerous examples over the years, with either party in the majority, where that process has been expedited...for various reasons.
The conference committee does not look for new amendments or new proposals to dramatically change either bill, but to find the way to address the differences that those who voted FOR the bills can accept.
In this case, since NO Republicans voted for the bill in either the House or Senate AND.they have made it clear that they will not vote for either bill, the only role they would play on the conference committee would be to further obstruct and delay the process.
And to answer your question...normal? No, but hardly unprecedented either. And more often than the critics would lead you to believe.
Is that the latest Democratic Talking Point? Pretty weak attempt to sweep the gravity of the process for this Bill under the rugs. Man the Dems and Obama are really taking a chance of getting screwed come Nov when they lose the super majority in the Senate and we have 2 years of gridlock.
And the bills include incentives and tax breaks for the private sector when it does demonstrate cost containment.
To bad it does little to control costs on the supply side or prevent insurance companies from charging whatever they want for co-pays and deductables. That alone makes this Bill and epic failure. Not to mention all the people who will not get health insurance like the Dems and Obama promised them...
[QUOTE=SamIam;624482]You are attacking the wrong people here.... It is the blue collar unions who are demanding the Dems get it out of the bill...
Yes the unions want it out, but so does big business. Unions worry that as currently structured, the bill would take a considerable chunk out of their pocketbooks. Big business doesn't want to spend anything except on CEO salaries and golden parachutes.
The Senate health bill would impose an excise tax on health insurance plans with premiums of at least $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. Proponents say the measure, which would raise $149 billion by 2019, would not only raise money to insure the uninsured but would help control costs by discouraging employers and insurance companies from offering overly generous plans.
But both labor and business oppose it. Business groups say it would shift the burden to employers, while organized labor says it would shift the burden to workers. Both agree that the end result would be lower wages and benefits.
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. prefers the House health care bill, which would not tax benefits but instead would raise money by taxing the wealthy.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/afl-cio-pushes-back-on-insurance-tax/The A.F.L.-C.I.O. prefers the House health care bill, which would not tax benefits but instead would raise money by taxing the wealthy.
Not saying its right or wrong, but who wouldn't want something
that
someone else is paying for?
Something does not have value because someone else paid for them. I can go get a nice free dose of radiation from the uranium pilings just north of here. I can go get a nice lungful of toxic air in either Mexico City or Beijing. Doesn't cost me a thing. And on and on. You're so in to freebies, you should go research them for the rest of us. Hint: don't take along your common sense. :eyebrow:
What the hell are you talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
Not saying its right or wrong, but who wouldn't want something that someone else is paying for?
What I was trying to convey is that there are many things out there that we are not paying for, but who would want them?
I agree, but don't see where thats applicable in this case.
Which would you rather have FREE insurance or insurance that someone else is paying for?
There's no such thing as "free" insurance. Most people pay thru a plan with their employer, or they pay the insurance provider directly or they pay through taxes, fines, penalties and other accrued monies.
You seem to be making the point if people get insurance, they will use it (gasp!). And worst of all your taxes will pay for the crowd of rabble getting health care. Redux and Merc and I argued this point a few zillion posts back, and I'm not going to re-argue it.
I will say that people don't know what they're talking about when they speak of rationing insurance or "death panels." Insurance is already rationed in a very real way today. Those who lack coverage do not get adequate medical care - sometimes they get none.
When I became seriously ill, I had no one to advocate for me and I had lost my health insurance due to my inability to work. I was quite literally hours from dying when someone interceded for me at the last minute.
Now go count your money and set it against the value of a human being.
There's no such thing as "free" insurance.
Twisting my words a bit or I am not being clear - probably the latter.
I agree there is no such thing as free insurance, but I do believe that there are many people who would rather have someone else "foot the bill" for whatever services. This is not limited to Health insurance. It is more an opinion of the ever increasing entitlement mentality of our society.
Nothing is free and some do not realize the associated costs and abstract ramifications to some of these things.
You seem to be making the point if people get insurance, they will use it (gasp!).
Absolutely not! I am a very large proponent for healthcare reform, I absolutely want to insure as many people as possible, if not all.
And worst of all your taxes will pay for the crowd of rabble getting health care. Redux and Merc and I argued this point a few zillion posts back, and I'm not going to re-argue it.
Uh ok?!?!? Please feel free to argue that point with whomever disagrees with you, however I am not the one of them.
When I became seriously ill, I had no one to advocate for me and I had lost my health insurance due to my inability to work. I was quite literally hours from dying when someone interceded for me at the last minute.
See PM
Classic, if I read you wrong, I apologize. There has been quite a bit of vitriol in this thread, and I thought you were just egging me on. My bad.
Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill
By Judson Berger
- FOXNews.com
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats' health proposals the media.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08/economist-contract-health-department-touting-reform/failing to disclose consistently
Nice qualifier there. I didn't read the Faux News article, for obvious reasons, but you have to admit that he only has to not mention it one time out of a thousand, and they can still make this accusation. "well, he may have disclosed it, but he wasn't consistent."
Weird Science: Why Politicians and Pundits Cling to the "Cadillac Tax" Idea
The theory behind the "Cadillac tax" on health plans is little more than wishful thinking based on dubious research. Advocates believe that forcing employers to cut benefits will lead to cheaper, better care. That's like preventing rain by outlawing umbrellas. Yet the President has reversed his campaign opposition to the tax and now supports it. John Kerry, who I respect, is defending it too.(1) Why?
Because they're poorly served by their advisors, and by pundits who cling to the idea in the face of new evidence. Although the Washington Post got it right, too many analysts and journalists are beholden to ideas that Art Levine rightly dubbed "voodoo economics for the punditocracy."
Why do President Obama and his advisors keep touting the tax? And why do journalists like David Leonhardt of the New York Times keep asserting that "health economists" think it's a good idea? Uwe Reinhardt - the most respected health economist in the country - said the idea that "with high cost-sharing, patients will do the only legitimate ... cost-benefit calculus ... surely is nonsense."
The best-known advocate for the tax is MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who was hyping it as recently as a week ago, without mentioning new and contradictory data.
How can a "voice of realism" claim that this is "a tax that's not a tax," one that affects "generous" plans? That statement was published only nineteen days after a paper in the influential journal Health Affairs disproved it. Using actual benefits data, the authors showed the tax would not target "generous" plans. Instead it would unfairly affect plans whose enrollees were older, worked in the wrong industry, or lived in an area where treatment costs are high. A leading actuary came to a similar conclusion.
Gruber also claimed that the money employers save (by slashing benefits to avoid the tax) would be returned to workers as wages or other compensation. But two leading health benefits firms (2) had already published surveys in which the vast majority of employers polled insisted they would do no such thing.
There is a simple truth in the world of ideas: Theories can be beautiful. Reality can be ugly.
Link
Very good article that expresses many of the valid concerns of SOME people who are not exactly enamored with the currently proposed reform. Again, not just bashing, but these are some of the things that need to be addressed by those voting on the bills. I wonder how many of them got this type of info in the "summary" they read.
Theories can be beautiful. Reality can be ugly.
It's not a particularly pretty theory.
I agree, actually its a rather poorly constructed one . . . flimsy at best.
Weird Science: Why Politicians and Pundits Cling to the "Cadillac Tax" Idea
Link
Very good article that expresses many of the valid concerns of SOME people who are not exactly enamored with the currently proposed reform. Again, not just bashing, but these are some of the things that need to be addressed by those voting on the bills. I wonder how many of them got this type of info in the "summary" they read.
The issue of concern here is the funding mechanism so I think it is a stretch to project it beyond that unless that is your sole reason for opposing the overall substance of the reform initiative.
In any case, it appears that a compromise is in the works.
It would raise the level at which the excise tax on employers with health insurance plans with premiums of at least $8,500 for individuals/$23,000 family kicks in, which is Senate version, to something over $10-12K/ $25K and would index it so it would rise even higher over time AND would also include a modification of the House funding plan as well, but instead of the general 5% excise tax on persons with income over $500K individual/$1 million couple, it would impose a 1% FICA tax increase on income over $250K (who currently pay 0% on income over $100K)
Its called compromise and its not always pretty and it never will please everyone.
But in the words of Mick Jagger:
"You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need"
Nice qualifier there. I didn't read the Faux News article, for obvious reasons, but you have to admit that he only has to not mention it one time out of a thousand, and they can still make this accusation. "well, he may have disclosed it, but he wasn't consistent."
Eh... If you are speaking as an economist for your views then you have a professional obligation to say your are on the payroll. Just because it comes from Fox does not change the facts.
Wasn't there some blow up a few years ago over so called "reporters" who were on the White House payroll supporting their policy in news print is a supposed "un-biased" roll?
The issue of concern here is the funding mechanism so I think it is a stretch to project it beyond that unless that is your sole reason for opposing the overall substance of the reform initiative.
In any case, it appears that a compromise is in the works.
It would raise the level at which the excise tax on employers with health insurance plans with premiums of at least $8,500 for individuals/$23,000 family kicks in, which is Senate version, to something over $10-12K/ $25K and would index it so it would rise even higher over time AND would also include a modification of the House funding plan as well, but instead of the general 5% excise tax on persons with income over $500K individual/$1 million couple, it would impose a 1% FICA tax increase on income over $250K (who currently pay 0% on income over $100K)
Its called compromise and its not always pretty and it never will please everyone.
But in the words of Mick Jagger:
"You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need"
Spend, spend, spend, spend, spin, and tax. That does not make it right or acceptable.
[ I wonder how many of them got this type of info in the "summary" they read.
They never did read the Bill.
Why read it when the Insurance Companies wrote. They know what it says. Follow the money in the next election.
Health interest groups get fuzzy financing
Firms accused of ‘money laundering their PR’; unions contribute millions
The compressed time frame gives outside groups one more chance to attempt to derail the legislation or influence it to their advantage. But in many cases, it is hard to tell where their money is coming from.
The Institute for Liberty, for example, was a one-man conservative interest group with a Virginia post office box and less than $25,000 in revenue in 2008. Now, the organization has a Web site, a downtown Washington office and a $1 million advocacy campaign opposing President Obama's health-care plans.
Andrew Langer, the group's president, said the organization receives no funding from health-care firms but declined to provide details. "This year has been really serendipitous for us," he said. "But we don't talk about specific donors."
The biggest spenders in the health-care debate are well-known Washington veterans with clear constituencies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is representing corporate titans who are against reform, and a well-organized network of labor organizations pushing for the legislation. Health Care for America Now, for example, is a consortium of unions and liberal groups that expects to spend $42 million on its wide-ranging pro-reform campaign.
But outside such established interest groups is a significant but more elusive collection of organizations, many of them particularly energized in opposition to Democratic health-care reform efforts. Most are organized as nonprofits, meaning they do not have to reveal many financial details beyond basic revenue and expenses. Some are bankrolled by charitable foundations with a political bent or by industries with a financial stake in the debate; nearly all use names that seem designed to obscure their origins.
'Money laundering their PR'
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care, for example, headed by former congressman Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), was formed by the drug industry in November 2008 to lobby against binding government effectiveness studies, which could be used to determine what insurance companies must cover. The American Council on Science and Health is an industry-friendly group whose board member Betsy McCaughey helped set off the "death panels" frenzy last year.
"It's sort of like money-laundering their PR," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal-leaning group that runs a Web site called PRWatch.org. "A lot of these groups are heavily funded by corporations and then don't reveal it. They try to imply that they are funded primarily by individuals, but that's clearly not the case."
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) is a New York-based think tank headed by Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who appears frequently on newscasts condemning Democratic health-care proposals. CMPI is an offshoot of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, which has received foundation grants over the years from Philip Morris, Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to public records.
While serving as president of CMPI, Pitts also works as the global health-care chief at Porter Novelli, a New York public relations firm whose clients include Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and Pfizer. He acknowledges that CMPI also receives money from the pharmaceutical industry, which is supporting reform legislation in exchange for a White House promise to limit cuts.
Pitts said he sees no conflict between his two roles, saying the jobs "are completely separate." Tax filings show that Pitts earned a $250,000 salary from CMPI in 2007, when he also headed another firm's global health-care practice.
"We support health-care reform, we just want to do it appropriately," Pitts said of CMPI. "Sometimes it puts us in the same camp as pharmaceutical companies; sometimes it doesn't."
continues
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34742993/ns/politics-washington_post/Here are two tidbits I gleaned while perusing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ site.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2996
The first addresses the concern that insurance companies will simply charge higher premiums if forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions
Expending health reform legislation would create a system of health insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, that would offer a range of competing private health insurance plans to individuals who lack access to employer-sponsored insurance as well as to small businesses. Plans would not be allowed to turn people away, charge higher rates because of their health status, or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Plans would have to meet certain minimum benefit standards, including a limit on the maximum out-of-pocket charges that an enrollee would have to pay in any year. Low-income people would receive a tax credit that would allow them to purchase a plan at an affordable price and cost-sharing subsidies to hold down their out-of-pocket costs.
The second mentions a benefit that some high income households may not have considered. The higher payroll tax will not only cover certain seniors, but, also those with disabilities. From personal experience I can tell you that getting assistance for dealing with many disabilities is like pulling an elephant’s teeth.
Increasing the Medicare payroll tax on high-wage earners would represent a sound and well-targeted way of paying for health reform. It would also improve the solvency of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund and thereby strengthen this critical program, which provides health coverage for 46 million seniors and persons with disabilities.
OK, this is anecdotal, but it makes me mad as hell, and it shows what's wrong with our medical system yet one more time.
I have two wonderful friends in their late 50's. They are far from wealthy, but they were getting by. Jobs are hard to get in this rural, end of the world part of Colorado. The husband, "Joe," managed to land work with the forest service but he ends up getting laid off every winter for a few months - he does get unemployment from them. He also works odd jobs where he can. His wife, "Judy" was a prep cook at a restaurant here in town. They help other peope all they can, even though their budget is limited and their home is just a small trailer.
Well, Judy just got diagnosed with emphysema. Since Joe is only seasonal at the Forest Service, it doesn't give him health insurance. Judy had limited insurance at her job, but she had to quit because she must now use a portable oxygen tank and can't be near a stove. The cost of an oxygen tank is prohibitive for them in their situation. The O2 company offered them a "deal" - a used tank which they can have for only $300.00. Never mind how they are going to pay for Judy's other treatment for her illness.
I told Judy to apply for disability. To me that looks like the only solution to her problem. Disability isn't wonderful, but it will give her a small income each month, and most importantly, access to medicare.
There is something dreadfully wrong with a system that chews people like these two up and spits them out. They deserve so much more. They have worked hard all their lives, and this is what they get? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
I don't know if the new health care reform will help people like Joe and Judy or not, but dammit, it should. :(
But Sam, if they had become lawyers or investment bankers they wouldn't be in this fix. Or they could have chosen richer parents.:rolleyes:
. . . or gone into politics.
Srsly, sorry to hear of yet another tale of how the system is broken. It's gonna get better - certainly can't get worse, I hope.
Here are two tidbits I gleaned while perusing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ site.
Insurance exchanges are only for a certain class of people. Not anyone can enter one.
It is my understanding that the question of who will qualify for health exchanges is still up in the air as legislatures try to reconcile the House and Senate version of the health care bill. I keep finding different articles that say different things. Which ones are right? :headshake
From what I understand, anyone who can get insurance through their employer has to get it that way. In fact when we changed to a new company they mandated that people took insurance with them to be employed. It caused a huge problem for some people as they tried to figure out if it was legal and those who had insurance via spouses or Tricare went back and forth with them for a few months until the finally gave in, but you had to provide them with proof that you actually had it. I think they were anticipating the coming changes in the reform. But basically you had no choice to get it on your own. And the new companies premiums are about $300 more per month on the family plan and the ductable is twice what our previous company offered. So basically they can do anything they want.
It is my understanding that the question of who will qualify for health exchanges is still up in the air as legislatures try to reconcile the House and Senate version of the health care bill. I keep finding different articles that say different things. Which ones are right? :headshake
As I understand it, both the House and Senate will allow large employers (those that currently offering employee coverage) into the Exchanges after a period of time (2-3 years after implementation) so that am employer now only offering 1 or 2 options to employees will be able to offer more options to employees in the future.
The Senate bill also allows new employees of these large employers to choose a plan from the Exchange as soon as they are created.
The biggest difference between the plans is that the Exchanges are administered at the federal level in the House version and at the state level in the Senate and the state can chose to restrict or expand access to the Exchange.
I keep finding different articles that say different things. Which ones are right?
Short answer is we don't know yet.
Yeah, I figured that, too. All this debate and we are like the blind men each assigned to feel one part of an elephant and then describe what the elephant must look like. :headshake
As I understand it, both the House and Senate will allow large employers (those that currently offering employee coverage) into the Exchanges after a period of time (2-3 years after implementation) so that am employer now only offering 1 or 2 options to employees will be able to offer more options to employees in the future.
Highly unlikely according to Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17wyden.html?_r=1
The Senate bill also allows new employees of these large employers to choose a plan from the Exchange as soon as they are created.
The exchanges are a fantasy. Few exist in the US. No one can be sure the will work as designed. Esp the people who do know about them. It was a dreamed up idea that has failed in Mass and is going to fail on a National level.
Highly unlikely according to Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17wyden.html?_r=1
The exchanges are a fantasy. Few exist in the US. No one can be sure the will work as designed. Esp the people who do know about them. It was a dreamed up idea that has failed in Mass and is going to fail on a National level.
The Wyden column is from September, in reference to one of the first versions of the Senate bill.
The final Senate bill gives flexibility to the states to determine how large employers (that currently offer insurance) can enter the Exchange 2-3 years after implementation. The House bill is more straight forward - large employers are allowed to enter the Exchange after that implementation period.
The source? Read the legislation.
You may think it is a fantasy and that insurance companies will not chose to participate in an Exchange that gives them access to 30+ million customers. I think they will chose to particiate...or at least enough to provide consumer choice at affordable rates.
I think its worth a shot and that the companies want the business and you have already declared it a failed fantasy.
It doesnt make either one of us right or wrong....just a difference of opinion.
Oh, the insurance companies will gladly participate, that is why they let the insurance insiders help craft the Bill. Of course this is a huge win for them that is what I have been saying all along. This will make them quite a bit richer. It remains to be seen whether or not they will allow open access to the exchanges. To date there is no evidence that they will allow those who get insurance through their employers to enter the exchange. They basically have those people by the balls and will continue to charge them ever increasing rates and co-pays.
So the $10-20 million that the insurance industry has pumped into a media campaign in the last few months to kill the bill is just a publicity stunt because they like the legislation so much.
Just as dealings with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats soured last summer, six of the nation's biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.
That money, between $10 million and $20 million, came from Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, according to two health care lobbyists familiar with the transactions. The companies are all members of the powerful trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.
http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php
BTW, the Exchange can also regulate (or negotiate) premiums, co-pays and administrative costs, selecting the most favorable for inclusion in the Exchange.....more in the House version than the Senate's, which as I have noted, gives far more flexibility to the states.
The anti-trust provisions, again the House version is better, would also provide the mechanism (ending anti-trust exemption) for further controls.
added:
sam...here is a good explanation of the Exchanges in the House and Senate bills:
[YOUTUBE]5rqdKrbvO_8[/YOUTUBE]
In conclusion, if one believes the Exchanges are just a "fantasy", nothing is likely to change that.
'can also regulate (or negotiate) premiums' is not a mandate to do so or hold down costs for the already insured. The majority of companies, including medical device manufactures, have all stated they intend to pass any costs or increased taxation on to the consumers and insured. The difference between the Hose version and the Senate version is huge with the difference between state based exchanges and a nationally based exchange is significant.
In the end there is very little in the new bill that will hold down costs or control costs to the already insured. The insurance companies are happy with the compromise as they gain 30 million new sources of income, paid by the individual or paid for by the taxpayers, matters not to them. 10 million dollars is pissing in the wind for insurance companies, sort of like that BS number of how many jobs the current Congress has created with their whorish spending and artifically proping up the economy.
CBO estimates that the cheapest plans for small businesses, by 2016, will approach $20,000 for a family. That is a SIGNIFICANT increase in costs. And that is for the cheapest plan. And they are not even sure if their numbers are correct.
Yea, I would say the insurance companies are going to come out way ahead in this Bill, and so does the CBO.
In general, however, small employers would provide plans with a greater
amount of coverage than Bronze plans, as they do under current law. The
average premiums in 2016 for plans provided by small employers cited in
the recent analysis by CBO and JCT—about $7,800 for single policies and
$19,200 for family policies—differ from the amounts cited above for
individual Bronze policies primarily because the average actuarial value of
coverage purchased by small employers would be substantially higher than
the Bronze level (about 85 percent, CBO estimates, rather than 60 percent).
The premiums for specific employers could deviate significantly from those
averages for various reasons.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10884/01-11-Premiums_for_Bronze_Plan.pdfCBO estimates that the cheapest plans for small businesses, by 2016, will approach $20,000 for a family. That is a SIGNIFICANT increase in costs. And that is for the cheapest plan. And they are not even sure if their numbers are correct.
Yea, I would say the insurance companies are going to come out way ahead in this Bill, and so does the CBO.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10884/01-11-Premiums_for_Bronze_Plan.pdf
CBO also said premiums wont increase for most Americans and the plan is deficit neutral at the least and will likely result in deficit reduction long term...and you discount both.
So I do like how you cherry pick CBO data.
CBO also said premiums wont increase for most Americans and the plan is deficit neutral at the least and will likely result in deficit reduction long term...and you discount both.
Basically the CBO has updated their info. According to their own statements as posted they do not think that there will be NO increases... Deficit neutral is bullshit for those who are going to pay increased premiums and co-pays. So stop with your White House talking points and lies from the the Administration. So far they have failed.
So I do like how you cherry pick CBO data.
No Cherry Picking, only a post of the latest update of the CBO response as of Jan 2010.
Basically the CBO has updated their info. According to their own statements as posted they do not think that there will be NO increases... Deficit neutral is bullshit for those who are going to pay increased premiums and co-pays. So stop with your White House talking points and lies from the the Administration. So far they have failed.
No Cherry Picking, only a post of the latest update of the CBO response as of Jan 2010.
Of course you are cherry picking.
Updated their information? Nope.
The latest CBO letter you posted was in regard to ONE component, ONE specific level of coverage (bronze) to be offered through the Exchange (which you think is a fantasy) in response to a request from ONE senator.
It supplements.....not replaces or updates. It doesnt change the overall "score" that CBO provided on the overall Senate bill that was adopted. If you know anything about the CBO scoring process, you would know that. But that requires someone interested in the full analysis and not just those pieces cherry picked to support a pre-disposed opinion.
And deficit neutral has nothing to with what any individual will pay...it refers to the impact on the federal budget.
added:
White House talking points and lies?
Have you forgotten the "death panels" and the Medicare scare tactics, the "government rationing", the industry "studies" that fudged the costs to their benefit and all those endless partisan opinion columns with an agenda that misrepresented the facts and that you flooded the discussion with.... not to mention the sudden tsunami of inane pictures you "contributed" to the discussion recently (I was actually embarrassed for you with that childish outburst until I realized that you would never man up and admit it was an over-reaction.)
Cherry picking again?
The latest CBO letter you posted was in regard to ONE component, ONE specific level of coverage (bronze) to be offered through the Exchange (which you think is a fantasy) in response to a request from ONE senator.
That is why it is a factual bit of information that needs to be added to the debate as the American Public is then able to see what the real costs to them will be. The "Bronze" level is the lowest level of coverage, the coverage that most Americans will be exposed to. And by their own admission the costs are going to go through the roof. If you don't think that nearly $20,000 for family insurance is not a significant increase...
It supplements.....not replaces or updates. It doesnt change the overall "score" that CBO provided on the overall Senate bill that was adopted. If you know anything about the CBO scoring process, you would know that. But that requires someone interested in the full analysis and not just those pieces cherry picked to support a pre-disposed opinion.
I am quite familiar with the process. They are nothing more than a math clearing house for what ever information they are fed. They don't and cannot, by their own admission, predict what the actual costs will be in the end.
And deficit neutral has nothing to with what any individual will pay...it refers to the impact on the federal budget.
:lol:You are right, which is why for those who are actually going to see a significant increase in their costs could really care less about the fantasy of "deficit neutral". If you are paying significantly more for less care the average citizen is really not concerned with something the Federal Government has so far been unable to achieve in it's history.
Have you forgotten the "death panels" and the Medicare scare tactics, the "government rationing", the industry "studies" that fudged the costs to their benefit and all those endless partisan opinion columns with an agenda that misrepresented the facts and that you flooded the discussion with.... not to mention the sudden tsunami of inane pictures you "contributed" to the discussion recently
Your opinion. The opinion peices I contributed were merely against your parties line. That does not make them "partisan", other than they disagreed with your White House talking points. If you look at the majority of opinion pieces they are from subject matter experts, not a partisan mouth piece of the Demoncratic party.;)
Here is the real problem with our health care system.
It's hard to constantly come up with new ways to say "America spends way, way, way, way, way more than any other country on health care." But we do! Just look at the National Geographic graph above, which puts per-person spending on one side of the chart and average life expectancy on the other. Or consider this: If we spent what Canada spends per person, our deficit problem would go away entirely. And Canada's per-person average is in a country where everybody is fully covered and so has full access to care. America's is in a country with 47 million uninsured, and so many people skimp on needed care. So the comparison is actually unfair to Canada.
David Leonhardt has another way of making the point. We don't have a government-run system. But our system is so expensive that our government's partial role is pricier than the whole of government-run systems.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/america_spends_way_way_way_mor.htmlThat is why it is a factual bit of information that needs to be added to the debate as the American Public is then able to see what the real costs to them will be. The "Bronze" level is the lowest level of coverage, the coverage that most Americans will be exposed to. And by their own admission the costs are going to go through the roof. If you don't think that nearly $20,000 for family insurance is not a significant increase...
I am quite familiar with the process. They are nothing more than a math clearing house for what ever information they are fed. They don't and cannot, by their own admission, predict what the actual costs will be in the end.
:lol:You are right, which is why for those who are actually going to see a significant increase in their costs could really care less about the fantasy of "deficit neutral". If you are paying significantly more for less care the average citizen is really not concerned with something the Federal Government has so far been unable to achieve in it's history.
Your opinion. The opinion peices I contributed were merely against your parties line. That does not make them "partisan", other than they disagreed with your White House talking points. If you look at the majority of opinion pieces they are from subject matter experts, not a partisan mouth piece of the Demoncratic party.;)
Sure, dude. Everyone is partisan but you and your links and your cherry picking!
:headshake
It was Voltaire who said: "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
It is not a perfect bill but I believe it is a good bill, wtih signficant benefits to those both with insurance and without. I also understand that no major legislation is implemented w/o bumps along the road and I expect there will be some with this bill.
But the fact remains that no one knows the level at which it will succeed or not...and, IMO, should not be described as a failure before it is impemented.
You believe that you and those opposed to the bill somehow have greater insight into the future.
Sorry, dude. IMO, the lies and propaganda that you have perpetrated is partisanship at its worst and I, and many others here, see right through it.
Volt-air? Was that there feller the guy who invented elektricity? Cause man, your being to smart for me.
;)
Sorry, dude. IMO, the lies and propaganda that you have perpetrated is partisanship at its worst and I, and many others here, see right through it.
No lies. Little propaganda, well except what you post from the Demoncratic and White House talking points. Why is it that anyone who does not agree with the current plan is Demonized by the Demoncrats? I bet you the voters will let them know in a few short months.
Meanwhile, the secret talks at the White House continue. Even though I have posted a video of 8 time the President stood before the American public and stated categorically that the discussion would be open and transparent. There is a good like for you Redux, and your president gave it to you...
Senior Democratic lawmakers who spent hours at the White House on Wednesday rearranged their schedules to return at mid-afternoon, and Obama planned to address a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic rank and file in late afternoon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34859430/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
Negotiations are being done in private behind closed doors, that despite the President's promise last year to keep the proceedings open to the public. President Obama repeatedly stated that negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, but as of Thursday afternoon, that hasn't happened. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb accused President Obama of using his network as a "political football." Lamb, speaking on Bill Press' show, said Obama had "no right" to assume C-SPAN would cover the talks in the first place.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11786376Why is it that anyone who does not agree with the current plan is Demonized by the Demoncrats?..
Why is it that anyone who does not agree with you or the insurance front groups or libertarian (stay our of our lives) groups are demonized as partisan? :eyebrow:
Can you say hypocrite? Double standard?
You're still not fooling anyone.
[QUOTE=TheMercenary;626513]Why is it that anyone who does not agree with you is demonized as a partisan? :eyebrow:
I only reserve that for people who spout the propaganda of the Demoncrats or White House. So that leaves everyone else in this country who disagrees with your party, regardless of party. So it is the Dems vs everyone else in the country who is not in support of your party.
But as I said, the voters are going to let you know in a few short months.
I only reserve that for people who spout the propaganda of the Demoncrats or White House. So that leaves everyone else in this country who disagrees with your party, regardless of party. So it is the Dems vs everyone else in the country who is not in support of your party.
I dont doubt for a second that you believe you are above partisanship. Deusions of grandeur?
I can only speak for myself.... and you are always good for a laugh (like your recent partisan pictiorial meltdown) with your double standards and blatant hypocrisy. And certainly never to be taken seriously..
I dont doubt for a second that you believe you are above partisanship. Deusions of grandeur?
I can only speak for myself.... and you are always good for a laugh (like your recent partisan pictiorial meltdown) with your double standards and blatant hypocrisy. And certainly never to be taken seriously..
Tell it to the guys getting left out of your parties lies about everyone being insured and the voters in Nov.:D
Tell it to the guys getting left out of your parties lies about everyone being insured and the voters in Nov.:D
We'll see what happens in November. I dont expect the Democrats will lose control of either house.
In the meantime, I'll just keep watching you trip over your own posts.
Most recently:
On one hand, you claim the Exchanges are a fantasy and on the other hand, you insist they are a pay-off to the insurance industry…..despite the fact that the industry has spent $20 million in the last few months on media campaigns opposing the bills.
Sure, they get access to potentially 30+ million new customers, but they don’t like the trade-offs which is why they are spending to oppose the bill: losing their anti-trust exemption, limits on premium in order to participate in the Exchanges and similar restrictions on increases in employer-based plans, ending exclusions for pre-existing conditions and dropping persons with coverage on a whim when faced with a new expensive condition/treatment, new limits on patient out-of-pocket expenses so no one will go bankrupt as a result of an illness, ending rate discrimination against women
Then you post a column from a Democratic Senator from 4 months ago and claim he agreed that the Exchanges would not work, when in fact, he was complaining at the time that the early draft of the committee bill did not include Exchanges anywhere near those in the final bill.
From there, you post a CBO letter on one small component of the bill related to one level of coverage to be offered in the Exchange and claim that updated it the overall CBO earlier findings on costs and saving and invalidated them.
Followed by the typical twists and dodges with each contradiction or misrepresentation.
As I said, always good for a laugh. ;)
We'll see what happens in November. I dont expect the Democrats will lose control of either house.
You think they'll lose seats? I was just trying to read up on the latest regarding this. There seem to be a lot more R's retiring/leaving than D's.
Hey Dux . . .
Whats the deal with this interpretation...
This is essentially health-insurance reform as little applies to the health-care delivery system and its costs. Here is the status of major provisions of the bills, mostly as they apply to employer plans provided to employees and retirees:
An issue that I think plays a major role in the end user/payor costs.
* The Senate’s Christmas bill dropped Medicare buy-in for pre-age-65 retirees; dropped the public-option plan and approved multistate “health exchange” private plans to ensure everyone has coverage available to them, to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management.
* Due date for implementation: House bill 2013, Senate bill 2014.
* Overall cost for both bills is estimated at $900 billion over 10 years, but estimates are unreliable due to back loading of benefits in the early years while still collecting taxes.
* National (House bill) and state (Senate bill) “health exchanges” are created as insurance pools for individuals and small groups.
* Medicare Advantage plan phases out over three years (House).
* Medicare “doughnut hole” phases out by 2019 (House).
*
Hospitals are held accountable for preventable readmissions.
Does it say how? Won't they just pass this cost on somehow?
*
Employers will be required to “pay or play,” i.e., keep their current health plans or pay 8 percent of payroll (House) or $750 times every employee of 30 hours per week or more (Senate). Companies where $750 is a bargain will likely drop their private plans and take the state-managed “private” plan, setting the stage for a single-payer program later.
This seems really confusing. Isn't $750 a bargain for every company? They quote the average cost of a family plan to be something like $12,000. I must be missing something here, but what?
* A grandfather clause for five years under the House bill and unlimited by the Senate for employer health plans in effect on the day of enactment.
* Litigation against state health exchange plans would be subject to state laws (House bill) while historic Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) would continue national standards under the Senate bill.
* Work-place “wellness” is encouraged under the Senate plan which permits giving employee discounts up to 30 percent tax free for meeting plan goals.
* A long-term care program is included, but the details have not yet been thought through.
* Under the Senate plan, a 40 percent tax would apply to the excess of health-insurance premiums above $8,500 single and $23,000 married.
* High earners, under the House bill, would be subject to a 5.4 percent surtax above $500,000 single and $1 million married.
* Both bills have new taxes on medical devices, insurers, drugs, etc., all of which are likely to be passed to the public.
Well that sucks. . .
* Taxes under the House bill treat domestic partners as married. The Senate bill does not.
* Flexible spending accounts would be limited to $2,500 and indexed to the consumer price index rather than the medical cost index.
Again, all these points apply essentially to employer-sponsored plans for employees and do not address other issues such as access to and delivery of services. The Senate bill is almost certain to be the basis for a final bill as the Senate has already shown it cannot muster the votes for many of the House bill’s provisions.
Link
I don't know if this is spun or not, so I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.
Oh an after attempting to read some of this bill, I strongly suggest anyone with any problems relating to insomnia to try reading it.
Hey Dux . . .
Whats the deal with this interpretation...
An interesting interpretation by the Chamber of Commerce, which is spending $millions, along with the insurance industry to oppose the bill.
But I would agree that more of the reforms are "insurance" reforms (particularly impacting small business, ie members of the Chamber of Commerce) but there are signficant provisions that focus on containing costs in the delivery system.
An issue that I think plays a major role in the end user/payor costs.
Does it say how? Won't they just pass this cost on somehow?
Yep it says how it will pay for the $900 billion cost...over 10 years.
In the House, its primarily from the 5.4 % surcharge on high income earners (over $500 K0 that will raise an estimated $500 billion over ten years...and the cuts in payments to Medicare Advantage providers who have been ripping off the system for years and getting an average of 15% over Medicare guidelines, but lettting addtional companies "bid" to offer the same services at a lower rate....expected savings about $150 billion.
That brings the revenue up to $650 bill out of the $900. The rest is less predicatable...including the taxes on medical devices, etc...but with tax credits to famlies up to 4 times the poverty level (about $88K...so many middle class families wont pay that tax)....and the least predictable of the remaining revenue is in the out years and from "savings" from greater efficiencies and technologies.....iffy.
The Senate takes a different approach with the tax on high end insurance plans, but it appears that will be modified to raise the level at which plans are taxed t0 the benefit of many middle class workers and add a 1% FICA tax on income over $200K.
Some have a problem with the top 1-2% of taxpayers bearing a large portion of the costs in new taxes. I dont have a problem with that at all.
This seems really confusing. Isn't $750 a bargain for every company? They quote the average cost of a family plan to be something like $12,000. I must be missing something here, but what?
What is accomplishes is to enable companies that are marginal in size (to big for the small pool and to small for cheaper policies provided through big companies) to end their own employer-plan and enter a plan with a larger pool of other small businesses....a bunch of companies pooling together can offer cheaper insurance that a single small/medium company alone....simply by having a greater number of people included, spreading the risk.
Oh an after attempting to read some of this bill, I strongly suggest anyone with any problems relating to insomnia to try reading it.
You have to be a policy wonk to really want to read the bill, but there are good section-by-section summaries.
My Voltaire reference..."the perfect is the enemy of the good"
Who doesnt want a perfect bill that provides both comprehensive insurance reform and reform of the delivery system...all w/o costs to taxpayers?
I'll take what I think is a good bill and build on that...because the political reality is that the perfect bill aint gonna happen......or "a half of loaf is better than none."
Will it work as envisioned? Probably not completely. No legislation this comprehensive plays out completely as planned...never has and never will. But IMO, it is a reasonable approach, with most costs covered, and a good chance that it will accomplish many of the goals.
Others disagree and neither side should be claiming they can predict the future. I dont think i have ever suggested it is a great bill (I have always said IMO, it is as good as I think it can be given the politics) or that it will be 100% successful and everyone will be happy and healthy. And, I have tried to explain it as I understand it.
And, IMO, it is bullshit for others to be screaming "failed" even before it is given a chance to succeed....or claiming that the "propaganda" or talking points are all on one side of the discussion here. That is dishonest to the point of being blatantly and purposefully ignorant (not referring to you).
Only time will tell.
Or..we can punt and put it off again as we have for the last 80+ years since Teddy Roosevelt first called for comprehensive health care reform for all Americans.
You think they'll lose seats? I was just trying to read up on the latest regarding this. There seem to be a lot more R's retiring/leaving than D's.
Absolutely, the Ds will lose seats....nearly always happens in the mid-term elections in the first term of a president.
There are more R retirments in both the House and Senate, but more D senators up for re-election than Rs.
The 60 seat super majority in the Senate is definitely gone. If I were to predict now, the Ds will hold 54 or 55.
The Ds have a 40 seat cushion in the House and many are in historical R districts....it would be shocking if they lose the majority, but it will shrink significantly...losing 20 or more seats.
But alot can happen between now and November and much also depends on the Rs....if they run extremists candidates like the hard core base wants or the Tea Baggers run independent candidates and split the vote on the right, the loss to the Ds wont be that bad.
Some damm good questions:
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I read with great interest press reports indicating that Administration officials and Democrat congressional leaders have struck a deal related to the so-called “Cadillac” tax on high cost health plans. Numerous press reports indicate that health insurance plans covering state and local government employees and plans for employees in collective bargaining agreements would be exempt from the tax until 2018, while individuals employed in the private sector that are not covered by union contracts would pay the tax as early as 2013 -- even if they have the exact same insurance coverage.
While the reported deal is bad enough for working Americans, I am concerned that the deal that was negotiated behind closed doors may also have been designed to benefit federal government officials and employees at the expense of other Americans. Specifically, I request that the Administration provide answers to the following questions prior to announcing any final agreement on a health care bill:
1. Will the health care plans offered to Members of Congress and Administration officials, including Cabinet officers, White House staff, and political appointees, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?
2. Will the health care plans offered to federal employees, including over 382,000 employees making in excess of $100,000 a year, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?
I regret that I am forced to send this letter. I do not believe it would be necessary if you and your Administration had televised the health care negotiations on C-SPAN, as you committed to during the campaign.
Sincerely,
Eric Cantor
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/Cantor_writes_Obama.htmlAn interesting interpretation by the Chamber of Commerce, which is spending $millions, along with the insurance industry to oppose the bill.
Bullshit. The insurance companies are about to get a windfall profit and they know it, and you know it, but you refuse to say so. As I said before millions of dollars to the insurance industry is like pissing in the Great Lakes to that industry.
But I would agree that more of the reforms are "insurance" reforms (particularly impacting small business, ie members of the Chamber of Commerce) but there are signficant provisions that focus on containing costs in the delivery system.
Neither of the Bills do much to contain the costs of Healthcare with the exception of a few very narrow areas. There are no cost containments on what the insurance companies are going to cost those who currently have insurance in the form of co-pays and premiums.
Yep it says how it will pay for the $900 billion cost...over 10 years.
To bad there is absolutely no way that you or the whores who are making deals to pass this bill can ensure that is going to happen.
....expected savings about $150 billion.[/quotet]But you can't ensure that is going to happen. Now as we get down to the wire there is a lot of discussion about how much more expensive it is going to really be. But we will never know until it comes out of the SECRET and NON-transparent talks. Another lie from the Dems and Obama.
[quote]The rest is less predicatable........iffy.
The first honest statement you have made about what this is really going to cost the Taxpayers.
Some have a problem with the top 1-2% of taxpayers bearing a large portion of the costs in new taxes. I dont have a problem with that at all.
Of course you don't. It serves the greater plan of wealth redistribution by the Socialist Demoncrats.
What is accomplishes is to enable companies that are marginal in size (to big for the small pool and to small for cheaper policies provided through big companies) to end their own employer-plan and enter a plan with a larger pool of other small businesses....a bunch of companies pooling together can offer cheaper insurance that a single small/medium company alone....simply by having a greater number of people included, spreading the risk.
There is no promise that marginal sized companies are going to be able to enter the insurance exchanges.
My Voltaire reference..."the perfect is the enemy of the good"
Who doesnt want a perfect bill that provides both comprehensive insurance reform and reform of the delivery system...all w/o costs to taxpayers?
I'll take what I think is a good bill and build on that...because the political reality is that the perfect bill aint gonna happen......or "a half of loaf is better than none."
Which is a very dangerous view of how your guys want to deal with the taxpayers money.
Will it work as envisioned? Probably not completely. No legislation this comprehensive plays out completely as planned...never has and never will.
No shit!?!?!
And, IMO, it is bullshit for others to be screaming "failed" even before it is given a chance to succeed....or claiming that the "propaganda" or talking points are all on one side of the discussion here. That is dishonest to the point of being blatantly and purposefully ignorant (not referring to you).
Oh, sort of like the millions of jobs that are have been made by the last bailout and the lies Pelosi, Obama, and Reid made to the American public?
Well imagine this:
Payments to states emerges as major obstacle to healthcare reform
By Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 01/15/10 06:46 PM ET
Some House Democrats believe their states would get shortchanged in the overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system and the funding issue is fast becoming a major hurdle to getting a bill signed into law.
How much of a burden states would have to shoulder for a proposed Medicaid expansion is the latest friction point between the House and the Senate, and is threatening to blow a hole in the measure’s price tag.
“There’s a lot of angst right now from members from states like New York and California over this,” a senior Democratic aide said. “And there’s a growing concern that these states are getting the short end of the stick. And that’s particularly frustrating because it was members from these states that carried this bill to the point we’re at now.”
Lawmakers from these states and others are disgruntled because states that already offer more generous Medicaid coverage would be offered less additional assistance than states with relatively smaller programs.
While liberal House Democrats have yielded to the upper chamber on many issues, a growing number of House Democrats – liberals and centrists alike – are beginning to push back hard in opposition to a deal between Senate Majority Leader (D-Nev.) Harry Reid and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that exempted Nebraska from shouldering any of the cost involved in expanding Medicaid services.
Notwithstanding the Nebraska provisions, the Senate bill offers less assistance to states for the Medicaid expansion than the House bill.
But now, with the clock winding down and without an indication that the deal giving Nebraska full reimbursement is off the table, a new coalition of House members is warning that they'll be compelled to stick up for their states, even at the risk of stalling momentum at the eleventh hour.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) called it the last potential deal breaker from the perspective of House Democrats.
“It’s not so much a problem that Nebraska got [100 percent Medicare reimbursement],” he said. “We in the House thought everyone should get something like that, that we shouldn’t just expand Medicaid and then just cost shift it to the states. It would obviate everything we’re doing on stimulus and everything else by trying to relieve the burden on the states.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76487-payments-to-states-emerges-as-major-obstacle-to-health-reform1. Will the health care plans offered to Members of Congress and Administration officials, including Cabinet officers, White House staff, and political appointees, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?
2. Will the health care plans offered to federal employees, including over 382,000 employees making in excess of $100,000 a year, be exempt from the proposed excise tax in the same manner as those covered under collective bargaining agreements?
1) In the Senate bill, all Members of Congress and congressional staff are required to purchase through through the Exchange:
[INDENT]d) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.
(i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
(ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS. The term Member of Congress means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. The term congressional staff means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.[/INDENT]
2) Of all the plans available to federal employees in the FEHB program, only one reaches the level of cost at which it would be taxed as a high end plan....And, the reference to federal employees making over $100K has nothing to do with the tax.
Bullshit. The insurance companies are about to get a windfall profit and they know it, and you know it, but you refuse to say so. As I said before millions of dollars to the insurance industry is like pissing in the Great Lakes to that industry.
Neither of the Bills do much to contain the costs of Healthcare with the exception of a few very narrow areas. There are no cost containments on what the insurance companies are going to cost those who currently have insurance in the form of co-pays and premiums.
To bad there is absolutely no way that you or the whores who are making deals to pass this bill can ensure that is going to happen.
]....expected savings about $150 billion.[/quotet]But you can't ensure that is going to happen. Now as we get down to the wire there is a lot of discussion about how much more expensive it is going to really be. But we will never know until it comes out of the SECRET and NON-transparent talks. Another lie from the Dems and Obama.
The first honest statement you have made about what this is really going to cost the Taxpayers.
Of course you don't. It serves the greater plan of wealth redistribution by the Socialist Demoncrats.
There is no promise that marginal sized companies are going to be able to enter the insurance exchanges.
Which is a very dangerous view of how your guys want to deal with the taxpayers money.
No shit!?!?!
Oh, sort of like the millions of jobs that are have been made by the last bailout and the lies Pelosi, Obama, and Reid made to the American public?
Same old crap.,,,with the "whores" and "wealth redistribution by socialists Democrats" (what, no pics?) , blah blah blah
Any opinion that counters yours is not acceptable.
Same old crap.,,,with the "whores" and "wealth redistribution by socialists Democrats" (what, no pics?) , blah blah blah
Any opinion that counters yours is not acceptable.
You can't change the facts no matter how hard you Demoncrats want to spin it.
You can't change the facts no matter how hard you Demoncrats want to spin it.
Mrerc spin....good - fair and true and factual
Dux spin....bad - biasd and partisan and bullshit
I know the rules by which you like to play.
1) In the Senate bill...
Operative word. But since the scumbags are doing it all in secret we will never know or have the opportunity for public input until the deal is done. November is going to be painful for you guys because there are a lot of really pissed off people out there tired of your lies and backdoor deals.
Mrerc spin....good - fair and true
Dux spin....bad - biasd and partisan
No Dux represents one group. I represent myself and the views of many groups.
Well at least this guy is honest about the Dems circumventing the normal process of Congress to pass a Bill that will effect about 20% of our economy...
Democrats are prepared to use a budgetary procedure to pass healthcare reform legislation if they lose a key Senate race on Tuesday, a House leader said this weekend.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the assistant to the Speaker and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said during budget reconciliation is "an option" to pass a healthcare bill.
"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said during an appearance on Bloomberg television over the weekend.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76495-dems-threaten-reconciliation-for-health-bill-if-they-lose-in-massNo Dux represents one group. I represent myself and the views of many groups.
I would advise those many people you represent to stand back when you step in your own shit, like you did here:
...On one hand, you claim the Exchanges are a fantasy and on the other hand, you insist they are a pay-off to the insurance industry…..
Then you post a column from a Democratic Senator from 4 months ago and claim he agreed that the Exchanges would not work, when in fact, he was complaining at the time that the early draft of the committee bill did not include Exchanges anywhere near those in the final bill.
From there, you post a CBO letter on one small component of the bill related to one level of coverage to be offered in the Exchange and claim that updated it the overall CBO earlier findings on costs and saving and invalidated them.
Followed by the typical twists and dodges with each contradiction or misrepresentation.
Facts?
:rotflol:
Seriously, dude. The overwhelming majority of your posts are not facts, they are your opinion....or the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists and/or industry spokespeople with an agenda
Why is it so hard for you to accept that others have equally valid opinions.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that others have opinions.
Oh I do, I just don't believe the ones posted directly from White House Talking Points or the Demoncratic party line... like 90% of yours.
Wow, that was kind of Faux Newsish of you, leaving out the important words equally valid in your direct quote.
Oh I do, I just don't believe the ones posted directly from White House Talking Points or the Demoncratic party line... like 90% of yours.
I would say 90% of your "snips" are the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists, industry spokespeople and/or Republican members of Congress (see below) with an agenda.
So whats the difference?
Oh...I know one difference.
I actually take the time to cite the legislation (and related facts) when I can......like
in response to the latest non-partisan (?) nonsense you posted from a Republican member of Congress.
Originally Posted by Redux
...On one hand, you claim the Exchanges are a fantasy and on the other hand, you insist they are a pay-off to the insurance industry…..
They are both a fantasy because they do not exist and no one knows if they are going to work, and they whole Bill in both parts of the Congress are a big assed compromised pay off to the insurance industry. Why would you continually avoid discussing this issue? Why do you continue to cover up for the Insurance insiders who helped craft the Bills?
Then you post a column from a Democratic Senator from 4 months ago and claim he agreed that the Exchanges would not work, when in fact, he was complaining at the time that the early draft of the committee bill did not include Exchanges anywhere near those in the final bill.
It does not invalidate the fact that know one knows if the exchanges are going to work since they don't exist, either at a state (esp) or a national level. Why do you continue to ignore the obvious?
From there, you post a CBO letter on one small component of the bill related to one level of coverage to be offered in the Exchange and claim that updated it the overall CBO earlier findings on costs and saving and invalidated them.
The Bronze level is going to be the largest level of coverage. It is not a small part of the CBO estimates, which you love to quote. You are misrepresenting and attempting to downplay the obvious.
I would say 90% of your "snips" are the opinions of libertarian/conservative columnists and/or industry spokespeople with an agenda.
So whats the difference?
1 narrow view vs. Many.
1 narrow view vs. Many.
Half the country shares my view to some extent and half shares yours to the same extent.
But only one of us constantly resorts to name calling and character assassination.
Half the country shares my view to some extent and half shares yours to the same extent.
:lol2: Sure, you keep believing that, see you in Nov...
But only one of us constantly resorts to name calling and character assassination.
:lol: What? you want me to start posting Youtube vids of Nancy Pelosi???!?! Get off your liberal high horse. You snivel to much.
:lol2: Sure, you keep believing that, see you in Nov...
:lol: What? you want me to start posting Youtube vids of Nancy Pelosi???!?! Get off your liberal high horse. You snivel to much.
I know it pisses you off when I call you out on the facts, like your most recent "letter from Cantor" (or those other recent posts of yours I referenced)...it makes your partisanship and ignorance of the facts public for all to see. ;)
And you know it too...and perhaps one day you will man-up and acknowledge that facts, even those that I cite, are more credible than the incessant snips you contribute.
And maybe once, you will actually contribute something constructive to a discussion here.
I know it pisses you off when I call you out on the facts, like your most recent "letter from Cantor"...it makes your partisan public for all to see. ;)
All I said was that he made some interesting points. That does not make one "partisan", although you continue to try. :lol:
And you know it too...and perhaps one day you will man-up and acknowledge that facts, even those that I cite, are more credible than the incessant snips you contribute.
Careful, your narcissistic personality is beginning to show through in your posts...
And maybe once, you will actually contribute something constructive to a discussion here.
I do so. Every day I post...:D
I know it pisses you off when I call you out on the facts, like your most recent "letter from Cantor" (or those other recent posts of yours I referenced)...it makes your partisanship and ignorance of the facts public for all to see. ;)
And you know it too...and perhaps one day you will man-up and acknowledge that facts, even those that I cite, are more credible than the incessant snips you contribute.
And maybe once, you will actually contribute something constructive to a discussion here.
Ahem, I know you're fairly new and all, but...this really belongs in the
Cellar Dreamin' thread.
I slay me! :cool:
Ahem, I know you're fairly new and all, but...this really belongs in the Cellar Dreamin' thread.
I slay me! :cool:
Where all the leaves are brown and the sky is gray?
Ahem, I know you're fairly new and all, but...this really belongs in the Cellar Dreamin' thread.
I slay me! :cool:
This is the dreaming thread, we are talking about the plans to rham through a failed healthcare bill. :D
Washington (CNN) - Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday’s special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.
The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama's visit to Massachusetts on Sunday - coupled with a late push by Democratic activists - could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.
However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley's chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.
But White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN: "The President is in Massachusetts today because he believes Martha Coakley is the right person for the job and indeed will be the next senator from Massachusetts."
Link
I find this difficult to believe. With so much on the line is there any way the D's will lose this race?
I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
Link
Interesting. I would've thought this was a Faux type of move, not MSNBC?
I just went to the doctor and paid cash. They were nice about it too.
I think for minor things it is a trend that could catch on. :)
I mean. who would'a thunk it! Cash for services :headshake unbelievable
I would be cool with that as long as the cash price was no more than what insurance would have paid them, but that is not usually the case, at least not in the case of a hospital, surgeon, or anesthesia service.
I would be cool with that as long as the cash price was no more than what insurance would have paid them, but that is not usually the case, at least not in the case of a hospital, surgeon, or anesthesia service.
Well he was my surgeon and I didn't pay more than $200. I was expecting a $300 dollar charge and hoping it wasn't going to be around $500. It makes me realize how much I did not examine my insurance statements when I had it.
so
He was very caring and gave me cipro drops for my ear for free. I'll go back in three months. A hearing test will be an added charge at that time which to me seems to be a test I do not think is needed.
I think my inner ear is fine. (Says me)
Good for you. Ask your Doc if there is a clinic that does the test free.
Interesting. I would've thought this was a Faux type of move, not MSNBC?
Yea, that was my point anyway. People act like Fox is some kind of big bad wolf and I would submit they are all pretty much the same. I think CNN has started to move back to the middle on their reporting and I appreciate that.
:lol2: You knew it would happen sooner or later. This is funny as hell. A Youtube of the Demoncratic party discussing the Healthcare Bill.....
Laugh already...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embeddedDon't bet on the House rubber-stamping the weaker Senate health care reform bill, Speaker Nancy Pelos (D-Calif.) said Thursday.
"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
But, said Pelosi, there are a number of different options that the House is considering, including passing the Senate bill along with a secondary bill making patchwork improvements that implement the compromise reached by the chambers.
"There's a recognition that there's a foundation in that bill that's important," she said. "So one way or another, those areas of agreement that we have will have to be advanced, whether it's by passing the Senate bill with any changes that can be made, or just taking" some elements of it.
"We have to get a bill passed. We know that. That's a predicate that we all subscribe to," she said.
Link
fuckin A - now what?
Put a fork in it. I was thinking before that it would pass in some form. Now I think it may be dead. So we go from some promise for reform, which was needed, to a shit single party bill that gave the hen house to the fox, to just shit.
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the middle class. They could give a shit. Will it provide good healthcare and will I be protectd from bankruptsy and corporate money pigs is a much more important question. There is no story here.
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the middle class. They could give a shit. Will it provide good healthcare and will I be protectd from bankruptsy and corporate money pigs is a much more important question. There is no story here.
Fucking crybaby.
Fucking crybaby.
Haggis! :thumb:
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the middle class. They could give a shit.
I disagree.
Will it provide good health care and will I be protected from bankrupt[COLOR="Red"]c[/COLOR]y and corporate money pigs is a much more important question[COLOR="Red"]?[/COLOR]
I thought a great deal of the health care issue was just that.
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the middle class.
I submit that none of the "middle class" people you are associating with has a very sick family member.
Wait, what? I should think a middle class family with a very sick family member would be most worried about, "Will it provide good health care and will I be protected from bankruptcy and corporate money pigs"? :confused:
I was thinking that whether the bill passed, and in what form, was a prerequisite for knowing the answer to that question?
OK, I'll buy that... but I think Spexx is right in saying that's the foremost question in most people's minds.
Sure, I guess I just don't see why that question makes Classic's link a "non-story." It seemed to me that Spexx was saying no one cares what form the bill passes in, when that is kind of the entire question, isn't it?
I got the impression it was because the story was about the political maneuvering (which we're all sick of), whereas most people want to know what the bill will do for them... or to them.
Congress could pass health reform if men were 'sent home'
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said that both Republican and Democratic women members of Congress understand how to care for relatives and thus want the healthcare system to change.
"We go to the ladies room and the Republican women and the Democratic women and we just roll our eyes," she said. "And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the healthcare bill, if we sent the men home..." at which point she was interrupted by loud applause.
"You know why? I'm not trying to diss the men but I'm telling you it's the truth that every single woman there has been responsible for taking care of a [relatives] and so we think we can find a common ground there," she said.
Link
Maybe thats the solution send all the men home and let the women get it done.
Actually I really hoping this was said in jest, then again, consider the source.
There was a point when all we needed was one Republican woman, who could have had pretty much anything she wanted for her vote. It wasn't enough.
There was a point when all we needed was one Republican woman, who could have had pretty much anything she wanted for her vote. It wasn't enough.
A whore?
In a sign of how far health care had fallen since Obama campaigned on it,
Senate Democrats devoted a weekly policy lunch Thursday to discussing jobs, not health care.
In a letter to supporters outlining Democrats' 2010 agenda, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer didn't even mention health care.
Yet House and Senate leaders insisted success was still in reach.
"We're going to move forward on health reform. We're going to do health care reform this year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged in her weekly news conference that plenty of work remained if the House was to agree to changes to the Senate bill.
LinkWould this have happened if the U.S. had single payer health care? Can you imagine a Marine corpsman stopping to check for medical insurance or firefighters waiting to find out if the owner of a burning house was up to date on their taxes?
I understand the magnitude can be overwhelming, and that budgets are tight but this really makes the U.S. look like a bunch of wankers.
It looks like a huge clusterfuck.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35156892/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
MIAMI - The United States has suspended its medical evacuations of critically injured Haitian earthquake victims until a dispute over who will pay for their care is settled, military officials said Friday. The military flights, usually C-130s carrying Haitians with spinal cord injuries, burns and other serious wounds, ended on Wednesday after Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida formally asked the federal government to shoulder some of the cost of the care.
Hospitals in Florida have treated more than 500 earthquake victims so far, the military said, including an infant who was pulled out of the rubble with a fractured skull and ribs. Other states have taken patients, too, and those flights have been suspended as well, the officials said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said the decision to suspend the flights was made by the military, not the federal health department. A military spokesman said that the military had ended the flights because hospitals were becoming unwilling to take patients. “The places they were being taken, without being specific, were not willing to continue to receive those patients without a different arrangement being worked out by the government to pay for the care,” said Maj. James Lowe, the deputy chief of public affairs for the United States Transportation Command.
Florida officials, meanwhile, said the state’s hospitals had not refused to take more patients. Jeanne Eckes-Roper, the health and medical chairwoman of the domestic security task force for the South Florida region — where the Super Bowl will be played on Feb. 7 — said she had requested only that new patients be taken to other areas of the state, like Tampa.
A great quote by Obama. At least he admits it was a lie afterall...
The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/29/obamas-stunning-admission/ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.
Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.
"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.
"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."
Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.
"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.
Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.
today.
Link
Why?
Pure speculation on my part, but he's probably going to a world renowned doctor that most Americans wouldn't be able to afford. Someone who treats only the uber rich and world leaders because insurance probably only covers a fraction of what he charges, and the remainder is so high that most can't afford it. And that person is probably better than any doctors near him. That person probably works in the US because the system here allows him to charge what he will.
What you say is pretty true glatt. We have a ton of doctors who trained in Canada practicing here because of the living they can make.
Health Care for Dummies: What You Need to Know
How Will Health Care Bill Affect You? Here's What You Should Know
Democratic leaders have gone behind closed doors to hash out the final details of their health care reform proposals. No matter how they resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions, the final bil will, if passed, affect nearly every American to some degree, depending on how much money you make and how you currently get your health insurance.
The bill aspires to insure nearly every American. But citizens will have to buy insurance themselves.
The average health insurance plan for a family of four cost more than $13,000 in 2009 for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The foundation has also created a handy calculator, taking into account age and income to determine what that a person's government subsidy would be. You can find it HERE.
Looks like there will be some bi-partisan effort with the health bill. Could just be for show...
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.
Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.
“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/08webobama.html?ref=politics
WASHINGTON — When Republicans take President Obama up on his invitation to hash out their differences over health care this month, they will carry with them a fairly well-developed set of ideas intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable, by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations, with no new federal mandates and only a modest expansion of the federal safety net.
It is not clear that Republicans and the White House are willing to negotiate seriously with each other, and Mr. Obama has rejected Republican demands that he start from scratch in developing health care legislation.
But Congressional Republicans have laid out principles and alternatives that provide a road map to what a Republican health care bill would look like if they had the power to decide the outcome.
The different approaches will be on display Feb. 25, when lawmakers from both parties are scheduled to go to Blair House, across the street from the White House, for a televised clash of health policy ideas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/policy/09health.html?ref=politicsYeh I think the R's will have to come to the table now. However I think both sides are gonna come out pointing fingers. . . we'll see.
HA HA HA HA HA HA - very good PH!
Well it looks like Anthem is taking a pre-emptive strike at the potential loopholes of the the single party healthcare reform bill now in Congress. Imagine that...
Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies
California's largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.
Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates -- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases.
The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year.
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05,0,3002094.story?track=rssUnless you're the one dying.
silly.
Oh? A study done by Harvard last fall showed that 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. Doesn't seem very silly to me. :eyebrow:
How many people die each year from smoking or alcohol or drugs? I'm not bitching, just curious what the numbers are in relation.
I don't see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Alcoholics with insurance will go to treatment facilities and have a better chance of recovery than the ones in the park passing the paper bag. The morality so called of a disease should have nothing to do with its treatment.
I said I was just curious - What does the number of people killed by terrorists have to do with heathcare?
I said I was just curious - What does the number of people killed by terrorists have to do with heathcare?
Which one is the more significant threat to American health and welfare based on hype vs. reality?
I said I was just curious - What does the number of people killed by terrorists have to do with heathcare?
We're outraged by one and not the other.
Well it looks like Anthem is taking a pre-emptive strike at the potential loopholes of the the single party healthcare reform bill now in Congress. Imagine that...
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05,0,3002094.story?track=rss
I'm curious how you can explain it as a pre-emptive strike.
Given that these dramatic increases are on individual policies, not group policies.....and under the proposed Exchanges, those individuals would not only have more choice of providers, but the company in question would almost certainly not qualify for the Exchange at that premium/admin cost ratio?
These premium increases have everything to do with an unregulated, uncompetitive market and nothing to do with "loopholes" in the proposed reform.
Which one is the more significant threat to American health and welfare based on hype vs. reality?
Healthcare
Well, I'm glad you finally concede that point, anyway. :p:
I'm curious how you can explain it as a pre-emptive strike.
Given that these dramatic increases are on individual policies, not group policies.....and under the proposed Exchanges, those individuals would not only have more choice of providers, but the company in question would almost certainly not qualify for the Exchange at that premium/admin cost ratio?
These premium increases have everything to do with an unregulated, uncompetitive market and nothing to do with "loopholes" in the proposed reform.
Nothing in the Demoncratic Healthcare Reform Bills would protect anyone from these kinds of increases. That is the point I have been bringing up for months. This increase is how the insurance companies will recoup any cost increases they incur with the proposed plans. The fact that they are unregulated is not addressed in the proposed plans; the fact that they are in an uncompetitive market is not addressed in the proposed plans, although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines. Nothing in the proposed plans on the table would prevent an insurance company from doing this in the future.
Nothing in the Demoncratic Healthcare Reform Bills would protect anyone from these kinds of increases. That is the point I have been bringing up for months. This increase is how the insurance companies will recoup any cost increases they incur with the proposed plans. The fact that they are unregulated is not addressed in the proposed plans; the fact that they are in an uncompetitive market is not addressed in the proposed plans, although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines. Nothing in the proposed plans on the table would prevent an insurance company from doing this in the future.
And I have said repeatedly that you should actually read the text of the legislation (that I cited on numerous occasions) and not just opposition talking points and you would find that your assertions are in fact, incorrect.
And what the Republican proposal would have allowed is for the insurance companies to shop around for the least regulated state, including American Samoa, and apply those lowest standards across the board for consumers in any state in which the company has nexus.
But at this point, it really doesnt matter.
Have a healthy and truthful day!
And I have said repeatedly that you should actually read the text of the legislation (that I cited on numerous occasions) and not just opposition talking points and you would find that your assertions are in fact, incorrect.
No my friend I have read it and there is nothing there to prevent it as I have stated numerous times over the last 6 months.
Redux - just a thought here -
Why cannot we merge a system of regulation by the Feds with the state option. Won't the fed regulations on what they can charge... cover the insureds?
I'm really just sick of this at this point.
How 'bout starting with a simple "hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies will be not-for-profit"
Redux - just a thought here -
Why cannot we merge a system of regulation by the Feds with the state option. Won't the fed regulations on what they can charge... cover the insureds?
I'm really just sick of this at this point.
That is pretty much with the Senate did in its version
State-administered Exchanges with states having the option to opt out..and with federal statutory standards for coverage option with limits co-pays andout-of-pocket cost and required certification and approval of premium increases...the details of which would be in the regulations.
Subtitle D
PART I—Establishment of Qualified Health Plans
PART II—Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition....
But, by now, I'm tired or repeating myself.
Subtitle D deals with drug plans.
Subtitle D – Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug Plans and MA–PD Plans
Subtitle D deals with drug plans.
Subtitle D – Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug Plans and MA–PD Plans
It would probably help if you looked at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed by the Senate:
Title I - Subtitle D - Parts I (establisment of qualified plans) , Part II (consumer choice and insurance competition), Part III and IV (state flexibility)
The other thought was just a catastrophic plan. But that doesn't seem to really address the issues of preventative care and ER overcrowding, I don't think.
The Senate version, IIRC had the states doing the regulation not the Fed. If that is correct, then it seems to defeat the purpose of preventing the state jumping issue.
The Senate version, IIRC had the states doing the regulation not the Fed. If that is correct, then it seems to defeat the purpose of preventing the state jumping issue.
Nope...the Senate version has federal regulations on minimum coverage options, maximum co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses and regualted premium adjustments ...with states doing the administration of the exchanges or opting out.
This is the only way to prevent the insurance companies from "shopping around " for the least regulated states and setting up shop there.
Hmm - I think I'll have to reread that again. I am admittedly confused about what was in which when.
It would probably help if you looked at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed by the Senate:
Title I - Subtitle D - Parts I (establisment of qualified plans) , Part II (consumer choice and insurance competition), Part III and IV (state flexibility)
You are right. I have it open in front of me. I was in the wrong Title. It still does not regulate it the way you state it does.
Nope...the Senate version has federal regulations on minimum coverage options, maximum co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses and regualted premium adjustments ...with states doing the administration of the exchanges or opting out.
This is the only way to prevent the insurance companies from "shopping around " for the least regulated states and setting up shop there.
And when the states opt out then what?
And when the states opt out then what?
Then a federal non-profit would administer it in those states.....using a model similar to the House version where the entire Exchange would have been administered federally.
The Senate version gives the states more flexibility but still provides consumers in ALL states with certain minimum protections, re: coverage options, co-pays and out-of-pockets, and premium adjustments (in order for a company to be approved for the Exchange).
But when they opt out the rules for those states that opt out are not the same. They are not regulated the same.
But when they opt out the rules for those states that opt out are not the same. They are not regulated the same.
The minimum regulations are the same for all states....the flexibility is in the administration, not the regulation.
It also gives flexibility to insurance companies that might not be large enough or have interest in being in a national exchange, but very interested in particular states..thus increasing competition in those states but under which those companies still have to meet minimum federal standards.
The key feature of the Republican plan was to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, with virtually no federal regulations so that the companies would look for the state (or US terrirtory) with the least regulation and least consumer protections, establish a presence in that state, and then sell across state lines to consumers across the country.
Please note that I believe that the goal of many of those that support the current plans in Congress is to ultimately get to single payer universal coverage provided by the government – because I have read many comments from supporters stating that this is what they support. I am against that. I don’t believe that government run health insurance will help anyone in the long run. I do, however, believe that the health care status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. I want major changes.
1) I want to encourage competition based on price and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction should be driven by overall treatment and outcome. Not all that different from any other service.
2) I would like to see all healthcare related tax payments and exemptions removed. Employers should not receive any special tax treatment for providing healthcare to employees, but at the same time I should not be penalized for buying my healthcare on my own. This would enable insurance portability because I would buy my policy. My employer would not buy that policy. It would also change the competitive nature of insurance because insurers today work to meet the needs of the human resources departments within businesses, not the needs of the individuals on their plans. Yes, there is a difference.
Income taxes on health care workers should be removed. From the doctor to the janitor, the entire industry should be exempt. WAIT: Before you scream at me, think about this statement. If we can achieve real competition in health care, then by removing taxes we create room for prices to go down. For example, if a doctor wishes to take home $200k per year, that doctor needs to bill far more – varying by tax situation – to actually take home that $200k. The doctor also needs to pay staff, rent, equipment, etc, all of which are laden with taxes from income taxes to sales taxes. Keep in mind that even if the drugs the doctor injects you with were purchased tax free, the costs of those drugs included all the income taxes and other taxes the drug company and the company employees had to pay.
That we tax a patient, directly or indirectly, for trying to regain their health should be disturbing to every decent person. I would like to see Congress dedicate a committee to the removal of all health care related taxes.
3) No, I am not totally anti-government. I believe that government has some very important roles in health care. The first of those roles is to act as judge in disputes over complaints that insurers or the insured are failing to live up to their contracts. The ability to act as unbiased judge is huge and it is a role that is vital to protecting patients. It is a role that the government can not effectively play if the government also controls the health care industry. There is simply too much opportunity for influence and pressure. Think of it this way; how fair is it that if your health insurer denies coverage your appeal starts and ends with that health insurer? Why would it be different if that insurer is government? There are still budgets and careers and egos at play. Profits are gone but expenses still will need to be met by the government. However, when the insurer is private and the judge is government you increase the chance of a fair judgment.
4) The federal government should establish itself as the head of the standards body for the development of a nationwide healthcare information technology infrastructure – the computer network that will manage health records and billing, etc.
Those of you that have been part of an IT standards body, for example a standards body responsible for insuring that your PC can get your WiFi signal, know that this is an extremely complex undertaking. Standards bodies are complex organizations. Government as a whole, and individuals in government careers, can be very qualified to lead these bodies. Leadership involves constant politicking, compromise, deliberation, and deal making – the art of a operating a Constitutionally based representative government.
And, I bet Constitutional lawyers would find government’s involvement here very acceptable because it would absolutely involve interstate commerce.
5) When I first started writing on health care I opposed forcing individuals to buy health insurance, though I strongly believe that the economics in this country involves increasing the number of people that are actually paying into the system. I still hate the idea of forcing people to buy insurance, but I am coming around to the belief that we either need to insist that everyone that can possibly afford catastrophic coverage get that coverage or we need place some sort of payment requirement on those that visit emergency rooms or use some other means to get health care without paying. Maybe to avoid paying you have to prove you don’t own any luxury items or purchase alcohol or cigarettes. This sounds heartless on the surface, and maybe it is. But I would like to know that the part of my insurance and tax payments that go to pay for the health care of the uninsured is going to the truly needy. I believe that a portion of what we spend is to help those truly in need, but I also believe a portion goes to people that work the system and people that make bad decisions that I have to pay for.
6) Health care reform must include tax reform. I do not understand how we can burden the producers in this nation with complex, high taxes when we so desperately need to pump more money into health care, infrastructure, job creation, and a long list of other activities. Nothing would help ease the burden of health care costs and all the other above mentioned needs like an economic boom that benefited all segments of our economy. Simple as that. Tax simplification and reduction helps everyone at ALL income levels. I believe it helps those with low incomes but big ambitions the most. Naive?
7) Along with tax reform, we need to focus on cultural reform. See my many posts including yesterday’s post on encouraging President and Mrs. Obama to focus their efforts, first and foremost, on encouraging educational excellence, accomplishment, and self-reliance on the many people that they can reach in our society that no one else seems to reach – at least no one else that can act as positive role models.
8 . Health insurance today acts very much like a health care savings account in that almost everything that is a part of health care is paid for by health insurance. I believe that we should break out the health care savings account from the catastrophic, true insurance piece. Let the patient be the consumer for non-catastrophic care, making the best deal by using their health care savings account. I believe that insurers should offer rewards and penalties tied to insurance pricing based on patients following a course of routine health maintenance.
9) There are more than 1,000 health insurance providers in the U.S. We need to encourage competition among them. If that means opening up sales across state lines, fine. If not, then is there a better option?
10) My big concession to those that support strong government involvement. I believe that we need to restructure the insurance market – yes, forcibly through government action, so that the outcome is competitive and thus meets consumer needs, and can generate profits and incentives. I think that the best way to get to this environment may be by requiring this outcome.
So that it is folks. Have at it. The President meets with Republicans on February 25. I know, based on the readership of this blog, that our debate can impact that meeting.
Oh….One final thought. Whatever the health care outcome All government employees including Congress take part. No special privileges for the political class.
From
HereThe libertarian concept of the above is built on the premise that insurance is like any other product...and it is not.
And that there should not be a tax-funded health safety net (I assume he opposes Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, welfare, food stamps, social security, etc) along with tax simplification and that will make a more efficient and "fair" system.
And numbers 9 and 10 are contradictory....9) calls for dedregulated free market..and that it will increase competition..and it wont, it will allow insurance companies to shop around the least regulated state and operate out of that state, but sell nationally....but 10)state-focused while recognizing the need for centralized regulations, which is what the Senate bill does.
A collection of libertarian talking points and contradictory solutions. Not very well thought out, IMO.
added:
Oh..and, btw, it starts with a biased, non-objective opinion.
1 is nice. But as things stand, the only time "satisfaction" is a meaningful metric is when you file a large claim, at which point (assuming there is any competition at all) the companies will be competing to not cover you.
Item 2 is interesting. I'd like to decrease the ties between healthcare coverage and employment as much as possible. I'd also like as many healthcare providers as possible to get tax exempt status - under the normal non-profit rules. The arguments here for exempting the whole industry from taxes are pretty specious.
3 is insufficient. In an industry that is usually colluding when it isn't an outright monopoly, and where competition is almost irrelevant, as you don't know how bad your de facto coverage is until it's too late to change providers, the government needs to do far more than enforce contracts, which are written by and for the benefit of the insurers.
4 is good.
5 is irrelevant. You already are charged if you go to the emergency room, and if you can't pay, you don't. Unless he's proposing they hold off treatment until the person pays or proves they are poor and teetotal.
6 is a non-sequitur. Simplifying taxes might be nice, but it is completely orthogonal to healthcare, and only a half-hearted attempt to link them is made even in this article.
7 starts OK, many of the US's health problems are culture-related. And education, accomplishment, and self-reliance are good, but I expect plenty of educated, accomplished, and self-reliant people sit in front of a computer and drink soda all day; I was expecting more of a health-related cultural connection here.
8 seems fine. On the one hand, insurance isn't often the best model for normal recurring costs, like checkups, but on the other hand, it is better in the long run to encourage preventive care. Maybe rewards/penalties would work as well as justcovering the care in the first place.
With 9, just about anything is a better option than allowing insurers to scuttle off to the least common denominator in regulation. If sales are opened across state lines, the insurer should have to obey the regulations in the state they are selling to. With that restriction, we'll see whether the proposals advocates are more interested in customers being able to buy across state lines, or insurers being able to sell across state lines.
10 - good goal.
Final thought - agreed. An addition: Allow anyone to buy into the government's plan.
The minimum regulations are the same for all states....the flexibility is in the administration, not the regulation.
I don't give a shit about the Republickin plans, they are not the majority and they do not have the responsibility for making things happen in Congress, the Demoncrats do have this responsibility. I care about the responsibility of the Demoncrats and what they are going to do with the power they have. It is a straw man argument to blame anyone else. Your Party has failed again. The regulation is not defined in the Bills before each house. The Devil is in the details.
I don't give a shit about the Republickin plans.
You were the one who raised the republican plan, not me:
...although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines.
You were the one who raised the republican plan, not me:
It was antidotal. They are my own thoughts. I could give a shit what the Republickins think as much as I could give a shit about what your scumbag party thinks.
HHS warns of double-digit spike in health premiums
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Eye-popping health insurance premium increases of up to 39 percent are a worrisome sign of the times, the Obama administration said in a report Thursday as it tried to tap public frustration with high costs to revive the stalemated effort to overhaul health care.
Proposed premium increases by WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross for Californians purchasing their own coverage set off a wave of criticism and forced the company last week to announce a postponement. Now, the Health and Human Services Department says similar pressure on premiums is being felt in at least six other states.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBCtWjb1LVbp1OyNI77t-pvzoY5gD9DUMH007
To bad the healthcare proposals in front of Congress now will not protect most of us from this type of increase.
Antidotal for what? Is it like a snake bite? :confused:
Ohhhhhhhh, anecdotal, perhaps? And, if you COULD give a shit, that means you care. It's the non-shit giving that creates the illusion (or, delusion) of apathy.
Oh gawd I slay me. :lol:
No you slayed me! [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]rightlyso[/COLOR]
They're trying to grab as much cash as they can before HCR is enacted, as Brown's election made the final form of the bill much less predictable.
HCR only protects a few sectors of the Insurance from astronomical increases. Everyone else is going to see these increases routinely in the near future.
HCR only protects a few sectors of the Insurance from astronomical increases. Everyone else is going to see these increases routinely in the near future.
Actually, that is not correct.
Any insurance company wishing to participate in the Exchanges and have access to those 30 million new customers would also have to comply with the same premium review and certification process for their employer-based programs....or the company would not receive approval to be listed in the Exchange
What exactly is the "premium review and certification process" Is it something like what the USPS goes through or something completely new?
What exactly is the "premium review and certification process" IS it something like what the USPS goes through or something completely new?
I could tell you what it means..
...but I would like to give Merc the opportunity first..since he "knows" that it wont impact premium increases.
ps. in part, it has to do with premium/admin cost ratios
But come on....Merc knows everything about the CBO, the Recovery Act, Health Care Reform Legilsation...at least he tell us so...repeatedly.
Careful - He'll probably quote you on that and start/reignite another flame war.
Careful - He'll probably quote you on that and start/reignite another flame war.
He has flamed for the last year...a tactic to avoid the facts when confronted.
And IMO, while you might not flame as much, you have mastered the tactics of avoidance when confronted with facts as well.
It really is amazing...you guys can just never admit that you might be wrong in any discussion here.
It really is amazing...you guys can just never admit that you might be wrong in any discussion here.
And neither have you Reflux. But you will end the discussion with "I guess we will just have to disagree" when you are caught in continuing to push the lies and propaganda of this Congress and Administration. You can't defend the deficit spending any longer. The electorate is on to you.
I could tell you what it means..
...but I would like to give Merc the opportunity first..since he "knows" that it wont impact premium increases.
ps. in part, it has to do with premium/admin cost ratios
But come on....Merc knows everything about the CBO, the Recovery Act, Health Care Reform Legilsation...at least he tell us so...repeatedly.
But come on....Reflux knows everything about the CBO, the Recovery Act, Health Care Reform Legilsation...at least he tell us so...repeatedly.:rolleyes:
Have you found the section of both the House and Senate bills on the premium review and certification process, including the premium/admin cost/claims ratio?
Care to explain it to classic?
Have you found the section of both the House and Senate bills on the premium review and certification process, including the premium/admin cost/claims ratio?
Absolutely. I have read it numerous times. Even the levels set by both bills would be a HUGE increase in costs. And depending on which bill you look at your ability to move to the exchage differs based on the percent of your income that the premiums compare with, so there is a lot of room for employer based plans to significantly raise premiums to 0.1% below the threshold and still screw the consumer while not losing the individual or family to the exchange. The loopholes abound.
Absolutely. I have read it numerous times. Even the levels set by both bills would be a HUGE increase in costs. And depending on which bill you look at your ability to move to the exchage differs based on the percent of your income that the premiums compare with, so there is a lot of room for employer based plans to significantly raise premiums to 0.1% below the threshold and still screw the consumer while not losing the individual or family to the exchange. The loopholes abound.
Nope...you dont have it yet.
The threshold for premium/admin costs/claims ratio has absolutely nothing to do with plan option costs as percent of income...which has nothing to do with the employer based plans meeting the same ratio thresholds.
The loopholes exists only in your head because you only see what you are pre-conceived to see.
Thats ok. It was expected.
Nope...you dont have it yet.
The threshold for premium/admin costs/claims ratio has absolutely nothing to do with plan option costs as percent of income...which has nothing to do with the employer based plans meeting the same ratio thresholds.
The loopholes exists only in your head because you only see what you are pre-conceived to see.
Thats ok. It was expected.
Nothing in either Bill prevents them from raising premiums and co-pays, decreasing coverage and passing through the cost to those with insurance. And nothing you have posted to date disputes that.
If you have something post it. I have read the Bill.
Nothing in either Bill prevents them from raising premiums and co-pays, decreasing coverage and passing through the cost to those with insurance. And nothing you have posted to date disputes that.
If you have something post it. I have read the Bill.
I think I have provided it 4-5 times in the last few months...and you deny it every time.
The bills set minimum coverage requirements and limit out-of-pocket expenses (which includes co-pays and deductibles)...and provide for no co-pays ($0) for all preventive care, including colonoscopies or mammograms.
And requires caps on premiums (set in premiums/admin costs ratios) for small group/ individual premiums (one rate) and large group premiums (different rate) or provide consumers with a rebate.
Its all there in black and white....but your mind is closed to anything that contradicts your opinion....so perhaps when you read, your brain just cant process it.
I think I have provided it 4-5 times in the last few months...and you deny every time.
The bills set minimum coverage requirements and limit out-of-pocket expenses (which includes co-pays and deductibles)...and provide free co-pays for preventive care, including colonoscopies or mammograms.
And required to spend spending caps on premiums (set in premiums/admin costs rations) for small group/ individual premiums (one rate) and large group premiums (different rate) or provide consumers with a rebate.
Its all there in black and white....but your mind is closed to anything that contradicts your opinion....so perhaps when you read, your brain just cant process it.
And as I stated that is only for certain classes not for all. The rules for existing insurance do not change unless they alter their plans. Many of the breaks are only for the first two years, not for the remaining years, or they phase out over a shore time. You are passing on more propaganda.
So when are you going to step up and repeat the things you said you agreed with Flint about me?
And as I stated that is only for certain classes not for all. The rules for existing insurance do not change unless they alter their plans. Many of the breaks are only for the first two years, not for the remaining years, or they phase out over a shore time. You are passing on more propaganda.
Nope.
It effects all plans...individual, small group, large group (employer-based)...just phased in with different start dates. There are no phase outs or sunsetting provisions.
The "rules" absolutely apply to existing insurance. They would be required to change in the year after the effective date... not just in regard to the above, but also regarding required coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage, etc
'
It is clear to me, perhaps not to others, that you obviously havent read the legislation.
You can fool some of the people, some of the time. You cant fool me.
Employer Responsibility to Provide Coverage:
Provisio: A meaningful contribution toward coverage.
House: Employers are required to contribute 72.5/65% single/family of employees premium costs for coverage purchased inside or outside the exchange. 5 year grace period for some plans (Unions).
Senate: Employers are not required to provide coverage but either pay penalty if no coverage or insufficient coverage. Permanately grandfathers existing plans with any level of coverage.
Or they can provide subsidy to insurance exchanges: House and Senate version only differ by penalty.
Nothing in these provisions control costs of the premiums.
Employer Responsibility to Provide Coverage:
Provisio: A meaningful contribution toward coverage.
House: Employers are required to contribute 72.5/65% single/family of employees premium costs for coverage purchased inside or outside the exchange. 5 year grace period for some plans (Unions).
Senate: Employers are not required to provide coverage but either pay penalty if no coverage or insufficient coverage. Permanately grandfathers existing plans with any level of coverage.
Or they can provide subsidy to insurance exchanges: House and Senate version only differ by penalty.
Nothing in these provisions control costs of the premiums.
You are intentionally or ignorantly attempting to confuse the issue.
That provision sets levels of employer contributions.
Premiums are controlled through different provisions. For large group plans (current employer-based), 85 percent of large group premiums dollars are required to be spent on direct health benefits to consumers...they cant jack the price and simply add it to their profits or even claim it as additional administrative costs......and all "extraordinary" (to be defined in regulations) premium increases require approval by the Sec of HHS.
Subsidies*to*Purchase*Coverage*and*Affordability
Ensure Employer Based Plans have similar protections:
House: IF premiums exceed 12% of income then employees can move to insurance exchanges.
Senate: ... if premiums exceed 9.8% of income. More limits if in "small group Markets"
So if your income is $200,000 that means that you premiums can be as high as $24,000 under the house plan and $19,600 under the Senate plan.
Damn dude...you just dont get or wont get it.
This has nothing to do with subsidies.....the bill sets a CAP on percent of premiums (15% for existing large group plans ) that can be claimed as administrative costs (or profits)....or the reverse.. 85% must be applied directly to patient care.
They cant raise premiums and claim more for administrative expenses or profits.
You only see what you want to see.
You are intentionally or ignorantly attempting to confuse the issue.
That provision sets levels of employer contributions.
Premiums are controlled through different provisions. For large group plans (current employer-based), 85 percent of large group premiums dollars are required to be spent on direct health benefits to consumers...they cant jack the price and simply add it to their profits or even claim it as additonal administrative costs
Certainly they can, there are no limits set except by income.
......and all "extraordinary" (to be defined in regulations) premium increases require approval by the Sec of HHS.
So you consider that a price control??!?! Please. A Sec of HHS appointed by a President who made back door deals with the Insurance industry and a Senate who basically let a insurance insider write the Bill!??? Are you delusional?
Damn dude...you just dont get or wont get it.
This has nothing to do with subsidies.....it is a CAP on percent of premiums that can be claimed as administrative costs (or profits).
I am quoting the Bill. Why are you ignoring the facts. A person making up to 200k can pay premiums as high as 24k without an opportunity to move to the exchanges.
85 percent of large group premiums dollars are required to be spent on direct health benefits to consumers...they cant jack the price and simply add it to their profits or even claim it as additional administrative costs
Are you really that dense?
Carry on.
Damn dude...you just dont get or wont get it.
This has nothing to do with subsidies.....the bill sets a CAP on percent of premiums (15% for existing large group plans ) that can be claimed as administrative costs (or profits)....or the reverse.. 85% must be applied directly to patient care.
They cant raise premiums and claim more for administrative expenses or profits.
You only see what you want to see.
No, what it says is that it Requires*that*insurance*companies*rebate*to*policy‐holders*any*spending*in*excess*15% FOR admin costs. Who says what those can be? You are trusting the insurance companies to acurately report the numbers? The same companies that have been screwing us for how long? Fox is incharge of the Hen House. Those rules are so vague that it screams for a scam.
85 percent of large group premiums dollars are required to be spent on direct health benefits to consumers...they cant jack the price and simply add it to their profits or even claim it as additional administrative costs
Are you really that dense?
Carry on.
Are you so dense that you can't see that percentages are easily manipulated by these companies? Those are not cost controls. Why are you ignoring what I posted. It depends on which version comes out in the final Bill as to how much you are going to be screwed.
Insurance Regulations
House
Insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions or gender.
Premiums could vary by age, but premiums for the oldest customers could not cost more than twice premiums for the youngest.Not a cost control
Children would be able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 27, beginning in 2010.
The bill would end the antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry.
Senate
Insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions or gender. For children, this new regulation would go into effect immediately. For adults, it would go into effect with the rest of the legislation in 2014.
Premiums could vary by age, but premiums for the oldest customers could not cost more than three times premiums for the youngest.Not a cost control
Children would be able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, beginning in 2010.
Insurers would be required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar received in premiums on providing health care.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/billcomparison_12-21.htmlOn exchanges:
But while House and Senate lawmakers envision the exchanges performing similar functions, there are some key differences.
For example, not everyone will be able to use the exchanges. In both bills, at least at first, only individuals who don't have access to insurance at work and small businesses could buy coverage through the exchanges. But while the House bill might open up the exchanges to more people and larger firms later on, the Senate bill would not.
Another very big difference is that in the House bill, the exchange would be national, set up and run by the federal government. In the Senate bill, each state will have to set up its own exchange, complete with its own state law on the subject.
Liberals tend to support the House's national approach; moderates, the insurance industry and the state insurance commissioners prefer the Senate approach that gives each state responsibility for its own exchange.
Jost worries about the Senate's approach: "It seems to me to be a much more complicated process that has a lot more room for failure and, frankly, I think a lot less accountability," he says. "Because if the state fails to do it, then the federal government is supposed to step in, but I think it's going to be difficult.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122476051As I said elsewhere:
[INDENT]He's your typical internet bully....but laughable, because he is so transparent and predictable...and so easy to expose his "facts" and occasionally poke until he has a meltdown.[/INDENT]
Here's the sequence that is so easy to expose:
[INDENT]First, you issue a blanket pronouncement of "failed" for any post that challenges your opinion.
When exposed with facts, first you deny the facts....then claim the poster and post still fail because those acts are just partisan talking points.
When it is demonstrated those facts are written into the bill....its time for your dodge and weave...first, but, biut there are loopholes because the Dems are scumbags in the pocket of the lobbyists
Followed by a new post of yours to deflect from the facts because you no longer can defend your position.
When it is pointed out that your latest post does not address the issue, either the name calling starts or a new post with new deflections.
And, finally, your conclusion it is all propaganda. [/INDENT]
You are the only here who can predict the future and know for certain that the program as envisioned in the bills are failures.
And you are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that other opinions are valid and factually based. I certainly have never asserted the bill is perfect or there is guaranteed success (as opposed to your assertion of guaranteed failure) but IMO, it is clear from the facts in the bills that they address the significant cost and coverage/access issues in meaningful ways. Perfect? Nope.
But then you are the only one here who takes the extreme position that if a solution proposed by the Democrats...whether it is health reform, economic stimulus, etc. ..is not 100% perfect, it is a failure. I hope, for your sake, you dont judge your own life actions by those extremes.
Just look back over the last two pages and you are true to form.
As I said elsewhere:
[INDENT]He's your typical internet bully....but laughable, because he is so transparent and predictable...and so easy to expose his "facts" and occasionally poke until he has a meltdown.[/INDENT]
Here's the sequence that is so easy to expose:
[INDENT]First, you issue a blanket pronouncement of "failed" for any post that challenges your opinion.
When exposed with facts, first you deny the facts....then claim the poster and post still fail because those acts are just partisan talking points.
When it is demonstrated those facts are written into the bill....its time for your dodge and weave...first, but, biut there are loopholes because the Dems are scumbags in the pocket of the lobbyists
Followed by a new post of yours to deflect from the facts because you no longer can defend your position.
When it is pointed out that your latest post does not address the issue, either the name calling starts or a new post with new deflections.
And, finally, your conclusion it is all propaganda. [/INDENT]
You are the only here who can predict the future and know for certain that the program as envisioned in the bills are failures.
And you are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that other opinions are valid and factually based. I certainly have never asserted the bill is perfect or there is guaranteed success (as opposed to your assertion of guaranteed failure) but IMO, it is clear from the facts in the bills that they address the significant cost and coverage/access issues in meaningful ways. Perfect? Nope.
But then you are the only one here who takes the extreme position that if a solution proposed by the Democrats...whether it is health reform, economic stimulus, etc. ..is not 100% perfect, it is a failure. I hope, for your sake, you dont judge your own life actions by those extremes.
Just look back over the last two pages and you are true to form.
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs, they will not prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums, and the Insurance companies have all been in on co-opting this "reform" to their benifit. All things you have ignored to address or brushed aside with blanket statements which are false. If the Bill does not fix the problems with Healthcare then yes, it is a failure, just like the Stimulus, which was suppose to provide millions of jobs, and it has not. Even Demoncratic members of Congress are beginning to question it's success. Time will tell.
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs,
The healthcare bill is not a solution to all that. Does not even claim to be. It addresses only some reasons for sky high costs.
But it does address a serious problem. So many Americans without any healthcare. Something approaching 40% of Americans have none. Many are playing games with "it will not happen to me" or "I always pay my bills" myths. If you have a serious illness and no health insurance, you will never pay those bills. Your credit rating destroyed for life.
In children hospitals, I am told the number without health insurance is closer to 60%. Making the kids victims.
Other programs are also necessary to address rising costs. This healthcare bill is only step one.
Now, where are costing rising? Insurance companies have somewhere around a 2% profit margin. Suppliers of medical equipment and big Pharma have double digit profit margins. That George Jr Medicaid plan did not help by keeping drug prices in America 40% higher. Making it a felony for Americans to buy the exact same drug in Canada or Mexico.
To address rising health costs means going after those with extreme profit margins and executives that are some of America's highest paid. We know a direct relationship exists between higher paid executives and less productive companies. This healthcare bill is not intended to address those problems.
Step one - first we must have what Massachusetts has - a health insurance system that is actually working. Step two comes later. Go after the reasons for escalating costs. With intentional political gridlock - we want Obama to fail - we cannot even do step one.
No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs, they will not prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums....
IMO, the provisions we "discussed" (sic) above will prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums, not only in the new Exchanges, but in the existing large group market (employer-based) as well.
Neither of us know for certain. Will some company find a way around it? Possibly.,,,and if that happens, it would be addressed.
For you to dismiss my opinion and my understanding the the legislation, which, IMO, is at least equal to, if not far greater than yours, is your typical manner of discourse. Much like you dismissed the recovery program as a failure before it started, despite the fact that it has helped the economy begin to recover and has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
From my perspective, the only failure in discussions here in the political area of the Cellar is your dismissive attitude toward others and your unwillingness to acknowledge that opinions that contradict yours may be valid, particularly those supported with facts.
It is the bully approach to discourse and it has been exposed.
IMO......Neither of us know for certain.
Every single point and position you have taken against my statements are in-validated by your admission that you have no better idea than I do about what the Bills before Congress will do or how they will affect the future..
For you to dismiss my opinion and my understanding the the legislation, which, IMO, is at least equal to, if not far greater than yours, is your typical manner of discourse.
No, your understanding is with Rose Colored Glasses, those of the Demoncrats that you suck up to, and their Insurance Companies. You are a self admitted policy wanker. A frigging tool of the Demoncrats.
... before it started, despite the fact that it has helped the economy begin to recover and has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
More lies by the Left to Sugar Coat the failure of the Stimulus package and cover up the fact that they failed to provide "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs".
From my perspective, the only failure in discussions here in the political area of the Cellar is your dismissive attitude toward others and your unwillingness to acknowledge that opinions that contradict yours may be valid, particularly those supported with facts.
The only failure here is yours. Your ability to support and defend the failures of the Demoncratic party and your failure to acknowledge that the
Majority of the American electorate is about to screw you and your parties very short rise to power out of a whole bunch of jobs. How did that Mass. election work out for ya? See you in Nov....
Every single point and position you have taken against my statements are in-validated by your admission that you have no better idea than I do about what the Bills before Congress will do or how they will affect the future..
Thank you for further clarifying the difference between us.
I have stated my understanding of the bills and my belief that they will address the issues of coverage/access as well as cost...and frequently cited specific language in the legislation. I have never claimed with certainty that it will 100% successful as envisioned, with no need for further corrections, but IMO, it was the correct approach.
And you have claimed repeatedly and with absolute certainty that it will fail...and with absolutely no evidence to back it up, other than your opinion and the numerous partisan opinions of others with which you flooded the discussion.
Just as you proclaimed the Recovery Act a failure as soon as it was enacted and continue to insist it failed...despite the fact that the evidence has proven you wrong. Has it been 100% successful as envisioned? Nope, no one claimed it has been perfect. Programs of that size and complexity (much like the health reform bills) rarely are perfect when implemented. But certainly it has been moderately successful in creating jobs and helping prevent the economy from a longer or deeper downturn.
Because I understand federal policy, I rarely address complex policy issues in absolutes and understand the subtleties that arise with implementation. You, on the other hand, with no policy experience, are always certain of an outcome, a negative outcome if it is a Democratic policy proposal, that is based solely on your ideology.
Same old tactics.., your insistence that your opinions are better and more informed than anyone else. Wrong!
I have said repeatedly that we should be able to agree to disagree...but you will not or cannot accept that and continue to insist that your projected outcome of failure, based on nothing other than your opinion (and the opinions of like-minded columnists), is the only possible outcome.
And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan opinion columns and childish pictures.
You should know by now that your bullying tactics wont work on me.
You are a failed bully and you have been outed....perhaps that explains why you are so bitter and angry.
Merc, how about a compromise. We get universal healthcare, and start another war. Happy now? :eek::p:
Cool. Who do we want to attack? What's Canada up to? We'll steal their healthcare.
So many Americans without any healthcare. Something approaching 40% of Americans have none.
Seriously? Are they all Americans? And, why don't those Americans get off of their asses, get an education, get a job, and then health coverage is a thing of the past? Too many damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses to actually use their brains for something other than self satisfaction. Fuck them and fuck Obama.
Man, I really should stay off of the 'puter when I'm drinking. That might make a good poll...or not.
You're full of shit, there's millions of people working full time, that don't get health insurance from/with their job, and can't afford to buy it on their own. My brother is paying well over $400 a month for individual coverage that ain't all that great.
xob - then my statements wouldn't apply to those millions. My sister & her husband are disabled, cannot get work, and...well, you get the gist. They have to get whatever they can off of the government. But, there are many people out there that CAN (or could have at one time) get off of their butts and don't. Those are the leaches I'd just as soon kick to the curb. I wouldn't want the job to discern who was who, so what system is best? Not one I've heard proposed.
Of the approximately 45 million uninsured, 2/3 or 30 million are families with one or more full-time workers:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
These are not
"damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses."
They are folks who work for small businesses (or self-employed) that dont offer employer-subsidized insurance and simply cannot afford insurance on the open market at the current rates.
Of the approximately 45 million uninsured, 2/3 or 30 million are families with one or more full-time workers:
[INDENT][/INDENT]
These are not "damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses."
They are folks who work for small businesses (or self-employed) that dont offer employer-subsidized insurance and simply cannot afford insurance on the open market at the current rates.
They are? Someone has met face-to-face with everyone one of those people and verified that? No. We are talking statistics now. We know how that goes. We all know that there are people that can only work hourly jobs w/o adequate insurance because they didn't finish school, were incarcerated (ex-felons), etc. Others are elderly who need to meet shortages for poor retirement planning or unfortunate circumstances (ripped off my online fishers/scammers, loss of life savings for spouse's death after long illness, etc.). Obviously there are cases where health care would be best provided for those who cannot provide. There is also the case where people chose to make bad decisions and if they would not have been so selfish/lazy, could have taken care of their situation. I do not want to pay for them. Period. Do I get a choice? No. Because of a bunch pansies electing people into office that…well shouldn’t be there. It's not about what is right and wrong. It's about politics. And our politics suck at best.
And you are making sweeping generalizations.
Those stats come from many verifiable sources.
Probably the best example is the SCHIP program to provide insurance for children of working families making up to 2x the poverty level. The stats come from the applications...the kids get covered, the parents do not. Or Medicaid applications that are denied because of exceeding the max income level.
I assume you would never take public assistance....health care, welfare, food stamps.....if you became unemployed for a long period of time due to no fault of your own.
Define many verifiable sources, along with process, quality control, original source of data, and political leaning of such verifiable sources, and who substantiates those sources as reliable?
Generalizations come from observations, wisdom, intelligence...all of which someone must have in order to be able to make (or comprehend).
When I was under the poverty level for 13 years while active duty military...where were the programs to feed my three kids when I couldn't afford housing, heat, food, & clothing? Why did I have to go to the hack doctors who literally could care less what our outcome would be? How about the "health care professionals" who laughed when my sore ripped open in front of them (three inches) when they were stretching it during surgery prep and they did not even give me a local for pain? And these other people now deserve more and better now that I earned my degrees the hard way at night while working full time, and now fighting the good fight in the corporate world? Which by the way, my insurance grows less and less, while costing more and more, every stinking year. Bite me redux. You don't live in my world, you live in some democratic dream world that will always be imperfect.
peace
I assume you would never take public assistance....health care, welfare, food stamps.....if you became unemployed for a long period of time due to no fault of your own.
See my last statement. I had to beg for food stamps when serving our country. I was working my ass off for those food stamps. I can't say that for most of the people in my community who get them.
I'll show you sweeping generalizations. It'll take eight hours...one work day...to tour my town and you'll see with your own eyes (and not someone's report, chart, graph, or political twist) where generalization comes from reality. I'll even take you out to lunch. Game?
Define many verifiable sources, along with process, quality control, original source of data, and political leaning of such verifiable sources, and who substantiates those sources as reliable?
Generalizations come from observations, wisdom, intelligence...all of which someone must have in order to be able to make (or comprehend).
I pointed out two of the most commonly verifiable sources -- SCHIP and Medicaid applications and data.
Generalizations are far more biased and far less accurate and the fact remains that your generalizations are not supported by any data.
I'm sorry the system screwed you...but the solution is making the system better, not doing away with it.
I'll show you sweeping generalizations. It'll take eight hours...one work day...to tour my town and you'll see with your own eyes (and not someone's report, chart, graph, or political twist) where generalization comes from reality. I'll even take you out to lunch. Game?
Thanks for the offer, but the "bite me, redux" is not very inviting.
I have toured numerous cities in dozens of states over the years, speaking with local officials, NGOs and the recipients of federal assistance.
Yes, there are people who scam the system, but the overwhelming majority on federal assistance programs do not fit your characterizations as "damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses."
No, the point is, the system did screw me, and now that I am on the other side taking care of business, it wants to screw me from the other end. To hell with that. Let freeloaders hang out to dry. People that are in need, I'm all for helping them. Especially those people who are trying to improve their situation.
On another item, my daughter is disabled and she cannot even get a scholarship to college because I make too much. What?!? Are you friggin kidding me? I am not paying for her school. She is. She has no income and is dependent on us for room and board while at school. She can't even get a scholarship designed for people with her disability because of my income. How ridiculous. To make it worse, the scholarship was designed for people with a specific disability and for students with a parent with the same disability. That's me! My daughter has what I have, and because I overcome my disability by shear damn force of will and character, and I make more than some imaginary limit, then she doesn't qualify? Don't we still have the disability? Yes. But do I go get a parking handicap sticker and expect handouts everywhere I turn? No. But do I look out my car window and see lazy ass people parking in handicap spots because they feel they are better than other people, therefore deserve the spot? Yea. And free healthcare, etc.? Yea. Generalizations? No. Observations? Yes. Again...one day of what I see you'd change your tune.
xob - then my statements wouldn't apply to those millions. My sister & her husband are disabled, cannot get work, and...well, you get the gist. They have to get whatever they can off of the government. But, there are many people out there that CAN (or could have at one time) get off of their butts and don't. Those are the leaches I'd just as soon kick to the curb. I wouldn't want the job to discern who was who, so what system is best? Not one I've heard proposed.
I know exactly what you're talking about, the welfare queens and their drones/pimps. Yeah that's a monster we've created with welfare policies of the last 60 years, but they already get medical attention, so we're not talking about them.
We're talking about the working poor (some of whom are trying to climb off welfare on their own, but may fall back to get medical coverage), up through many middle class families that don't get medical coverage from their employers, and just can't afford the equivalent of a mortgage/rent payment to cover a family with a couple kids.
And as [strike]Merc gets more raises[/strike] medical costs skyrocket, like they have in the last year while the cost of living remained flat, more families are going to be in the same bind.
edit: And don't forget this ain't a freebie, people will have to pay for this, but an affordable amount.
LOL...okay okay, I'll give you that redux. I am not offering me for lunch (bite me comment). But the point is the same, my observations are valid for me. I don't trust charts and statistics from government agencies that are self-serving. Independent reports would be better. Until there is something I rely on, or trust, I go by my personal experience with Uncle Sam, and the abuse of same in my community. PS. I have been to 148 cities and 15 countries in my lifetime. There are many small bergs and towns I didn't count. I have seen many cultures and governments. I like ours best. I don't like us trying something that has failed elsewhere. We need to try something new. Obama promised change. Not failure. I see providing for the dregs of society as a waste and a failure.
Okay, bed time. Sorry. I'll wake up again in about a year ready for another political discussion. Until then, cheers.
xoB - you and I sir are on the same page...
I don't trust charts and statistics from government agencies that are self-serving. Independent reports would be better.
I know that extremists on the right dont accept any government stats and prefer to rely on personal anecdotes to make sweeping biased generalizations.
Its a great cop-out when you cannot defend your own position.
Its also a wonderful extremist position to believe everything your party tells you. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, I belong to neither party and choose to not rely on either one as a source of information. Independent corroboration is best, in my ever so humble opinion.
To continually attack someone who disagrees with your position or whatever your party says is another classic extremist cop out. You, my friend have tuned it into a fine art. You should be proud.
Its also a wonderful extremist position to believe everything your party tells you. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, I belong to neither party and choose to not rely on either one as a source of information. Independent corroboration is best, in my ever so humble opinion.
To continually attack someone who disagrees with your position or whatever your party says is another classic extremist cop out. You, my friend have tuned it into a fine art. You should be proud.
Yep....I'm proud of my understand of federal policy. It comes with 20+ years of experience (all but two of which have been with non-partisan public policy organizations), a lot of reading and talking with experts..as well as "critical thinking" as opposed to just "thinking to criticize" in which you engage.
And I have said repeatedly that neither the stimulus program nor the health reform proposal represented my view of the "best" or "perfect" approach and I pointed out the short-comings I saw in both, but that, IMO, both were still better than nothing and understood that both represented an approach that could receive enough support to be enacted and have a good chance at success.
I was honestly shocked, for example, that Merc (and prerhaps you as well) did not seem to have a clue that the largest single component of the Recovery Act was tax relief and not spending....or that he would repeatedly post columns screaming "death panels" (before finally backing away from that ignorance when called out on it)...or post industry funding studies as "objective"...and of course, your many negative/critical links in which you dont even have the balls to express an opinion at all...but just sit on the fence.
I have tried to answer questions here to the best of my understanding whenever asked, pointing to specific language in the legislation, rather than dodge and weave like you and Merc. And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan columns/opinions...then runs away from them when challenged.
Finally, I was a little disappointed that you would privately seek out and accept my understanding of policy and then mock it publicly, but I have gotten over that. :)
edit:
BTW, your non-partisan, objective
stimuluswatch.org includes the jobs created on that Jennie-O grant award:
Jobs Summary: represented as full time equivalent weeks of work (Total jobs reported: 286).
Does that mean stimuluswatch.org is now biased?
Yep....I'm proud of my understand of federal policy. It comes with 20+ years of experience (all but two of which have been with non-partisan public policy organizations), a lot of reading and talking with experts..as well as "critical thinking" as opposed to just "thinking to criticize" in which you engage.
Without the 20 plus years of experience, most of us can only think critically and utilize unbiased sources to engage in critical thinking. Yet you continue to sling mud and offer backhanded cheapshots and demeaning posts toward anyone who differs from your opinion.
I was honestly shocked, for example, that Merc (and prerhaps you as well)
lumping people together again - BS
your many negative/critical links in which you dont even have the balls to express an opinion at all...but just sit on the fence.
More demeaning cheap shots.
I'd prefer to discuss and get a better understanding of an intensely complex issue before drawing an opinion. I believe I was doing that before the degradation of this, and other threads. You prefer to continue the insults and make your conclusions based upon that which you interpret things to be when they are not certain. Good for you. FYI - I think most intelligent non-partisan people are, as you put it "on the fence" on the healthcare issue. We want effective reform, but how that translates is another matter. You and the leftist extremists see what you want to see, just like those on the right.
I have tried to answer questions here to the best of my understanding whenever asked, pointing to specific language in the legislation, rather than dodge and weave like you and Merc.
Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling posting all the negative cheapshots?
I don't have the answers - I honestly don't think anyone does - That in and of itself is troubling to me.
And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan columns/opinions...then runs away from them when challenged.
I am not here to defend their opinions. Just to bring an alternative perspective to the discussion. Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Many times it is an angle or point that I hadn't thought of. I used to enjoy getting other peoples input and discussing things here. Since you have reactivated yourself that has ceased.
Finally, I was a little disappointed that you would privately seek out and accept my understanding of policy and then mock it publicly, but I have gotten over that. :)
I asked you for some Gov't links for my sons friend knowing that you work in the Gov't . I never asked for your understanding of policy. please don't get over it, take it and shove it somewhere.
I was quite thankful and appreciative to you as well. Something which you have conveniently forgotten to mention. Since you have gotten it out can we be done with it? At this point you might as well post them in their entirety. I would like anyone else considering PM-ing you to know that you cannot be trusted with the contents of a PM. They will either be used to discredit or demean them or will not be kept private. A valuable lesson learned. Thanks for reminding me.
BTW, your non-partisan, objective stimuluswatch.org includes the jobs created on that Jennie-O grant award:
Jobs Summary: represented as full time equivalent weeks of work (Total jobs reported: 286).
Does that mean stimuluswatch.org is now biased?
How could you possibly draw that conclusion? My issue with that was primarily using stimulus money that was presented as creating and developing infrastructure was instead used for deli meat. We have already discussed the jobs saved/created issue. Were those 286 created, saved, full-time, part-time. The way the reporting is done now there is no answer. Either way, I still disagree with the way the money was spent. THAT was and remains my point.
I understand.
You dont like when tw or I or anyone call you out on on the fact that all you do is criticize using the standard extremist talking points (BTW, that is not critical thinking) or you post critical partisan opinions of others w/o comment...and NEVER offering anything constructive.
You dont like the sitmulus program (even though the evidence is overwhelming that it is working) and again demonstrated your ignorance about it....It was never ALL about infrastructure jobs. And, you never offer a better solution.
You're all over the place on the health reform legislation. I have no clue where you really stand. You bend like a cheap cigar, depending which way the wind is blowing in the Cellar that day.
You bitch about the banks and then bitch when a bill is enacted in the House to address the issue through new regulations.
Avoid, deflect and demean. Typical.
Are you enjoying the misrepresentations of my opinions, putting words in my mouth, telling me what I do or don't stand for, what I like or dislike ...
I am not here to defend their opinions. Just to bring an alternative perspective to the discussion. Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Many times it is an angle or point that I hadn't thought of. I used to enjoy getting other peoples input and discussing things here. Since you have reactivated yourself that has ceased.
Oh yeah, before Redux came along these threads were all about intelligent and reasonable discourse. :eyebrow:
He singlehandedly changed the tone of the place from rainbows and butterflies to the current hell of spite and hate and regurgitation of pop politics.
:p:
Yeah, I've noticed myself how Redux brings the entire tone of the place down. If only we had more posters like UG or members who shall remain nameless who threaten other members with bodily harm. Reading that junk certainly makes my day. NOT. :headshake
Well this "member who shall not remain nameless" will not put up with anyone calling my wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore". Perhaps thats ok with you. It isn't ok with me, nor will it ever be.
And you'll note that it was an emotional outburst which I deleted and apologized for.
You're not married...
So confusing.
However, if you had a wife and she were called a gonorrhea-dripping whore then perhaps you'd have a case about that. It's like the Cunt Calling Fiasco of 2010: ain't no fun for the whore or the cunt, let me tell you.
I won't feign innocence of any shit-slinging, but I'm hardly going to point at Redux and say he broke the internet!
He has provided some insider's facts. These facts don't make you happy because you can no longer wax poetic and have anyone still think there are viable opinions (when you point to pasted articles you refer to as fact, it is not your long-suffering opinion) being presented.
*shrug*
Well this "member who shall not remain nameless" will not put up with anyone calling my wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore". Perhaps thats ok with you. It isn't ok with me, nor will it ever be.
And you'll note that it was an emotional outburst which I deleted and apologized for.
I don't get why you brought this up, classic. SamIAm was defending Redux, not TW. AFAIK, redux has never made a personal attack.
I don't know about other folks, but I tend to flip the bozo bit on people who use personal attacks. If your intention is to convince others to your point of view, keep it rational and informational.
BTW if anyone is wondering where the whole gonorrhea thing came from, you can start
here.
Shawnee, you are confused, I agree. Then again that is nothing new. Weren't we supposed to not reply to each other? Isn't that what you said on Friday?
But again, you miss the point as usual. Whether I am married or not does not alter the meaning of my post.
regarding his "insider facts" W had a lot of those and there are untold pages of posts here about how much they were worth. You trust your guy - Got it.
I don't trust him - got it?
He singlehandedly changed the tone of the place
redux doesn't deserve that much credit. My post was poorly worded.
Now lets go back to not replying to each other as you suggested Friday.
I don't get why you brought this up, classic. SamIAm was defending Redux, not TW. AFAIK, redux has never made a personal attack.
I've been called a few things by him. I was trying to point out the double standard. Merc calls someone a bad name and is an asshole. redux does it and gets a pass or the lil tag-alongs come and pile on. I failed. I realize that. I'm done with it.
I don't know about other folks, but I tend to flip the bozo bit on people who use personal attacks. If your intention is to convince others to your point of view, keep it rational and informational.
So noted and will try harder to do so in the future.
I've been called a few things by him. I was trying to point out the double standard. Merc calls someone a bad name and is an asshole. redux does it and gets a pass or the lil tag-alongs come and pile on. I failed. I realize that. I'm done with it.
So noted and will try harder to do so in the future.
Both Merc and TW have made personal attacks. As far as I am concerned neither should get a pass on this kind of behavior (as I indicated in the original thread). And Bruce called TW on that language, so he did not get a pass even then.
I have not seen a personal attack by redux. Can anyone document this?
I don't recall Redux sinking to the extreme nastiness that some other members resort to. And I was NOT defending tw's unpleasant comment, either - thank you. :eyebrow:
I misunderstood Samyouare - Sorry. I am admittedly a little "on edge" lately.
I'm no angel and I'll get in the gutter with anyone if necessary.
Here is my beef.....ignoring facts and hypocrisy.
I'll give you a few examples.
When you suggest and continue to insist that the stimulus program was "presented as creating and developing infrastructure..."....that is factually incorrect...whether you like it or not.
The facts are that the the program was presented as a mutli-faceted approach to stabilizing and jump starting the economy, helping people in need and putting the economy on a more sustainable long-term path.
You can cherry pick Obama comments about "shovel ready jobs" but that ignores other comments...like "investments in education"....."investing in the future with a commitment to clean energy technology"...."the program will help those currently unemployed, with jobs (including working at turkey processing plants) and/or extended benefits"...."no one expects it to be easy or quick"......
Then duck and weave when called out on a false statement.
I can provide more examples...but lets look at the hypocrisy.
One day you point to "real unemployment numbers" in response to counter a post that unemployment decreased last month (you cant accept that unemployment decreased...even if only marginally?)......those "real unemployment numbers you pointed to are
government numbers...the same government you dont trust when it comes to stimulus job numbers! And posting those numbers with no context (similar "real" numbers in earlier years) is less than honest.
Hypocrisy?
And how about your refusal to accept that Clinton implemented the most comprehensive anti-terrorist program of any recent president...all of it documented...and rather than acknowledge that...you could only focus on one point..the "CIA failed" to get bin Laden when Clinton was president.
How do you expect others to respond to that stubborn and obstinate ideological position? Can you understand why some find it so fucking hard to have a conversation with you when you dig your heels in as you often do?
And this recent one on
global warming made me laugh....from one who feels soooo strongly about credible, independent sources.
A credible independent source? Look at this guys post history in his blog.
[INDENT]# 2010.02.17: A Crash Course in Global Warming, Part One
# 2010.02.17: Family Guy Attacks Sarah Palin's Child With Down Syndrome
# 2010.02.10: Study Finds that Majority of Democrats Have Positive View of Socialism
# 2010.01.27: Obama: It's All Bush's Fault
# 2010.01.15: Obama Was an Incompetent State Senator-- His Transcripts on the Floor[/INDENT]
Objective? Seriously, what was the point of that post other than it offered a "denial of global warming" by some guy whose expertise is probably no better than yours or mine.
I rarely post opinion columns...certainly far less than you.
And I dont criticize anyone for having an opinion different than mine...I do criticize when those opinions are presented as facts.
I try to post facts and try to cite sources (more often than most others)...and continually and repeatedly have those cites dismissed or ignored because they are counter to your opinion.
I'm just fucking tired of having to defend "facts" that you dont like.
And when all you do is criticize, but not in a constructive way...that is not "critical thinking" and exposes you as an ideologue.
I'll save Merc for another time....but he is never wrong and unless anything the Democrats propose or enact are 100% successful...they "fail" even before they are implemented....standards that I think is fair to say, none of us can meet.
I'm really not interested in attacking anyone....you and Merc, with your constant denial of the facts, floods of undocumented partisan opinions, belittling my posts and ducking weaving when challenged and yes, hypocrisy....drove me to it. I think I lasted longer than most, who just give up out of frustration. I turned my cheek long enough. It was time to fight back. :mad:
edit:
BTW, I think TW's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions....and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.
We all have a breaking point when we get "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!"
Both Merc and TW have made personal attacks. ... And Bruce called TW on that language, so he did not get a pass even then.
Let's not forget that I preceded those intentional personal attacks by saying I was going to do it because of constant personal attacks. It was started because another was constantly posting personal attacks AND the powers that be choose to ignore it. I do not apologize for escalating so that the cheap shots would be stopped. And am quite pleased how so many here have finally stood up to address the problem.
Before I started replying to constant insults with equivalent replies, I said exactly what I was going to do and said why. I am now seeing results that I intended. Sharp rebuke has changed the tone in a Cellar that had become a haven for cheap shots. It is a shame things had to become so nasty. I am only sorry that it had to get that nasty to fix things. I said exactly what I was going to do and why before I started.
Sorry tommy, but that is a little revisionist. You said that after the fact, not before.
SSDP = Same shit different post.
Avoid, deflect and demean. Typical.
Are you enjoying the misrepresentations of my opinions, putting words in my mouth, telling me what I do or don't stand for, what I like or dislike, what sources are or are not allowed, lumping posters together?
What can I say other than the same thing I’ve been saying? YOU choose who you want to believe and I'll choose who I wish to believe - In the end, that’s all that is going to happen. Feel free to believe what you wish with your Gov't sources. I'll take the independent source EVERY SINGLE time over them. I give them more credibility.
I bring up opinion pieces to discussion, whether I agree or disagree with what is said. You don't like it. You’ve made that clear. That is your opinion.
I learned a long time ago NOT to trust what the Gov't says – Our Gov’t is full of lawyers and politicians - two of the most UNtrustworthy types of people on the planet. They are more self-serving than looking out for their constituents. You disagree - I know that.
The post on Global warming as a perfect example of something I quoted for discussion. You ridiculed and disregarded it, that’s fine for you. You take the guys last 5 blog entries and dismiss him as unobjective. It was never supposed to be objective. That wasn’t the intention. It was to discuss – that’s all. Don’t like it? Don’t discuss it.
The author even prefaced it with:
“All right, I'm going to try to explain both sides of the Global Warming debate. I'll try to be as middle-of-the-road as possible, so spare me any over-arching partisan stuff. Well, enjoy:”
It was entered to open discussion, nothing more. Yet you, who claim that making blanket statements is narrow-minded and idiotic, have repeatedly done just that. This is just one example. I believe the term you’ve used to describe this behavior is hypocrisy. In this case, I agree.
I try to post facts and try to cite sources (more often than most others)...and continually and repeatedly have those cites dismissed or ignored because they are counter to your opinion.
This is disingenuous and blatantly false. I have repeatedly disagreed with you about Gov’t links and my personal preference for sources independent of the Gov’t. You disagree – fine. We both know where we stand on this issue. We disagree. So be it. Move on.
One day you point to "real unemployment numbers" in response to counter a post that unemployment decreased last month ~snip~ those "real unemployment numbers you pointed to are government numbers...the same government you don’t trust when it comes to stimulus job numbers! And posting those numbers with no context (similar "real" numbers in earlier years) is less than honest.
You missed the point again. In the first case they were used as a relative comparison. Both sets of data were used because they came from the same source. Independent sources have nothing to do with this example.
Can you understand why some find it so fucking hard to have a conversation with you?
I believe there is an ignore function at your disposal. I suggest you use it.
I'm really not interested in attacking anyone.
Bullshit. You’ve been doing that for pages upon pages. It’s ok though whatever floats your boat.
BTW, I think tw's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions...and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.
I’m curious if you would feel the same if his opinion differed from yours? Actually, I’m not. Oh, and by the way – his posts are probably on ignore more than mine.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree and try to be as civil a possible. That's what I'll try to do anyway.
Oh dont worry.
I'll still call you out on your bullshit and your twisting the facts and your feeble rationalizations when you really dont really know the facts and refuse to admit it.
No personal attacks. Just the facts.
Like the fact that you still cant admit that your understanding of the intent of the stimulus program was NOT based on the facts and the much broader intent of the program than you keep insisting in order to serve as a lame excuse for criticism.
Or the fact that you scream revisionist history when TW posts facts you cant refute about which president had a comprehensive anti-terrorism program.
And when you post a partisan link.....show some balls, dude and take a position on it....either stand behind it or disavow it...something more than "interesting" or offering no comment at all, What does it say about you when you wont even comment on your own links without waiting to see what others might say first?
Ignore you? Not a chance. I prefer exposing ignorance and extremism. :D
Feel free to believe what you wish with your Gov't sources. I'll take the independent source EVERY SINGLE time over them. I give them more credibility.
I learned a long time ago NOT to trust what the Gov't says – Our Gov’t is full of lawyers and politicians - two of the most UNtrustworthy types of people on the planet. They are more self-serving than looking out for their constituents. You disagree - I know that.
Government sources like the
Statistical Abstract of the US, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (DoL),
Bureau of Economic Analysis (DoC),
Economic Research Service (DoAg), etc. are considered reliable sources by economists, social scientists, researchers, subject area policy experts, academia, etc. across the political spectrum who use the data as the the basis for independent research.
And none of these agencies are staffed "full of lawyers and politicians", but honest, hard-working federal employees - economists, social scientists, subject area policy experts, accountants, etc.
Every agency also has an independent Inspector General as well as having oversight by other non-partisan organizations like the GAO.
Hell, even wingnuts like Limbaugh/Beck acknowledge these sources as credible (and then or course, twist the data for their own agenda)
When there is conflicting public/private data, it is certainly worth further exploration and further independent thinking (that phrase again that you obviously dont understand).
When you can cite that independent data on a case-by-case basis, you can make a strong case for your position.
When you cant, you come off as a classic extremist ideologue making blanket ignorant states like "full of lawyers and politicians" and dismiss all these sources as "biased" because you cant defend your own position.
It is a cheap and dishonest way to engage in discourse. If you gave that kind of advice (dont cite any govt data - it is biased) to your son's friend for a paper, you can bet she would have failed.
edit: from stimuluswatch.org faq
[INDENT]Where do you get your data?
The Recovery Act mandated that all spending information be made public and transparent. As a result, the administration is publishing quarterly reports from funding recipients at .
Recovery.gov website This official site is the source for all our data.
A note about data quality: One thing to keep in mind about the official data is that it is comprised of "recipient reports." That is,
the data is not gathered and tabulated by the federal government. Instead, it is the recipients of stimulus funds who report back on a quarterly basis about how much money they received and what they did with it. So, for example, if you find a contract on this site for a construction company that says it resulted in 10 jobs saved, it is that construction company who has made the estimate.[/INDENT]
Why do you keep insisting it is government data when your own independent source says it is not?
Why do you keep insisting the stimulus program was supposed to be about "infrastructure jobs" when only $35 billion out of $787 billion was for "shovel ready" short term infrastructure projects?
Let's not forget that I preceded those intentional personal attacks by saying I was going to do it because of constant personal attacks. It was started because another was constantly posting personal attacks AND the powers that be choose to ignore it. I do not apologize for escalating so that the cheap shots would be stopped. And am quite pleased how so many here have finally stood up to address the problem.
Before I started replying to constant insults with equivalent replies, I said exactly what I was going to do and said why. I am now seeing results that I intended. Sharp rebuke has changed the tone in a Cellar that had become a haven for cheap shots. It is a shame things had to become so nasty. I am only sorry that it had to get that nasty to fix things. I said exactly what I was going to do and why before I started.
Yeah, yeah. He
made me do it. You had the opportunity to take the high road.
Someone please pass the fucking popcorn already... :corn:
I guess I should start here...
Thank you for further clarifying the difference between us.
You're welcome.
I have stated my understanding of the bills and my belief that they will address the issues of coverage/access as well as cost...and frequently cited specific language in the legislation. I have never claimed with certainty that it will 100% successful as envisioned, with no need for further corrections, but IMO, it was the correct approach.
And you have claimed repeatedly and with absolute certainty that it will fail...and with absolutely no evidence to back it up, other than your opinion and the numerous partisan opinions of others with which you flooded the discussion.
Once again a mis-statement of what I said, I said it would fail to fix the ultimate problems in healthcare. You have been unable to defend the fact that the Insurance companies were on the inside at the beginning and that an insurance insider helped craft the Bill in the Senate.
Just as you proclaimed the Recovery Act a failure as soon as it was enacted and continue to insist it failed...despite the fact that the evidence has proven you wrong. Has it been 100% successful as envisioned? Nope, no one claimed it has been perfect. Programs of that size and complexity (much like the health reform bills) rarely are perfect when implemented. But certainly it has been moderately successful in creating jobs and helping prevent the economy from a longer or deeper downturn.
Do I really have to go back to Feb where Pelosi and Obama were quoted repeatedly saying to the American people that this bill would create "millions of jobs"? It was bs to sell the boondoggle to the electorate and get them to buy in.
Because I understand federal policy, I rarely address complex policy issues in absolutes and understand the subtleties that arise with implementation. You, on the other hand, with no policy experience, are always certain of an outcome, a negative outcome if it is a Democratic policy proposal, that is based solely on your ideology.
Same old tactics.., your insistence that your opinions are better and more informed than anyone else. Wrong!
No, what I have said is that documented subject matter experts carry more weight than a person who posts on a public forum as Redux who is a self admitted partisan hack.
I have said repeatedly that we should be able to agree to disagree...but you will not or cannot accept that and continue to insist that your projected outcome of failure, based on nothing other than your opinion (and the opinions of like-minded columnists), is the only possible outcome.
Many of the things I have posted are less partisan than you make them out to be, and where appropriate, I have stated they were partisan.
And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan opinion columns and childish pictures.[/qutoe]Anything that you disagree with is partisan, I only consider the more partisan opinions that you post when you parot the Demoncratic party line or White House.
[quote]You should know by now that your bullying tactics wont work on me.
You are a failed bully and you have been outed....perhaps that explains why you are so bitter and angry.
Don't flatter yourself.
And as [strike]Merc gets more raises[/strike] medical costs skyrocket, like they have in the last year while the cost of living remained flat, more families are going to be in the same bind.
I have gotten one primary raise in 8 years. And all that meant was I got a bigger bit of a fixed piece of a pie.
I was honestly shocked, for example, that Merc (and prerhaps you as well) did not seem to have a clue that the largest single component of the Recovery Act was tax relief and not spending....or that he would repeatedly post columns screaming "death panels" (before finally backing away from that ignorance when called out on it)...
That is a completely false statement. I posted
one bit about "Death Panels" and retracted my position when presented with more accurate data. And yet you continue to deny that rationing of healthcare will occur.
I have tried to answer questions here to the best of my understanding whenever asked, pointing to specific language in the legislation, rather than dodge and weave like you and Merc. And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan columns/opinions...then runs away from them when challenged.
Mischaraterized again. I have quoted specific language from the Bill, and when in error I corrected myself. What you consider "flooding" a discussion I consider the posting of information from known subject matter experts in health policy, not the ramblings of a partisan hack for the Demoncrats.:blush:
I'll save Merc for another time....but he is never wrong and unless anything the Democrats propose or enact are 100% successful...they "fail" even before they are implemented....standards that I think is fair to say, none of us can meet.
False. There are a number of programs that I feel were pretty good.
you and Merc, with your constant denial of the facts, floods of undocumented partisan opinions, belittling my posts and ducking weaving when challenged and yes, hypocrisy....drove me to it. I think I lasted longer than most, who just give up out of frustration. I turned my cheek long enough. It was time to fight back. :mad:
False. 99% of my posts were not "undocumented partisan opinions", they are factual opinions posted by subject matter experts in healthcare. It just so happens that they shot holes in your positions and countered the current party line.
BTW, I think TW's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions....and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.
Mischaraterized again. I have not read anything from tw in over a year.
We all have a breaking point when we get "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!"
:mecry:
Do I really have to go back to Feb where Pelosi and Obama were quoted repeatedly saying to the American people that this bill would create "millions of jobs"? It was bs to sell the boondoggle to the electorate and get them to buy in.
I disagree with this argument. Politicians hype everything and it is extremely rare that any big event (stimulus bill, Iraq War, etc) go as it has been publicly stated. Just because the stimulus bill did not create 2 million "shovel-ready jobs" does not mean that it can be blanketed as a failure. Your definition of failure is clearly different than Redux's and many other people. I don't know what effect the stimulus bill actually had and I don't fully believe Obama's numbers as well but the only real consensus is that no concrete evidence exists for either side.
Also, to play devil's advocate, it most likely is necessary for politicians to overly hype all their bills and wars to get any support for it in the first place. A catch 22 of over hyping whatever you want or not getting it at all.
I have gotten one primary raise in 8 years. And all that meant was I got a bigger bit of a fixed piece of a pie.
I was just fucking with ya, that's why it was crossed out.
Pardon my ignorance, but I've no idea how you get paid, so I don't know what is a "primary" raise is, per hour? per case? base rate?
If the pie is "fixed", why are the costs of medical care shooting up so fast? Do you mean the section of the pie, that you get a piece of, is fixed?
I was just fucking with ya, that's why it was crossed out.
:p:
Pardon my ignorance, but I've no idea how you get paid, so I don't know what is a "primary" raise is, per hour? per case? base rate?
One of my jobs is a sort of floating salary, the rest are hourly fee, different for different jobs and different work environments. I have one primary and 4 - 5 contractual relationships.
If the pie is "fixed", why are the costs of medical care shooting up so fast?
Well there are lots of answers to that, few of them have to do with providers getting paid more at the bottom end of patient to provider contact.
Do you mean the section of the pie, that you get a piece of, is fixed?
In my case it is because it is a government contract, every three years when the contract is bid on they have to make adjustments to lure various specialties to each area of need. They have to give and take to attract the business, win the contract, and hire the needs, and make a profit. Each of those elements is subject to adjustments up or down within the framework of a set amount awarded by the government.
I disagree with this argument. Politicians hype everything and it is extremely rare that any big event (stimulus bill, Iraq War, etc) go as it has been publicly stated. Just because the stimulus bill did not create 2 million "shovel-ready jobs" does not mean that it can be blanketed as a failure. Your definition of failure is clearly different than Redux's and many other people. I don't know what effect the stimulus bill actually had and I don't fully believe Obama's numbers as well but the only real consensus is that no concrete evidence exists for either side.
Also, to play devil's advocate, it most likely is necessary for politicians to overly hype all their bills and wars to get any support for it in the first place. A catch 22 of over hyping whatever you want or not getting it at all.
Although there are lots of people saying that it is working to some degree most agree that it did not do what it set out to do. I call it a boondoggle because I am looking at the cost benefit ratio. It was filled with pork barrel spending where millions were spent on pet projects that produced little to no jobs but brought home the bacon for various powerful Congress persons.
here is a good example, although built before the stimulus it too got a huge influx of funds from the stimulus package to the tune of $800k, why?:
http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=4144
Other examples of wasteful spending:
http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/After-a-flurry-of-stimulus-spending_-questionable-projects-pile-up-8474249-68709732.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/09/stimulus-foes-see-value-in-seeking-cash/
http://www.cagw.org/
http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2009/pig-book-full-_april-13-2009_.pdf
I am pretty sure he is eating these words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBwHere is a NONpartisan report issued today:
WASHINGTON – The economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year, a new report released Tuesday by congressional economists said.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009. The controversial stimulus law combined tax breaks for individuals and businesses with lots of government spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_go_co/us_stimulus_jobs;_ylt=AsJ7tGhE4memAV_vFCtfMlNbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTM1YjdncW9yBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjIzL3VzX3N0aW11bHVzX2pvYnMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDY2Jvc3RpbXVsdXNiFirst it is biased because it came from a congressional economist and the CBO was instructed to refigure how the jobs were tallied. If it comes from the government you have to consider that they are trying to cover their asses for the amount of money that they spent, taxpayer dollars, have to be justified to the public. I see it as nothing more than propaganda. And don't forget they are about to try to spend another boat load of taxpayer dollars with no promise that things will work out in the end they way they have sold it.
Well, maybe I'm Rebbeca of Sunnybrook Farm, but I have to accept data from the best non-partisan source out there, and the CBO fills the role better than some left or right wing blog. They do not appear to be overly optimistic to me. They say unemployment will continue at 10% for the first half of 2010 and then fall maybe a half percent by the end of the year. Where's the propaganda in that. They also say Obama's budget would result in a deficit of 1.3 trillion. Where's the mindless optimism there?
Because the CBO only produces information based on data that it is fed, by the Obama administration.
Because the CBO only produces information based on data that it is fed, by the Obama administration.
The Congressional Budget Office was created in 1974 BECAUSE Congress needed a source of honest data divorced from the Executive Branch. Due to the Nixon adminstration, both parties in Congress decided Congressed needed data that the Executive branch could not distort. The CBO's job is to provide data that can confirm or contradict what the Executive Branch claims.
I am still trying to understand how job data provided by the thousands of recipients of stimulus funds, as required by the recovery act - construction companies, police departments, turkey processing plants, etc - which serve as the basis for the CBO analysis, is Obama administration (government) data and/or government propaganda.
Hey Redux, you should take a look at
this thread. I wager you've never seen it, because you never, ever leave the Politics forum. There's a whole Cellar community outside of politics, and just like in real life, if you actually get to know folks on a variety of levels, you'll find yourself being given more credibility (or at least tolerant leeway) on the topics that you care passionately about.
I don't see how Redux's mild comment warrents being linked to complaints about the nasty doings in the politics forum. The fact that Merc and C-man post elsewhere in the Cellar doesn't make many of their posts here any more pleasant. :eyebrow:
Hey Redux, you should take a look at this thread. I wager you've never seen it, because you never, ever leave the Politics forum. There's a whole Cellar community outside of politics, and just like in real life, if you actually get to know folks on a variety of levels, you'll find yourself being given more credibility (or at least tolerant leeway) on the topics that you care passionately about.
Clod...people participate in forums for a variety of reasons. Mine is to discuss the important issues of the day; others have their owns reasons and I wont suggest where they direct their attention.
I have no problem acknowledging that I am part of the problem in the political discussions and if i continue to post here, I will try to do better and refrain from personal attacks.
I thought my post above yours was a simple straight-forward question in the form of a comment.
I'm sorry SamIam, Are you referring to my calling out other posters on their BS, hypocrisy or my having to defend myself from the onslaught over the last few months? Please stop. I'm really trying NOT to post here.
I don't see how Redux's mild comment warrents being linked to complaints about the nasty doings in the politics forum. The fact that Merc and C-man post elsewhere in the Cellar doesn't make many of their posts here any more pleasant.
Yeah, wtf?
Those who are interested in what redux knows about politics don't really give a flying rat's ass what food he's embarrassed to like or what's mildly irritating him today.
Does this backlash against the politics forums (which, apparently, don't fall under the "if you don't like it don't read it umbrella) now include a requirement to post in other threads too?
I don't really care. I'm pretty much out, and it's clear that it's better all around, but why do we need to give one of the few people who actually has something to say (something not borne of emotion, like what I do) but has basis in experience and knowlege, in politics a rash of shit for not playing elsewhere?
@Shawnee and SamIam - Geez, I was wondering the same thing. It feels kinda like a pack mentality, doesn't it? What a shame.
FTR - I like Redux and the way he posts and I think he has done very well in dealing with the opposition here. He generally remains civil and sane.
I'm sorry SamIam, Are you referring to my calling out other posters on their BS, hypocrisy or my having to defend myself from the onslaught over the last few months? Please stop. I'm really trying NOT to post here.
Please stop what? Whatever the motive behind them, nasty posts are not pleasant to read. There's nothing wrong with me stating that. If you are trying not to post here, then I suggest you don't read here either because that will only make you want to reply.
You're right. Perhaps I should just fuck off. Seems like thats the general consensus anyway.
Fuck on!
and on and on!
Let's outlaw health insurance. I mean it. Set up a catastrophic illness/injury fund that is paid for by a flat rate tax that everyone pays. And then make group health insurance illegal. Apart from that, get the government out of the medicine business.
You wanna go to the doctor? find one you can afford. Too poor to pay? stay sick....or die.
either that, or make it health care for all ...but make all health care prices government regulated, and affordable. then pay differentials to skilled positions like doctors. individual doctors.
I can't decide
I don't see how Redux's mild comment warrents being linked to complaints about the nasty doings in the politics forum. The fact that Merc and C-man post elsewhere in the Cellar doesn't make many of their posts here any more pleasant.
Yeah, wtf?
Those who are interested in what redux knows about politics don't really give a flying rat's ass what food he's embarrassed to like or what's mildly irritating him today.
Does this backlash against the politics forums (which, apparently, don't fall under the "if you don't like it don't read it umbrella) now include a requirement to post in other threads too?
@Shawnee and SamIam - Geez, I was wondering the same thing. It feels kinda like a pack mentality, doesn't it? What a shame.
FTR - I like Redux and the way he posts and I think he has done very well in dealing with the opposition here. He generally remains civil and sane.
Ah, hell. Look, it had nothing to do with Redux's specific comment, it was just the first time I'd noticed him post since the anti-politics thread went down. Redux himself has complained repeatedly about the fact that no one else calls Merc and others on their aggressive posting. Part of the reason that happens is because we know these other people, because they are part of the community. There is even a poll devoted to what kind of asshole TheMercenary is, and yet he's a member of the community. I, for the record,
do care about what foods Redux is embarrassed to like, or what's mildly irritating him today, or what hobbies he has, or any of a myriad of things that don't involve politics. I'm not sure why anyone who reads those threads
wouldn't be at least initially interested in his or anyone else's response on the subject.
I wasn't trying to give him shit, I was trying to invite him to a happier place, with the promise that if others knew him better, they might occasionally participate in his politics discussions, so he wouldn't be faced with such frustrating, single-sided, monotone opposition, which he sure seems to hate. But if he really doesn't want to explore it, that's fine.
Clod...people participate in forums for a variety of reasons. Mine is to discuss the important issues of the day; others have their owns reasons and I wont suggest where they direct their attention.
I have no problem acknowledging that I am part of the problem in the political discussions and if i continue to post here, I will try to do better and refrain from personal attacks.
Sometimes discussing the important issues of the day requires other people. But that's cool, if you're happy with the way things are, go for it.
Clod...I understand what you saying, I just dont agree with it. In fact, I think the reverse exists.
IMO, "family" members here seem to get a pass for ignorant/offensive statements or posts that are just factually incorrect.
Would knowing me better result in more people participating in the political discussions and condemning The Mercenary for characterizing a member of Congress as a Nazi or posting pics of Obama as Hitler? Why dont you find that igrnorant or offensive...or just childish...and speak out?
Or pointing out to Classicman that he is wrong when he declares that the stimulus program was supposed to be all about infrastructure, shovel ready projects? Or that it might be perceived as a bit narrow-minded to make sweeping generalizations like government data is biased and not to be trusted?
There are people here who dont like to discuss politics for many reasons. Thats fine with me. And IMO, there are also people here who give these guys a pass because you know them better and perhaps, as a result, are reluctant to challenge them.
added:
Hell, even outside of politics, there are "family" members here who have demeaned women members, on more than one occasion, with references to cunts....and get a pass.
Perhaps I dont want to be part of that "family" and simply want to discuss issues of the day with strangers, as opposed to friends and family, and debunk some wide-spread myths.
Unlike other prominent political contributors who claim to be non-partisan, yet flood the discussion with partisan links, I have never denied my partisanship, but I also try hard to make a clear distinction when posting my opinion as opposed to facts.
Perhaps others would value my opinion more if they knew me better....I understand that. But it wont change the facts and if the facts cant be accepted because I am not a member of the family, I would suggest it says more about those family members than me.
We don't call them on it because it is a pointless activity. They will not change and are tireless in their perpetual attacks. It is easy to be anti-everything, you don't have to actually consider any idea. I went the flame war route with them a long time ago and it did nothing but make me an ugly poster and this an ugly board. We no longer have interesting political discourse here. I'd stake out a position between your two camps but why bother, neither side will consider the weaknesses of their position and neither side gives a damn about this country. It is back to the human side of the board for me.
We don't call them on it because it is a pointless activity. They will not change and are tireless in their perpetual attacks. It is easy to be anti-everything, you don't have to actually consider any idea. I went the flame war route with them a long time ago and it did nothing but make me an ugly poster and this an ugly board. We no longer have interesting political discourse here...
I agree and I have said that I have contributed to that ugliness and would try to do better. But if UT wants to shut it down or most members choose to continue to ignore it, thats cool. It wont be the end of the world and the Cellar will be a more peaceful and less confrontational place to dwell.
... and neither side gives a damn about this country. It is back to the human side of the board for me.
A bit over the top with this comment.
Its not as if every other forum here is pure sweetness and light. Look at all the nastiness with Emma the troll on Home Base a while back. And a thread on Meta over just how much of an *sshole a certain member is. Yeah, the political discussions have been more political spams of late, and that is too bad. There have been times when I have wanted to post something here, but felt overwhelmed by the constant warfare. But I haven't deserted the forum either. There are only 2 or 3 members who are really responsible for the nastiness and maybe all this fall-out will convince them to be more moderate in their replies.
It kind of bothers me though when people who never post anything on the political forum suddenly want it to disappear. You can post here without name calling and you can also just not read any posts here. It is a shame if the bad manners of a couple of people cause the entire board to give up on political discussion.
It kind of bothers me though when people who never post anything on the political forum suddenly want it to disappear. You can post here without name calling and you can also just not read any posts here. It is a shame if the bad manners of a couple of people cause the entire board to give up on political discussion.
Do you think I really have any expectation of this forum being removed, or that I actually
want it to be?
Look at all the nastiness with Emma the troll on Home Base a while back.
Why? I thought my pictures were educational.
Would knowing me better result in more people participating in the political discussions and condemning The Mercenary for characterizing a member of Congress as a Nazi or posting pics of Obama as Hitler? Why dont you find that igrnorant or offensive...or just childish...and speak out?
The other side of that coin is that if Merc knew you, he wouldn't say nearly as much of that kind of thing. Merc suffers very strongly from the Anonymity Syndrome of the internet. If you're some stranger, his default position is to be a douchebag towards you. When he first arrived, he was a douchebag to a lot of people. As he got to know us, and we got to know him, he stopped being nearly so childish towards most people and most discussions. Still does on occasion, to be sure, but nowadays it's almost 100% directed towards you. He's fiercely loyal to those he cares about, and violently defensive against people he doesn't know. It's a character flaw, to be sure, but it's known. You are unknown, so not only does Merc taunt you like a pit bull, but we don't care enough to stop him.
I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know what you REALLY want, LJ. Maybe a ham and Swiss on rye? ;)
Why? I thought my pictures were educational.
:lol2:
Would knowing me better result in more people participating in the political discussions and condemning The Mercenary for characterizing a member of Congress as a Nazi or posting pics of Obama as Hitler? Why dont you find that igrnorant or offensive...or just childish...and speak out?
Because that is how many of the American electorate, myself included (bet you didn't know that!) see them. Go figure.
Hell, even outside of politics, there are "family" members here who have demeaned women members, on more than one occasion, with references to cunts....and get a pass.
Only that bitch Pelosi..
Unlike other prominent political contributors who claim to be non-partisan, yet flood the discussion with partisan links,
You have yet to prove that the majority of my posts are "partisan", only that they disagree with your party and their propaganda.
I have never denied my partisanship
Which is a good reason why your opinion is no more correct than any other like you continually claim it is.
And a thread on Meta over just how much of an *sshole a certain member is.
Consider who that thread is about, how long ago it started, and which forum he earned his reputation in. Emma was a right winger and a hater who was not as slippery or occasionally human as others who are still around.
As far as my going over the top, sure, but understand that I'm a swing voter with libertarian tendencies who lives in rural America and works in human services. I find the world to be a much more complicated place than the simple angry message marketers in the two major parties and tea baggers would have us buy. I wish the President only good fortune in rescuing his agenda and some scrap of national unity from all of the above.
We dwellars used to pride ourselves on having some nasty heated arguments here but they were not exactly dueling monologues like we see right now. Even during the run up to the war people were making cogent arguments despite or maybe because of the intensity of feeling. We also remembered to take the time to show a human face so people would react to people not ciphers. The politics forum is reflecting Washington right now and that is a shame. We used to be better than that. Most of this isn't on you, Redux, merc intentionally leaves little room for discussion wanting only to obstruct er... impede.
Of course it is possible that I've mellowed and don't really care about politics the way I once did. *shrug*
Or pointing out to Classicman that he is wrong when he declares that the stimulus program was supposed to be
all about infrastructure, shovel ready projects?
This is factually incorrect. I have repeatedly asked you nicely, and not so nicely, NOT to put words in my mouth.
From my perspective THAT is what started this shit.
Or that it might be perceived as a bit narrow-minded to make sweeping generalizations like government data is biased and not to be trusted?
That is my opinion If you don't like it, fine.
Calling me narrow-minded is an insult. It is hypocritical of you to continually accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself repeatedly do as well.
....merc intentionally leaves little room for discussion wanting only to obstruct er... impede.
False.:eyebrow: You are no less interested in discussion and never have been in your statements towards/about me.
I said I contributed to the ugliness and would try to do better. Expressing my opinion is not a personal attack or an insult...simply an observation with which you can agree or disagree.
And facts are a stubborn thing.
Its a shame you two cant admit the same.
The other side of that coin is that if Merc knew you, he wouldn't say nearly as much of that kind of thing. Merc suffers very strongly from the Anonymity Syndrome of the internet. If you're some stranger, his default position is to be a douchebag towards you. When he first arrived, he was a douchebag to a lot of people. As he got to know us, and we got to know him, he stopped being nearly so childish towards most people and most discussions. Still does on occasion, to be sure, but nowadays it's almost 100% directed towards you. He's fiercely loyal to those he cares about, and violently defensive against people he doesn't know. It's a character flaw, to be sure, but it's known. You are unknown, so not only does Merc taunt you like a pit bull, but we don't care enough to stop him.
Clod..we obviously have different ways of dealing with discussion board bullies.
You (and others) do what works for you....get to know him, find his good points and then ignore what you readily characterize as his most bullying and ignorant posts.
Sorry, that just wont for me.
You are unknown, so not only does Merc taunt you like a pit bull, but we don't care enough to stop him.
Well, if I could stop Merc from a pit bull, believe me, I would. Merc did me a real kindness a couple of months back, so I have been able to see that he does have a humane side. That doesn't mean I like the tone of his posts here, though. So play nice, Merc. (like this is really going to have a big effect). :p:
Here we go again. . .
Expressing my opinion is not a personal attack or an insult...simply an observation with which you can agree or disagree.
Calling me narrow-minded which is only your latest, is.
And facts are a stubborn thing.
How many times would you like to do this? You mind is apparently as closed as you believe mine to be.
Its a shame you two cant admit the same.
1) Again lumping individuals together and
2)You are completely wrong - Posted two days ago - 02-23-2010, 11:25 AM
LinkHere we go again. . .
Calling me narrow-minded which is only your latest, is.
How many times would you like to do this? You mind is apparently as closed as you believe mine to be.
What started this all...as you want to put it...was your posts from stimuluswatch.org
And your assertion that it was independent and thus more credible than government data.
What you continue to ignore are the facts that I pointed out over the course of the "discussion":
- the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.
- your "independent" site pulls this data from the government site...but that still doesnt make it government data
- your "independent" site presented the same jobs data (in the case of the Jennie-O grant) that you inferred was biased from the government site
Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?
In fact, if you look at any independent study of a large government program, you are most likely to find that the independent study relies heavily, if not solely, on data either generated by the government or submitted by federal program recipients and compiled by the government.
Yeah...narrow minded.
the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.
Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.
Yeah...I'm narrow minded.
Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.
I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.
Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.
Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.
I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.
Damn dude...nice avoidance of the fact that your independent site uses the same data, as I have pointed out on several occasions now. Yet is somehow more credible? You dont see the fallacy of that argument? IMO, narrow-minded thinking.
If I recall, you've said you personally know several people who received stimulus funds. Do you think they are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers when they report the jobs data as required by the law? Not the hundreds that I know. Another sweeping generalization w/o foundation and, IMO, narrow-minded.
And thank you for acknowledging that you are part of the problem as well. I stand corrected.
Originally Posted by Redux
Yeah...I'm narrow minded.
Changing a quote to my name? A classic response!
added:
Oh...nice avoidance of the last part of my post as well:
[INDENT]In fact, if you look at any independent study of a large government program, you are most likely to find that the independent study relies heavily, if not solely, on data either generated by the government or submitted by federal program recipients and compiled by the government.
[/INDENT]
But then if you had ever done any independent research on federal programs in your career, you would probably know that.
Clod..we obviously have different ways of dealing with discussion board bullies.
There was once another prolific poster who kept insisting that this was a "
discussion board," not a community. Maybe you should get yourself a YouTube channel.
There was once another prolific poster who kept insisting that this was a "discussion board," not a community. Maybe you should get yourself a YouTube channel.
I have tried to be respectful in responding to your suggestions and because I disagree, I should go somewhere else? I abide by the rules of the community and have said repeatedly now that I would try to do better. That should be enough, but thanks for this latest suggestion as well.
I do find it funny that you have no problem suggesting how I should behave but you have no suggestions to The Mercenary on how he might be a better contributor to the community ("we can don't care enough to stop him").
We tried very hard with merc but he is incapable of improving. As a newer poster, we have not lost hope in you.
Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.
I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.
Redux presented and asked a simple question. You cannot even answer that? No answer combined with an indignant reply exposes bias. You get all tied up in a huff and storm out? Of course not. You will not leave. You are dodging a damning question. Taking insult so that you can evade reality in that question.
Question was upright, honorable, and so simple. A candid poster would have no problem answering:
What you continue to ignore are the facts that I pointed out over the course of the "discussion":
- the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.
- your "independent" site pulls this data from the government site...but that still doesnt make it government data
- your "independent" site presented the same jobs data (in the case of the Jennie-O grant) that you inferred was biased from the government site
Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?
Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?
Redux presented and asked a simple question. You cannot even answer that?
I already did.
Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.
And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again please leave me out of it.
I already did.
[INDENT]Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased. [/INDENT]
And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again please leave me out of it.
Got it!
The thousand of federal employees (nearly all of whom are not politicians and lawyers as you asserted) who work with govt data and federal program recipient data are biased.
The more than 50,000 stimulus grant/contract recipients are biased.
[INDENT]
Do you think those you know who received stimulus funds are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers when they report the jobs data as required by the law?[/INDENT]
I am biased.
TW is biased.
Here a bias, there a bias, everywhere a bias.....e - i -e - i -o
But you're not biased.
And Fox News is fair and balanced.
*EVERY SINGLE RECIPIENT IS BIASED.
*EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS BIASED
*EVERY SINGLE CONTRACTOR THAT WORKS FOR, WITH OR NEAR A GOV'T FACILITY OR LIVES WITHIN 5 MILES OF ANY GOV'T EMPLOYEE, TW, LOBBYIST, CONTRACTOR, YOU OR FAMILY MEMBER OF ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THEREOF, IS BIASED.
[CENTER] :eyebrow:
:right:
:headshake
[/CENTER]
NOW TO YOUR QUESTION -
Do you think those who received stimulus funds are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="7"][CENTER]YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS[/CENTER][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[CENTER]WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU NOT GRASPING?[/CENTER]
And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again PLEASE leave me out.
Don't get your panties in a twist. Just quit responding. *shrug*
In other words:
Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Then quit doing that.
In even other words:
Um, something about heat and kitchens.
Yeah, really. Classic keeps saying he's not going to post here anymore, but then he keeps on posting and posting in the same manner that people have been complaining about. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Enough already. :headshake
Ohhh, look what the cat dragged in again....
Thought we weren't posting to/at each other?
Thanks Sam, I'll try harder.
Ohhh, look what the cat dragged in again....
Thought we weren't posting to/at each other?
Then again you were using emotions as a replacement for logic. Nothing new.
You still did not answer Redux's simple question. How do you again avoid answering? But red letters? Threatening to stop posting? None of that answered his simple question:
Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?
Well if we all missed it, then the honorable thing to do is repost the paragraph. Honorable - without incendiary language and angry accusations.
Or maybe we are really reading replies from Emma? ...
I'll apologize. I poked. Sometimes classic is pokeable. Sorry classic.
I'll shut up again. Ugh...hard to give up isn't it?
In the spirit of compromise and Clod's suggestion to become more community-oriented, but still remaining true to my personal preferences, I will host a Tea Party in the Politics Room where members can ask me what foods I am embarrassed to like, whats upsetting me at the moment, have I ever been arrested (yes, details at the Tea Party - I need a teaser).
Saturday brunch, 11:00 am?
The Mercenary is free to bring his "Obama is a Socialist" sign and there will be a whine tasting table in the corner for any Classic members.
Is that Eastern Time? ;)
Oh, and be sure to tell us how you would roast left over vegies and include an original poem or two. LOL
An interesting report from the UK.
Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.eceAn interesting report from the UK.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece
It certainly does sound appalling.
But whats your point?
Dont we have tens of thousands of deaths a year in the US as a result of improper hospital care - wrongful surgeries, hospital borne infections, dispensing wrong medication, etc?
My point was that it was interesting.
My point was that it was interesting.
Ah....one of those "interesting" posts.
Not an attempt to infer anything or somehow make a connection between the current reform proposals in Congress and "European style" health care?
Another interesting process...
Health Bill Elevates Senate Bureaucrat to Starring Role
WASHINGTON—The drama over health-care legislation is reaching a critical stage, and soon the spotlight may land on Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin.
Mr. Frumin is usually offstage, standing on the chamber dais whispering with the presiding officer about obscure points of Senate procedure. To lawmakers rushing to finish their long-stalled health bill, however, the $170,000-a-year Senate appointee suddenly has attained outsize prominence and power.
That is because Democratic senators, who unexpectedly lost their filibuster-proof majority in January, are relying on arcane congressional budget rules to complete the health-care revamp.
Those budget rules promise a huge procedural advantage by avoiding filibusters that require 60 votes to overcome.
But there is a big catch: Anything that is in a budget bill has to have a budget purpose. If not, the provision can be challenged under the "Byrd rule," named for Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat.
And Mr. Frumin, as the parliamentarian, must decide whether the Byrd rule has been met.
Thus, in a series of tense private meetings known informally as "Byrd baths," it is Mr. Frumin who will determine what stays in the legislation and what goes, according to people who have taken part in the past. (Provisions that are cut become "Byrd droppings.") Mr. Frumin's decisions could dictate whether the health-care overhaul will gain momentum or collapse.
Byrd-bath meetings, which are held in the parliamentarian's cubbyhole office in the Capitol, can drag on for hours as lawmakers and staffers make their cases. Running debates can stretch over weeks.
"The whole [Byrd rule] process in my experience as parliamentarian is a rather wrenching one," said Robert Dove, Mr. Frumin's predecessor. "It's just long and grueling.…I don't envy him."
The parliamentarian and his staff "are under huge pressure," said Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican. "There are 100 elected senators and one parliamentarian, and the parliamentarian can determine what the 100 can do."
Among the policies that could be bounced by the Byrd rule are a number of changes to how the insurance market operates. Mr. Dove expressed skepticism that the budget shortcuts were well-suited for such efforts.
"When [the budget process] is used to jam things through on a very narrow basis, that's when it runs into problems," he said. Still, "it's so handy for any party that doesn't have 60 votes.…so it's a very tempting tool."
Mr. Frumin, 63 years old, didn't respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Dove estimated that in one year—1995—he tossed out about 300 provisions based on the Byrd rule, including a restriction on federally funded abortions.
Senators aren't the only ones with a lot on the line. Parliamentarians, who are supposed to be nonpartisan, can find themselves out of a job if their decisions displease powerful lawmakers, as Mr. Dove did in 2001.
Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Mr. Dove, according to several people familiar with the situation, over a couple of decisions he made.
continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510204575085982306680588.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_HealthCareReform26_4Another interesting process...
Health Bill Elevates Senate Bureaucrat to Starring Role
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510204575085982306680588.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_HealthCareReform26_4
Agreed. The reconciliation process should be interesting. It certainly has been used often enough in the past.
What is not very interesting is the critics, particularly the hypocritical Republicans in Congress, characterizing it as some kind of “nuclear option” similar to their own threat to end filibusters several years ago by “changing the rules.”
Reconciliation doesnt change the rules and has its own strict requirements.
Sipping my tea....let the party begin!
... The politics forum is reflecting Washington right now and that is a shame. We used to be better than that...
It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
classicman is now in the Technology forum posting more cheap shots and nothing useful or helpful in
computer problem. He is doing exactly what Limbaugh and Beck have told him to do. Make things so nasty that the better informed will be hurt, take insult, and not challenge incessant posting and threats from extremists.
Nastiness in the Cellar comes from those who are doing exactly what Limbaugh and Beck encourage them to do. It works because so many remain silent as, for example, classicman attempts to turn another thread nasty.
It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
No, you got stomped for saying it's our fault for not invading their country and making them do it our way.
No, you got stomped for saying it's our fault for not invading their country and making them do it our way.
I didn't say that.
Well, that's the only way we could have accomplished what you wanted... same thing.
Well, that's the only way we could have accomplished what you wanted... same thing.
C'mon
Bruce, you can't be that stupid... it's just not possible. You don't understand my premise. It's not the same thing. You put words in my mouth, and backpedalled when you realized that you're wrong.
No wonder you don't know why you got stomped.
OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?
OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?
Which was a greater threat to America? Neocons or Saddam? Obviously Neocons. They even invented the Saddam myths.
Have you ever noticed how predictable you are?
OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?
BUZZZZZZZ. Sorry, that is IN-correct.
Have you ever noticed how predictable you are?
Irony.
good point Pierce. Can you tell me which zinger I manage to work into literally every single topic discussed regardless of relevence? I'd like to eliminate that.
Nah, just your predictability part. You always come into a thread with a condescending sarcastic one liner which many times ignores the entire point of the thread. Or in other words, a strawman. tw's post was pointless but yours was as well.
Please find my most recent (other than this thread) attempt at "picking on" tw.
and as to "ignores the point of the thread"? Fuck that. The point of most of these threads anymore is for you guys to wave your dicks at each other while bitching over who sucks more republicans/democrats/obama...
I agree that the majority of political discussions have been worthless, hence why I don't jump in that often as well. And I shouldn't have put "ignores entire point of the thread", but that you always pop in with a condescending sarcastic one-liner, many of them being strawman arguments.
Please find my most recent (other than this thread) attempt at "picking on" tw.
A
simple ironic joke about neocons and Saddam - and instead you instead attack me in "Limbaugh" style. Extremism with its nastiness is everywhere.
...bitching over who sucks more republicans/democrats/obama...
Bush *always* sucks more.;)
A simple ironic joke about neocons and Saddam - and instead you instead attack me in "Limbaugh" style. Extremism with its nastiness is everywhere.
Can you please quote my "Limbaugh" style attack so I can see the error of my ways before I repent?
Can you please quote my "Limbaugh" style attack so I can see the error of my ways before I repent?
Because which was a greater threat? Any honest person has no problem with reality. Tthe entire Saddam threat was invented by neocons. The fact that reality is true is simple - and has nothing to due with me.
Meanwhile, accusing me of being Saddam hiding out in America - now that we can discuss. I might even confess.
[size=1]Emma told me to say it. I must obey.[/size]
You seem to have forgotten you meds again.
Which was a greater threat to America? Neocons or Saddam? Obviously Neocons. They even invented the Saddam myths.
Neocons have been successful freedom fighters -- when we followed their kind of foreign policy philosophy we took down two totalitarian regimes, both of them about as nasty a set of tinpot third-world dictatorships as may be found, and inside the space of a year to boot.
You have never been, nor ever can be, a successful freedom fighter, so STFU before better men than you before you get backhanded into next week, you offensive prototalitarian, antidemocracy octopus twat.
Oh, and you occasion some invective too.
As usual, Urbane carries the day. The creature from the swamp has returned. :stickpoke
:lol2: Freedom Fighters. :rotflol:
Well Obama has thown down the Gauntlet. It should be interesting to see where it goes from her. And more interesting should be if they have the same number of votes as they thought they did earlier in the year.
Another interesting observation.
Obama said, "The debate is over."
There never was a debate. There are two bills completely composed by one party.
And the elephant in the Dems Room shows it's ugly head...
Democrats would kill healthcare over abortion
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday.
"Yes. We're prepared to take responsibility," Stupak said on ABC's "Good Morning America" when asked if he and his 11 Democratic allies were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion.
"Let's face it. I want to see healthcare. But we're not going to bypass the principles of belief that we feel strongly about," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0421749120100304The real costs of Healthcare.
Then, in the Journal's unsigned editorial, is this gem:
No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the president and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of healthcare for millions—families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.
Any bill that counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending as a way to bring down the deficit is dishonest.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/03/04/the-obama-health-reform-bills-dishonesty-on-cost.htmlThe real costs of Healthcare.
...in the Journal's unsigned editorial...
Any bill that counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending as a way to bring down the deficit is dishonest.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/03/04/the-obama-health-reform-bills-dishonesty-on-cost.html
The unsigned (:eek:) partisan opinion column doesnt quite have it right.
Most of the spending costs dont begin until the fourth year when the Exchanges would kick-in to cover those 30+ milliion currently w/o insurance. It also ignores spending cuts, like the $150 billion cut to MA providers.
IMO, the only questionable data in the CBO analysis of the long-term budgetary impact is the anticipated savings resulting from greater efficiencies. The tax and spending data is pretty straight forward and unambiguous.
The unsigned (:eek:) partisan opinion column doesnt quite have it right.
Most of the spending costs dont begin until the fourth year when the Exchanges would kick-in to cover those 30+ milliion currently w/o insurance. It also ignores spending cuts, like the $150 billion cut to MA providers.
IMO, the only questionable data in the CBO analysis of the long-term budgetary impact is the anticipated savings resulting from greater efficiencies. The tax and spending data is pretty straight forward and unambiguous.
Oooo! You said a nasty word - CBO. We all know they're a group of commie sympathizers - from the GUBMENT! ;)
Sam I wouldn't go to that extent, but they are an in-put : out-put organization. They take whatever data they are given and make an estimation of it. They don't factor in many parts of the equation, only the data they are given. That being said it can all look rosey based on the data they are given.
Sam I wouldn't go to that extent, but they are an in-put : out-put organization. They take whatever data they are given and make an estimation of it.
So let me see if I have this right. Facts lie because they are only facts.
Can I quote you?
The president and the two congressional leaders are so blinded by their
ideology, so bullheaded in accomplishing a radical transformation of
health care, that they've discarded the common sense and instinct for
self-preservation that usually governs politicians' actions. Instead,
this triumvirate makes rationalizations for support of a proposal that's
been DOA almost from its inception.
Yet all three Democratic leaders are taking a calculated gamble: if they
can impose govern-run health care, they'll establish the framework for
Democratic dominance for years to come, even if that means short-term
election losses. Once government-run health care is a fait accompli, all
three believe practical minded Americans will switch from outright
opposition to trying to "improve" the government-run health care model,
similar to what Americans have done for decades with failing public
school systems.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-pelosi-and-reid-wont-quit-pushing
-health-care-reform/
The president and the two congressional leaders are so blinded by their
ideology, so bullheaded in accomplishing a radical transformation of
health care, that they've discarded the common sense and instinct for
self-preservation that usually governs politicians' actions. Instead,
this triumvirate makes rationalizations for support of a proposal that's
been DOA almost from its inception.
Yet all three Democratic leaders are taking a calculated gamble: if they
can impose govern-run health care, they'll establish the framework for
Democratic dominance for years to come, even if that means short-term
election losses. Once government-run health care is a fait accompli, all
three believe practical minded Americans will switch from outright
opposition to trying to "improve" the government-run health care model,
similar to what Americans have done for decades with failing public
school systems.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-pelosi-and-reid-wont-quit-pushing
-health-care-reform/
You asked me to point out when you post partisan opinion links as I noted that you do repeatedly.
Bingo! Pajama Media.
The ones who last year hired
Joe the Plumber as a Mid East correspondent.
You asked me to point out when you post partisan opinion links as I noted that you do repeatedly.
You must be thinking of classic. I don't believe I ever asked for your assistance.
Don't you dare even mention my name - either of you.
Don't you dare even mention my name - either of you.
Classicman.
Let the flames begin.
Don't you dare even mention my name - either of you.
My only point was that I never asked for this policy wankers assistance on anything.
My only point was that I never asked for this policy wankers assistance on anything.
My point was that you post more partisan links than anyone...even as you deny it and tell me to "prove it"... and I will keep pointing them out to prove it. :D
Alan Grayson is awesome.
Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Fla., today introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) which would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The “Public Option Act,” also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.
...
The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish enrollment periods, coverage guidelines, and premiums for the program. Because premiums would be equal to cost, the program would pay for itself.
In keeping with the “Grayson style,” the bill is clear and concise.
It is only four pages. You can read the bill [COLOR="Red"]here[/COLOR].
Shoulda had him write the whole damn thing!
It's easy to keep a bill short if you're just extending something which already has its thousands of pages written. ;)
My point was that you post more partisan links than anyone...even as you deny it and tell me to "prove it"... and I will keep pointing them out to prove it. :D
As long as you are ok with me pointing out you're a Hack for the Demoncratic party and Obama propaganda machine I am cool with it...:lol:
As long as you are ok with me pointing out you're a Hack for the Demoncratic party and Obama propaganda machine I am cool with it...:lol:
Come on, dude.
Dont talk about propaganda machine when you are still insisting that it is Obama "lies and propaganda" to use the same unemployment standards as every previous president for the last 25+ years. You continue to make a fool out of yourself on this one, since you wont let it go and continue to insist its "propaganda" to use the accepted official figures. :lol:
And still posting opinions on "government take-over of health care" and "socialism"...from sources like Joe the Plumber's "Pajama Media" Group.
Anytime you want to stop flooding the threads with outside partisan opinions (and claim they, and you, are not partisan), we can begin to have honest discussions here.
Come on, dude.
Dont talk about propaganda machine when you are still insisting that it is Obama "lies and propaganda" to use the same unemployment standards as every previous president for the last 25+ years. You continue to make a fool out of yourself on this one, since you wont let it go and continue to insist its "propaganda" to use the accepted official figures. :lol:
And still posting opinions on "government take-over of health care" and "socialism"...from sources like Joe the Plumber's "Pajama Media" Group.
Anytime you want to stop flooding the threads with outside partisan opinions (and claim they, and you, are not partisan), we can begin to have honest discussions here.
Come on dude, it is more than on health care that Obama is spreading the propaganda and you are helping him here. Just the other day he said, "The Debate is over!", all the while ignoring the fact that both bills were formed behind closed doors by the Dems. His agenda as is the Dems is based on many "socialist" notions of take over by BIG GOV, some needed, much not, thowing money down a big fucking dark hole, unaccounted for and wasted on pork projects. You can't re-package and re-write the history of the last months of this administration and the Demoncratic control of the Congress for the last 3 years. They hold the purse strings, they get the responsibility. :lol:
Where are all the "millions of shovel ready jobs"?
A dizzying array of options to pass health care
It's a hard time find a House Democrat who wants to vote for the Senate's health care bill. But they may not have to -- at least directly.
Party leaders have discussed the possibility of using the House Rules Committee to avoid an actual vote on the Senate's bill, according to leadership aides. They would do this by writing what's called a "self-executing rule," meaning the Senate bill would be attached to a package of fixes being negotiated between the two chambers -- without an actual vote on the Senate's legislation.
Under this scenario, the Senate bill would be automatically attached to the reconciliation package, if the House passes reconciliation. In other words, Bill A would just become part of Bill B if the House passes Bill B, and the Senate could then vote on a reconciliation package before sending it to the president. This allows House members to approve the broader measure without actually voting on it.
The same aides who confirmed this process was under discussion quickly noted that party leaders have not yet arrived at a final decision, so it's far from a done deal -- a point House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) made repeatedly Tuesday during his weekly exchange with reporters.
This would allow them to deal with the Senate bill without forcing their members to go on record in support of unpopular items, like the now-infamous Cornhusker Kickback or the so-called Louisiana Purchase, that could be used against them on the campaign trail in the fall.
According to industry lobbyists, the House may take the additional step of further amending the rule to guard against another nightmare scenario -- the Senate's failure to enact a package of fixes through the now-familiar reconciliation process. House leaders could add a caveat to the rule that the Senate bill can only be signed into law if the Senate also passes the fixes.
Confused? You're not alone. These hypotheticals have been the topic of much discussion on Capitol Hill as congressional Democrats look for ways to massage chamber rules in the House and Senate pass a health care bill without any Republican support. And before they can do that, they might need to walk their members through some of the finer points of parliamentary maneuvering.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/A_dizzying_array_of_options_to_pass_health_care.html?showallSenate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival, Pro-Life House Democrats Say
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/10/senate-health-care-dead-arrival-say-pro-life-house-democrats/
Well it should be interesting to see how they get around those in their own party who would bury this thing...
Have we not spoken... why does he not get it .... people to Obama regarding Healthcare Reform "DO NOT WANT"
Have we not spoken... why does he not get it .... people to Obama regarding Healthcare Reform "DO NOT WANT"
I don't think that's true. The polls say that the majority don't want the distorted plan that the repubicans have described, but when individual parts of the plan are offered, the majority
do want.
Then they are idiots.
Why?
Again - this is my cat channeling . . .
I have heard both sides of this too many times.
I can only say that some may want individual parts, but not the sum total.
We need reform, I think the vast majority agree upon that. Defining what exactly "reform" is, is another story.
I still wonder why, if this bill is so good, that there are so many problems passing it with the majorities they have in both houses. Apparently Obama has been reduced to threatening D's. There has got to be a better way.
meow.
First of all... why would you want the government to have such a hand in your health care. Think about it.
If the reason is to make it more available and more affordable for everyone... well... there is Medicaid, there is Medicare, and hospitals cannot deny you care if you go to an emergency room. If you pay as little as $5 a month they cannot send you to collections. If you make too much to qualify for assistance… then let me ask you… do you buy cigarettes, sodas, alcohol… learn to budget. If you can't find $5 in your monthly budget it may be time for a second job.
I can tell you it won’t make it more accessible. We can look to California and Canada as examples of “why not”. You will wait longer for access. Your taxes will be higher. The government will have trouble paying facilities... if facilities aren't paid the employees have to wait for pay.
Obama doesn't like that Insurance companies increase premiums every year... well... the population ages and is increasingly becoming sicker (they raise the premiums to cover the risk… they actually run on a fairly small profit margin)... do you really think the government won't increase the taxes to cover the cost of the healthcare year after year just as the Health Insurance companies have done. Health care will become more expensive for everyone, it will suffer in quality, and people will find it much harder to get the care they need. Don’t believe me? Talk to friends in CA or in Canada… they have been living it… and by the way look at the finances of California… it is a glimpse of the future if Obama has his way. This is NOT a good thing any way you slice it.
The only health care reform America will accept has to be designed by God itself....
Why is it that people don't understand the difference between the uninsured going to the emergency room because that is the only way they can get treatment, and the huge costs associated with that, and the lesser costs, in the long run and on the large scale, of preventative and primary care?
I think most people are afraid someone else is going to get something free, that they themselves have to pay for.
Well, we live in a society. That's how we roll.
While, I don’t disagree that it would be cheaper to take preventive measures… I believe we should all be taking personal financial responsibility for ourselves and our immediate families. Placing the government in charge of Healthcare is not the answer. California currently offers state funded health coverage… the state is essentially bankrupt; hospitals aren’t getting paid for months at a time… it is a disaster.
There is a large population of folks who believe that they should be supported by the rest of us. I do not think it is right to fault those with means to pay for healthcare for not wanting to foot the bill for others beyond what the current income tax supports. When I did not have the income to cover the cost of health insurance our community hospital had a program through which you could pay a percentage of the bill. With this program you could access a number of clinics across the area. The program still exists. I was grateful the short time I needed it, but was much happier to not need it anymore.
There should be more of a push for self sufficiency in this nation. Of course, if you believe that the higher income should foot the bill for the lower… well we will not see eye to eye on that. I personally am for a flat 10% tax across the board. I have come to realize that the higher paid jobs… they pay more because of the education that people have. If I had my masters my income potential would be much greater than it is. That is how it should be. Do I think that those higher income folks should have to share their hard earned money with me… uhhh noooo.
I see what you're saying Pooka. This is something I've struggled with: I always thought that we can't imagine the circumstances some people grow up in. We hear stories of the kid who grew up in an inner-city slum, who is now CEO of a company or something. Sure, the potential for bettering oneself exists, but who shows someone that? The kid who is now successful surely had some influence in his life who told him "you don't have to live this way...you can make it." Also, not everyone is exactly equal in intelligence.
However, as I've grown older I've had to try very hard (and I am not always successful) not to get jaded by the crap I see every single working day. It's easy for me to think 'oh come ON...quit playing games and get serious about your life' because I see the people who play the system. I also see those who are helped by the system.
Do I think higher income people should foot bills for lower income people? Not for most things, or in all circumstances. But, because there ARE circumstances people cannot help or change, and because I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves, I think we do have certain responsibilities as a civilized society. Unfortunately the sneakies and the lazies ride that train too.
I think society does have a responsibility, in at least two critical areas: health care, and education.
But believe me, I struggle with this sometimes...no more so than when I was working hard and struggling to make ends meet myself.
Govenment is in charge of education and we are so far behind other countries it isn't even funny. Now translate that to healthcare... you see my point?
That doesn't even make sense since most countries we are far behind in education and health care have more socialized education and health care than us. American education and health care is going to be fucked up whether it is free market or nationalized.
I do. Messed up systems. But the way to change them is to...change them. I don't think staying with the status quo because we probably won't get it completely right, at first, is not an acceptable answer either.
I don't know what is the best route, but we can worry about it, and stagnate, or we can take steps to make things better.
The myth of government controlled health care is just nonsense.
What most Americans have, and will continue to have, and in some respects, see improved, at least in terms of coverage, is a system of privately administered health insurance w/ government regulation.
Govenment is in charge of education and we are so far behind other countries it isn't even funny. Now translate that to healthcare... you see my point?
I would love to. But there is nothing in the healthcare bill even remotely approaching an equivalent to the public school system.
If the government did "take over" healthcare the way it "took over" education, that would be amazing. My home is within walking distance of several excellent public
and private schools. Some takeover.
First of all... why would you want the government to have such a hand in your health care. Think about it.
First of all ... we disagree. That doesn't mean that either of us are idiots.
I want the government to have a larger hand in healthcare because I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).
If the reason is to make it more available and more affordable for everyone... well... there is Medicaid
The problem is that many people make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private health insurance. If they get ill or injured, their are screwed.
, there is Medicare
Only if you're old
, and hospitals cannot deny you care if you go to an emergency room.
The most expensive and wasteful care that you can get
do you buy cigarettes, sodas, alcohol…
Don't mess with my alcohol...:p:
I can tell you it won’t make it more accessible. We can look to California and Canada as examples of “why not”.
Most countries with nationalized healthcare are very happy with it.
You will wait longer for access.
I work in an ophthalmology office. There is a 5-6 month waiting list for cataract surgery.
Your taxes will be higher.
As high as your health insurance premiums + co-pays + medications? Probably not, considering that it would be spread over a larger, healthier base.
Obama doesn't like that Insurance companies increase premiums every year
Neither do I. ;)
... well... the population ages and is increasingly becoming sicker (they raise the premiums to cover the risk… they actually run on a fairly small profit margin)...
I think insurance companies are
very profitable.
First of all ... we disagree. That doesn't mean that either of us are idiots.
I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).
You missed the biggest offender of them all... :rolleyes:
You missed the biggest offender of them all... :rolleyes:
Philadelphia Eagles management? :brikwall:
lol - see now thats funny.
Scary that they signed Avant and that other loser wideout in the last couple weeks.
I want the government to have a larger hand in healthcare because I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).
Then why support a bill that will not control the costs that insurance can charge in the form of co-pays and higher deductables? There are very few cost controls. Why support a bill that shifts more costs to taxpayers? Why support a bill that puts few controls on big Pharm for years?
I would love to. But there is nothing in the healthcare bill even remotely approaching an equivalent to the public school system.
If the government did "take over" healthcare the way it "took over" education, that would be amazing. My home is within walking distance of several excellent public and private schools. Some takeover.
If you don't think that "No Child Left-behind" or mandatory textbooks is government control you need to talk to your kids teachers. You have school aged kids right?
Don't worry; I'm not saying Bush improved things. Hopefully Obama's NCLB reform will help mitigate the damage.
Then why support a bill that will not control the costs that insurance can charge in the form of co-pays and higher deductables? There are very few cost controls. Why support a bill that shifts more costs to taxpayers? Why support a bill that puts few controls on big Pharm for years?
Because it's better than our current system. It certainly is not perfect. Maybe, like the civil rights laws in the early sixties, this will be a first step of many.
The partisan split in Congress over health reform may reflect a broader divide among the public in attitudes toward the uninsured. Despite expert consensus over the harms suffered by the uninsured as a group, Americans disagree over whether the uninsured get the care they need and whether reform legislation providing universal coverage is necessary. We examined public perceptions of health care access and quality for the uninsured over time, and we found that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe that the uninsured have difficulty gaining access to care. Senior citizens are less aware than others of the problems faced by the uninsured. Even among those Americans who perceive that the uninsured have poor access to care, Republicans are significantly less likely than Democrats to support reform. Thus, our findings indicate that even if political obstacles are overcome and health reform is enacted, future political support for ongoing financing to cover the uninsured could be uncertain.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.2009.1019Philadelphia Eagles management?
Andy Reid refuses to practice socialism. Andy Reid refuses to let Obama save the Eagles. Clearly Limbaugh is right. The world is coming to an end!
Or maybe Andy Reid should learn how to adjust his play calls to adjust to changing conditions. Heavens forbid, says Pat Robertson. That is god's call whether the team lives or dies. Only god's will can determine Eagle's health. Thank god Republicans are there to filibuster those would subvert god's will. Only god should provide Eagles with necessary health care.
Only god can save the Eagles - an obvious conclusion.
The myth of government controlled health care is just nonsense.
What most Americans have, and will continue to have, and in some respects, see improved, at least in terms of coverage, is a system of privately administered health insurance w/ government regulation.
:lol2: You can't have both. :lol:
A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html
I would like to see that letter and who signed it. Haven't found it yet.
Medicare fix would push health care into the red
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.
The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.
The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
Each year Congress votes to delay the cuts to Medicare. I wonder if they are finally going to do it or if they will feel the pain of making the cuts and risk their jobs and positions of power if they do finally make the cuts. Many Docs would end up closing up shop and office doors if the cuts go through.
Here is a good opinion bit from the NYT on the actual costs, real and political, and some quotes about critical assessments of the CBO process and importance, which I have raised numerous times.
March 19, 2010
Checking the Math on Health Care
As the Economist once put it, “As a creature of Congress, the C.B.O. is required to pretend to believe many impossible things before breakfast.”
“The C.B.O. process has now been so thoroughly gamed that it’s useless,” writes Megan McArdle of the Atlantic. She’s concerned about how many of the costs have been pushed to the tail end of the budgeting period, and that the excise tax on so-called gold-plated insurance plans won’t take effect until 2018:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/checking-the-math-on-health-care/
Each year Congress votes to delay the cuts to Medicare. I wonder if they are finally going to do it or if they will feel the pain of making the cuts and risk their jobs and positions of power if they do finally make the cuts. Many Docs would end up closing up shop and office doors if the cuts go through.
I don't see Docs as having to close up shop if the cuts go through. Many doctors right now refuse to accept Medicaid/Medicare patients and they are not going out of business by a long shot. I have to travel 10 miles to a rural clinic in the town adjacent to mine, because its the only outfit in this area that accepts Medicaid. Cuts to Medicare are going to hurt patients far more than they will doctors.
I don't see Docs as having to close up shop if the cuts go through. Many doctors right now refuse to accept Medicaid/Medicare patients and they are not going out of business by a long shot. I have to travel 10 miles to a rural clinic in the town adjacent to mine, because its the only outfit in this area that accepts Medicaid. Cuts to Medicare are going to hurt patients far more than they will doctors.
I think it depends greatly on what we call payer mix. For the people who don't accept medicare it may have a minimal impact but it will impact them eventually. As goes medicare so goes a lot of insurance companies. Many of them follow their rates closely and adjust them accordingly. For those who struggle by on a shoestring budget it may not affect them either, because they are already barely making it by with little overhead. But they can't just add more and more people and make up the difference either, there is only so much time in the day and the FP's I know work pretty long hours already and most are not accepting any new medicare/caid patients at all, none. But for those with a more usual mix of patients, like 40/60, with the 60% being Medicare, they will take a huge hit in those cuts. Ideally to be profitable it is better to be 60/40 and no less because it is a money losing model. Time will tell. As I said back at the beginning of this mess, be careful what you wish for, I think there are going to be a lot of unintended consequences of this bill if it passes they way they are Rhaming it through on reconciliation and procedural by-pass.
[YOUTUBE]pilG7PCV448[/YOUTUBE]
Palin's constituents strike again. :eek:
Newsweek article of how different people will get affected by the bill:
http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/3/healthcare-reform.slide1.html
I am happy about this part:
Twenty-somethings account for a third of the uninsured population, but that will change soon. When new rules kick in in about six months, insurance companies will be required to extend coverage to all dependants below the age of 26 (typically now, insurance lapses after high school). Young adults who can't rely on a parent's plan will have to find their own insurance—or face a fine of $95, jumping to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Those who can't find affordable coverage—less than 8 percent of their income—will be exempt. It's not expected that too many will have to pay up. In Massachusetts, the only state where individuals are required to buy insurance, less than 1 percent of citizens pay a similar fine.
This may positively affect me in six months and almost all my jobless friends right now...
It will be awesome if healthy 20 somethings start paying in to the system more.
Thank you for that slide show pierce. It cleared up some questions I had.
It will be awesome if healthy 20 somethings start paying in to the system more.
It would be awesome if healthy 20 somethings didn't graduate college with a non-existent job market.
But even when there was a job market, there wasn't much motivation for 20 somethings to buy insurance. If their job gave it to them or their parents covered them, they would have it. But nobody would buy it on their own at that age. I didn't.
Then why support a bill that will not control the costs that insurance can charge in the form of co-pays and higher deductables? There are very few cost controls. Why support a bill that shifts more costs to taxpayers? Why support a bill that puts few controls on big Pharm for years?
Hear, hear! This is something no one wants to talk about. The real reason no one was interested in cost-controls for Pharma? They've bought enough congress people to keep that from happening.
And with all the fear-mongering about 'death panels' and 'cost benefit analysis' there will never be a way to convince the American public of
any sort of rationality in this respect.
Preventative medicine. Vaccinations. Screening. Smoking cessation. Nutrition and weight management. Birth control. Generic, old-fashioned medications (like statins, aspirin, beta-blockers, ace inhibitors) to control the lion's share of age-related cardiac issues.
This is where the money should be spent. Preventative medicine. Vaccinations. Screening. Smoking cessation. Nutrition and weight management. Birth control. Generic, old-fashioned medications (like statins, aspirin, beta-blockers, ace inhibitors) to control the lion's share of age-related cardiac issues. This is where the money should be spent.
Those people don't buy as many representatives as Big Pharma though.
Vaccines aren't big pharma? Did you miss that whole swine flu nonsense?
Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?
Here is a very interesting article:10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%
Here is another facinating article on that topic: How profitable are health insurance companies?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/how-profitable-are-health-insurance-companies.html
Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...
Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?
I didn't get the vaccine, and I didn't get the flu either.-- like most of my family and co-workers. That's what.
Same here. I personally was not about to allow myself and family to be a "test subject" in effect. We practice common sense and good hygine.
Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?
What of it? It's big pharma.
Ever take kids that skip vaccines to a well-visit at a main stream pediatrician? I have. They just kinda look at you funny and ask why you're there. Preventative care my ass, they are pharmacologists.
Vaccines aren't big pharma? Did you miss that whole swine flu nonsense?
Sorry - missed that one in there - I was referring to the preventative and common stuff like aspirin.
And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%
Here is another facinating article on that topic: How profitable are health insurance companies?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/how-profitable-are-health-insurance-companies.html
Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...
Maybe you're cool with accepting some blogger's estimate as to what the numbers mean, but I'm not. The person whom you quote above even admits that he is just doing a rif.
And if insurance companies are so terribly unprofitable, why do they still exist? Somebody out there is filling up their pockets.:eyebrow:
[SIZE="1"]Poor little insurance company - there, there, there. Would ums like a golden parachute?[/SIZE]
I was laid off by a large insurance carrier.... it had to cut about 1/3 of its work force. It was the second large insurrer that had laid me off.
They won't exist much longer... then what...
Interesting Links Pooka - found this on the first one.
In a time of economic tension, this plan will displace millions of workers and push more people into becoming contract employees, resulting in increased instability for working families. One of the many original stated goals of the White House's health care reforms was the promise that you can keep your health plan if you like it. However, the White House wanted to give businesses much-needed relief from burdensome health costs. Like the desire to create a new entitlement while reducing the budget deficit, these aims are nearly impossible to reconcile, so Obama chose a path that accomplishes neither, says Domenech:
* The president's plan penalizes an employer for not providing insurance, but the government will subsidize the health care of workers without employer-provided insurance.
* This effectively allows workers to receive the same compensation package they get today, but with government footing the health benefits part of the bill, so employers have no need to make up the difference in cash.
* The economic benefits of that subsidy far outweigh the penalties -- for low-income workers, it can result in an enormous difference of more than $17,000 a year.
It's obvious what will happen under this plan, says Domenech:
* No small business that employs lower-income workers will find it makes economic sense to offer health insurance.
* Any small business that does so will almost certainly fail, burdened by higher costs than their competitors'.
This dilemma could be solved by making the penalties more draconian, but that too would cause business failures. Moreover, as with the individual insurance mandate, too steep a penalty would make the plan even more coercive and unpopular.
I was laid off by a large insurance carrier.... it had to cut about 1/3 of its work force. It was the second large insurrer that had laid me off.
They won't exist much longer... then what...
It sucks being laid off. I wish you the best.
Here is a very interesting article:10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
Here are 2 more
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/19/top-5-lies-about-health-care/
And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%
I guess it depends who you believe...
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/09/zirkelbach-profits/
But the argument that insurers run a tight ship is misleading, on several counts, not least of which is the fact that insurers are planning to spend “more than $1 million” not on health care claims — as their justification for the premium hikes would suggest — but “to run television ads on cable stations nationwide beginning in the next few days to push back on the attacks on insurers.”
That $1 million ad fund will presumably come from the one penny that goes towards health care profits. But this too is misleading. Zirkelbach is clever enough to compare the private insurance industry’s administrative spending to national health care expenditures — 45 percent of which includes spending in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs. In the context of total spending, insurers administrative costs may look small, but compared to the revenues of private insurers, administrative spending is seen as far more substantial. Insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits which fund TV ad campaigns, Washington lobbyists, lavish company retreats and outlandish CEO salaries.
Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...
Except that the pool will include healthy people, too.
Hear, hear! This is something no one wants to talk about. The real reason no one was interested in cost-controls for Pharma? They've bought enough congress people to keep that from happening.
And with all the fear-mongering about 'death panels' and 'cost benefit analysis' there will never be a way to convince the American public of any sort of rationality in this respect.
Preventative medicine. Vaccinations. Screening. Smoking cessation. Nutrition and weight management. Birth control. Generic, old-fashioned medications (like statins, aspirin, beta-blockers, ace inhibitors) to control the lion's share of age-related cardiac issues. This is where the money should be spent.
And get ready to be screwed by uncontrolled increases in Co-pays and out of pocket insurance costs within the next 6 months and again in about 3.5 years. This was quite a telling interview and confirms what I have said all along. The insurance companies are going to jack up the rates and pass the costs on to the consumers.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125072294And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%
If my company only makes $100,000 a year, yea 3% is not much. But if my company makes $100,000,000,000 a year 3% can be a chunk of change given that gives them quite a bit of leeway to do what they want with it. Take this example:
Cigna's profits rose seven percent last year, you had more than $18 billion in revenue, your predecessor left with $110 million retirement package....
If states sue on the illegality of mandated health care how would that benefit the consumer other than being able to opt out?
A letter to a local congressman. NOT from me, but a real letter. . .
Just another Congressman who thinks every taxpayer personally wants more from the government. A boilerplate reply looking for another vote in November.
I for one want less-less intrusion, less control, less taxes.
How is this going to be paid for? Just like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to be self-funding.
No matter how big government says it will be paid for, there are never enough dollars because the program keeps expanding.
What's in the bill for all the big advocates- drug companies, AARP-most seniors wonder how its going to be paid for?
What makes this program so special that it will be run efficiently and cost-effectively? Unlike any other federal program ever.
I cant believe how out of touch with reality Congress and the President are. There's an old saying: "You've been a BS'er so long, You're starting to believe your own BS!"
A pox on both your houses, and the White House. All should be de-elected. Congressional sessions should be reduced to one month a year. Then you would really focus on the vital matters, like national security, and economic growth. You can't do damage when you are not in session.
Institute REAL campaign finance reform-your campaign can only raise funds in your district-every dollar needs to be publicly disclosed within 24 hours-make everything transparent immediately-no foreign money-really-no corporate contributions outside their headquarters district. Get the money out and maybe Congress would concentrate on whats best for the country and not whats best for the next election cycle.
A real response would be appreciated, point by point, but if thats too much trouble dont waste my time, I know you have a campaign or two to run , and it takes a lot of money to do it. All I have is a vote.
thank you,
Mr. Clod came across this youtube video last night. It's kind of interesting in its own right, but the last 30 seconds is what really makes it memorable. A bit of NSFW language.
[youtube]EpcDZbXslfw[/youtube]
The response:
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform legislation. I greatly appreciate your input on this matter, and I apologize for any delay in my reply.
As you may know, on March 21, 2010, I voted to ensure access to affordable, high quality health insurance for all Americans. Taken together, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and H.R. 4872 the Reconciliation Act of 2010, ensure affordable health coverage for 32 million otherwise uninsured American citizens, institutes market reforms to make health insurance more competitive and more affordable for individuals and small businesses, all while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years. PPACA passed the House by a vote of 219 to 212, while the Reconciliation Act of 2010 was approved 220 to 211. The PPACA now awaits the President's signature, while the Reconciliation Act of 2010 awaits Senate passage.
I ran for Congress to reform our health care system after my 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer. I have worked to provide all Americans with access to the same lifesaving medical care I was able to provide my daughter through my U.S. military health insurance. Furthermore, with this legislation, Congress is finally tackling the problem of ever-increasing health care costs and health insurance that doesn't protect those enrolled in plans from this growing burden. Roughly 40 million American citizens lack insurance. Every year, the epidemic of uninsurance costs our economy as much as $160 billion in lost productivity and if we don't bend the cost curve, in 30 years, health care costs will consume fully one-third of our economic output. This is one of the rare instances where the moral imperative is also the economic necessity.
PPACA allows individuals to keep the private insurance they have now, while also establishing new state health benefit exchanges with additional private plans. These exchanges create a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to purchase insurance plans as a part of a larger pool of consumers. As a result individuals and small businesses can benefit from the lower premiums that larger employers currently enjoy. Additionally, health insurance plans will have new consumer protections, which include:
--Requiring insurers to cover a minimum set of benefits and minimum portion of individual's health care costs,
--Requiring insurers to cover young adults on their parent's plan up to age 27,
--Preventing insurers from taking away coverage just because an individual gets sick,
--Stopping discrimination against individuals due to pre-existing conditions, age or gender,
--Eliminating lifetime and annual caps on coverage, and
--Limiting proposed premium increases, while allowing individuals to appeal denial of care to an independent organization.
It is clear that competition and transparency in our health care system will best discipline -- and in time drive down - costs. These new exchanges, with the common sense consumer protections they include, will provide Americans with the affordable, quality choices they deserve.
PPACA establishes health insurance coverage as a shared responsibility between individuals, employers, and the government, a concept I have long touted. Taken together, these provisions bring individuals into the system and cover them upfront, replacing the current system of inconsistent, incomplete and more costly emergency care that raises costs for everyone. The bill mandates, with limited exceptions, that individuals purchase health insurance. Government would be responsible for ensuring that every American has access to quality health insurance by providing subsidies to qualifying low- and middle-income families and expanding Medicaid so more individuals in poverty can participate in the program. Larger businesses must offer health coverage for all their employees, by either providing workers with health insurance directly or paying a penalty that helps individuals afford to purchase insurance in the exchange if any of their employees qualify for the subsidy.
To further aid small businesses, which currently spend 18% more for health insurance than larger employers, the legislation provides tax credits to smaller employers to assist in paying for employees' health insurance. Employers with fewer than 100 employees would be able to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees would be exempt from the employer responsibility. Additionally, the bill provides tax credits to smaller employers to assist them in providing health insurance to their employees.
Critically, this legislation addresses the economic consequences of the status quo. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, PPACA does not increase the deficit. In fact, the bill will reduce federal deficits by approximately $143 billion dollars over the next ten years and will continue to reduce deficits by as much as $1.2 trillion in the following decade. The Department of Health and Human Services has reported that the bill will extend the solvency of Medicare by up to five years.
This bill is an incredibly important step to expand access to care, improve the insurance on which Americans currently rely and lay the groundwork to better address costs in the long term. However, it is only the first step, and I am most supportive of continued efforts to restrict long-term growth of health care costs.
In addition to insurance market reforms, the bill makes many improvements to the Medicare program, including gradually eliminating the Medicare Prescription Drug donut hole and co-payments for preventative care. It implements pilot programs, such as Accountable Care Organizations and Medical Home Models, which are aimed at reducing cost by incentivizing quality and not quantity of care. These initiatives, which encourage physicians to take on more responsibility for patient care, will hopefully be leveraged to reduce wasteful spending while encouraging doctors to provide better care. The bill also invests significantly in the health care workforce, making primary care a more attractive option for new physicians and authorizing more funding for training of doctors and other medical professionals.
Our nation's year-long debate leading up to this historic legislation was both challenging and reassuring. Through hundreds of hours of hearings and markups, several hundred amendments considered from members of both parties, as well as thousands of town hall meetings across the country, this was a truly comprehensive debate on the issues. At times, I would have liked to see both sides act with greater accountability and transparency. In the end, however, it was important for the House to hold a straight forward vote on these important pieces of legislation, which will benefit millions of Americans.
Thank you again for your letter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to our future correspondence.
If states sue on the illegality of mandated health care how would that benefit the consumer other than being able to opt out?
I don't think it will help. I think the states are just pushing the issue based upon the general electorate.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
I've been to Sex Pistols concerts where the people behaved better.
Shame on the repubs. Shame on them.
grrrrr..........more tax to pay!
I certainly don't think the sky is falling but I sure don't want my health care mandated. Offered yes but mandated and fined if you don't is unconstitutional. That isn't a fear mentality that is just a fact.
grrrrr..........more tax to pay!
It doesn't effect you.
Mandates are necessary. There's no way around it. If you don't have mandates, you can't eliminate the "preexisting condition" travesty, which is the most important part of the whole bill.
It doesn't effect you.
Why? I earn! :eek:
Not enough. If we look at the "how much do you earn?" thread, it looks like the vast majority of dwellars will not be paying more.
I certainly don't think the sky is falling but I sure don't want my health care mandated. Offered yes but mandated and fined if you don't is unconstitutional. That isn't a fear mentality that is just a fact.
I can only assume you feel the same way about auto insurance, then?
As a matter of fact, Cloddie, yes I do. Though it's tempered.
It's quite like the biker slogan about "Helmet Laws Suck." They do, but helmets themselves do not. You might have to get a few beers into a stubborn doctrinaire biker to get him to admit it, but unless he's fuckin' with you for the lulz, he will.
I can choose not to buy a car. I can choose not to renew my insurance. There would be consequences but I am not fined by the federal government either way.
Right, if you drive without insurance you're fined by the state government instead.
It's true that you can choose not to drive a car, and avoid auto insurance. You can also choose to never go to any doctor for any treatment, and while still against the rules, in that case the government would probably never catch on to the fact that you had no insurance.
I certainly don't think the sky is falling but I sure don't want my health care mandated. Offered yes but mandated and fined if you don't is unconstitutional. That isn't a fear mentality that is just a fact.
Where in the constitution does it say the gov't can't mandate health insurance?
I can choose not to buy a car. I can choose not to renew my insurance. There would be consequences but I am not fined by the federal government either way.
A person can choose those things, therefore choosing the monetary responsibility/liability. A person can't (usually) choose a major health crisis that costs money well beyond their means, and they can't guarantee to avoid them in anyway except by dying (quickly.) Therefore, if a person has such a crisis without proper insurance, then the cost is passed onto the rest of us. This is the same concept as mandating auto-insurance, making it law that people buy the insurance, helps the cost from being passed onto others when there is an accident. If a person has a major health crisis and doesn't have the money/insurance for the medical bills, then the gov't tax they've paid helped keep the costs from being passed on to others.
I don't think this legislation is perfect by far, but its a start as to what we need.
Rather than mandate purchasing insurance, just bar anyone from going to the hospital, without insurance or cash in advance. Problem solved.
You can also choose to never go to any doctor for any treatment, and while still against the rules, in that case the government would probably never catch on to the fact that you had no insurance.
Uh no - the 12,000 additional IRS positions that were created within this reform are to look for just that. They are to apparently going to look at the returns to ensure that all have insurance.
Uh no - the 12,000 additional IRS positions that were created within this reform are to look for just that. They are to apparently going to look at the returns to ensure that all have insurance.
12,000 additional IRS positions created within the reform?
From Glenn Beck's mouth to your ears! So you dont listen to Beck? Then you just regurgitate what you read from some right wing blogger who does. Just the latest scare tactics. When all other arguments have failed, raise the specter of the IRS bogeymen tracking you down and taking away your freedoms.
Uh no. What the IRS will do is similar to a current 1099 where a bank sends IRS a statement that says “here’s the interest” someone owes, and they send it to the taxpayer.
I certainly don't think the sky is falling but I sure don't want my health care mandated. Offered yes but mandated and fined if you don't is unconstitutional. That isn't a fear mentality that is just a fact.
The "unconstitutional" arguments are very weak....both in terms of Congress's taxing powers and the commerce clause.
IMO, the state AGs planning to sue makes for great political theater and raises their profiles so they can run for higher office, but winning on the merits of their case...highly unlikely.
It is even unlikely that the courts will accept the case, given that the AGs (and the states) are not the "injured" party. The ones would could sue would be those forced to buy insurance, but the questions is, can they sue before they are "injured" which wont happen until 2014.
So Redux, for one, welcomes our new health care overlords.
He needs to grow a more independent and less party-hack turn of mind before he truly enters adulthood -- the very place his political party definitely does not want him to go.
The "unconstitutional" arguments are, I think, insuperable and will prevail.
Not enough. If we look at the "how much do you earn?" thread, it looks like the vast majority of dwellars will not be paying more.
I suspect that anyone who gets insurance from their employer will certainly be more, that is what the insurance companies are saying anyway. And for some it maybe more than they are prepared, and now required, to buy.
So Redux, for one, welcomes our new health care overlords.
He needs to grow a more independent and less party-hack turn of mind before he truly enters adulthood -- the very place his political party definitely does not want him to go.
The "unconstitutional" arguments are, I think, insuperable and will prevail.
UG...any time you want to discuss the constitutional issues like an adult, we can do so. ;)
And for some it maybe more than they are prepared, and now required, to buy.
Insurance for most every company insured employee is virtually unchanged. Except for one provision. Government welfare to medicaid provisions is being removed. Welfare to company health plans means some companies must scale back some provisions of their plans or pay for what the Federal government was once providing through tax credits - corporate welfare.
For those without health care, details to a solution must be implemented by each state. Like auto insurance, states must create an exchange where insurance is provided by corporate insurance companies at rates competitive to those offered in big corporate plans. Every state must be and is encouraged to innovate. Try different methods to make this free market work. Some states may even group together to form a larger exchange.
Critical details (like all insurance) are under the domain of the states. Amazing how many are so critical when the states have not even defined their programs. Nothing says the states must pay for anything. But by the time it is all done in four years, everyone must have and must be provided the oppurtunity to buy insurance from some insurance company.
Insurance companies must conform to free market principles which most insurance companies wanted anyway. Gouging by medical insurance companies will result in pressure both from the free market, and now also by state insurance commissioners. Regulators can now confront issues such as coverage routinely dropped for mythical pre-existing medical conditions. The free market must now make insurance available to everyone. Markets (exchanges) that will make that possible must be implemented by every state.
by Dr. Elaina George
The vote is done and we have awakened to a new era. Under the guise of coverage for pre-existing conditions and the security of knowing that you can’t be kicked off your insurance when you really need it, the democrats have pushed through a bill which will lead to the end of health care as we know it.
Besides taxing us from everything from our unearned income, to payroll taxes to medical devices we can look forward to paying into a pot for the next four years. I only hope the money will be available for health care. As it stands now, it will be used to set up yet another government bureaucracy run by various task forces and yet another Czar to oversee the entire mess. If we’re lucky they will actually use the money for the intended purpose, but I have visions of the social security lock box. It is hard to believe that this will end up any better than Medicare, The Post Office or Social Security – big, bloated and bankrupt.
The bill sets up committees to study ways to deliver care. A committee to study what another committee is supposed to do? Sounds like bureaucracy at its finest. It is hard to believe that that money used to ‘study’ things will be used for patient care. By the time 2014 rolls around what money will be left to implement medical care?
The government sold health care reform with 5 basic talking points:
1. You won’t be able to be kicked off of your insurance when you really need it
•Turns out that the insurance companies CAN kick you off if they pay a fine. It is not hard to imagine that an insurance company will figure out pretty quickly that it would be cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for coverage of a long term chronic illness.
2. You won’t be denied medical care for pre-existing conditions.
•If the insurance company deems that you have lied on the application you will be denied coverage.
•Sick children are no longer considered to have pre-existing conditions, but what about women who are pregnant?
3. You can keep the doctor you have if you are already covered.
•With the cuts in Medicare reimbursements that have already happened (no more consultation fees) and the looming 21% cut at the end of October. Many more physicians than the current 30% are looking to opt out of Medicare. When the commercial insurance reimbursement rates drop (as they invariably will since they pay at a percentage of Medicare) there will be more doctors looking to leave commercial insurance as well.
4. Health care reform will lead to increased access
•There is no way that there will be an increase in access when you take into account; 1) the physician shortage, 2) Those physicians who will leave medicine after the passage of this monstrosity (a recent poll of physicians states that 35% would leave the profession), and 3) those who will stop taking insurance all together because they are simply fed up.
•Expanding Medicaid to those who are currently uninsured is not going to help since most doctors are not taking Medicaid now. Currently access to specialists is pretty poor, it will decline further.
5. Health care reform will cover 30 million more uninsured people
•The bill will cover approximately 7 million more people over the next nine years and leave over 100 million people under insured.
6. The health care reform bill will decrease the deficit
•The CBO numbers do not take into account the “doctor fix” and the government takeover of student loans was added to pad the numbers.
•If you do real world accounting by adding in the “doctor fix” (over 230 million dollars) you actually wipe out the cost savings and you increase the deficit (anywhere from 400-700 million dollars.)
•It is likely that the estimated costs will likely be much higher. How can anyone really know what is going to happen in the next 10 years. To say that these numbers are optimistic is being kind.
•The Health care reform bill has done absolutely NOTHING that would really lower the cost of health care.
The pharmaceutical companies got three major cost raising concessions
- the government cannot go out of the country to shop for cheaper drugs
- the patent for biologics was extended to 12 years from 7 thereby locking out cheaper generic drugs. (For example a patient can continue to pay over $1000 a month for a drug like Embrel instead of getting some relief.
- patients will not be able to buy cheaper over the counter medications with their health savings account only more expensive prescription medication.
The health insurance companies may whine about their profit margin, but they get millions more people to add to their roles. Most of those people will only see a doctor 1-2 times a year for routine things, but will pay 14% higher premiums for the privilege.
The hospitals which account for the biggest piece of the Healthcare pie (31%) got a pass. Surgeons have had to deal with bundling of charges for over a decade. What about applying that to hospitals? That would have certainly lowered the cost. Since bankruptcy caused by medical costs are largely due to the hospital charges.
- There has been no legislation to change their habit of itemized billing where they stand to make a profit on everything from the single pill of Tylenol to the box of Kleenex in your hospital room.
I got a call from a fellow physician today who talked about picking up stakes and doing medical work overseas. I have a feeling I am going to get a lot more of those types of calls from fellow physicians in private practice. There are only so many physicians that the hospitals can employ and only so many more patients a physician can see.
It seems that the ultimate goal of this exercise is to eventually make all physicians government employees under a single payer system. As it stands the system created by health care reform is a give away to the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance industry (you just need to look at the rise in their stocks today). It certainly can be seen as the first step on a slippery slope towards single payer. The powers that be are banking on physicians going along like lemmings, but I have no doubt that if we don’t they will institute some sort of draconian policy to make us do it like they have in Massachusetts (medical licensure is tied to taking the state insurance plan). If that happens, good luck finding a physician who will want to deal with this.
http://biggovernment.com/egeorge/2010/03/23/depend-on-the-government-for-your-health-care-good-luck/#more-94402The Lie of Fiscal Responsibility
As Democrats made cable-news victory laps in the wake of securing the necessary votes to pass a massive legislative overhaul of the American health care system, there was much talk of history—making it, watching it, being part of it, answering its call. But Washington's true attitude towards history is that of an abusive conqueror; it's not something to learn from, it's something to triumph over. And in that respect, Democratic health reformers deserve nothing but congratulations. Thanks to their dogged efforts, history—along with the popular will of the American public—has been thoroughly trounced.
Since the New Deal, American entitlements have consistently grown faster than projected in size, scope, and cost. Like unwanted houseguests, they cost money you don't have, and they can't be kicked out. Reform and repeal efforts are about as successful as kindergarten experiments with do-it-yourself haircuts. Indeed, the health care bill's very structure is a testament to this fact. Much of it is funded with changes designed to eliminate waste in Medicare and Medicaid—changes that could, or at least ought, to have been used to reform those programs, both of which are unsustainable. Yet the only way these changes were politically viable was if they were made in order to fund an all-new benefit.
To hear the bill's supporters explain it, health reform constitutes a triumph of fiscal responsibility—lowering the deficit, extending the solvency of Medicare, and stifling the growth of health care costs. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a staunch pro-lifer whose last-minute decision to vote yes assured the bill's passage, was typical in his declaration that the legislation would provide "health security and financial security" to Americans. "This is a good bill for the American people," he told MSNBC. "We're not adding to the deficit. Indeed, the CBO says the bill will actually reduce the deficit over time."
This case was crucial to the bill's last-minute success. In the preceding week, it became increasingly clear that a number of votes were contingent upon the bill receiving certain scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And when the scores—a $940 billion price tag for the first 10 years, $138 billion worth of deficit reduction in the first decade, and $1.2 trillion worth of reduction in the following 10 years—came through, many wavering Democrats hopped on board.
But health care votes bought with promises of fiscal responsibility might as well have been bought with suitcases full of Monopoly money. The truth is that the bill is the exact opposite of fiscally responsible.
A little more than 24 hours after releasing the reconciliation bill's preliminary score—the one that picked up the majority of the headlines and votes—the CBO released another report, this one produced at the request of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). It said that if in addition to the health care bill, the Democrats also pass legislation known as the "doc fix"—which would cost an additional $208 billion—the total effect would be to add $59 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years.
Defenders of the reform bill now argue that the doc fix is a separate issue. But Democrats didn't always think so: Last summer's first draft of the House health care bill included the doc fix. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has reportedly used the provision to ensure support from the American Medical Association. Are we somehow supposed to believe that it's good enough to bargain with but not good enough to figure into the budget?
Maybe the problem is something more elementary: Democrats just don't know how to count. Hard to believe? The CBO's letter also says that, contrary to administration claims, the bill won't both reduce the deficit and extend the solvency of Medicare. One or the other, perhaps, but not both.
Nor is that the only double count. The score for the Senate bill includes $72 billion in revenues generated by the CLASS Act, a federally-backed disability insurance program. But that $72 billion is just premium revenue that will eventually have to be used to pay out benefits. The score counts that revenue anyway, despite the fact that, according to the CBO, it would likely add to the deficit in the long term.
Eventually, the deficit damage starts to add up. Toss out a few of the bill's more fanciful assumptions—the implementation of the tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans (already successfully delayed by a full five years by benefits-rich unions), cuts to Medicare payments, and a planned slowing of the growth of insurance subsidies—and the CBO reports that, two decades out, the deficit would spike “in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP”—something like $600 billion. Fiscally responsible!
Why does all this matter? It's not just the cherry-picking of figures and the rhetorical deception, it's the country's overall fiscal future. Thanks to a spiraling deficit, the economy is chugging merrily towards a broken bridge over a rocky canyon—a fact that almost no one from either party is willing to do anything about. America, according to the CBO, is on an "unsustainable" fiscal path, and the nation's solid-gold credit rating may be at risk. So it doesn't matter how many times blinkered legislators repeat to themselves, "I think I can, I think I can": Nothing short of significant cutbacks to entitlement spending is going to magically transform the U.S. budget into the little engine that could.
Instead, politicians are paying for new entitlements by shifting money from unsustainable programs—money that ought to have gone toward getting America's fiscal house in order.
Democrats made history all right—but only by sacrificing the future.
Peter Suderman is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/22/the-lie-of-fiscal-responsibilihttp://biggovernment.com/egeorge/2010/03/23/depend-on-the-government-for-your-health-care-good-luck/#more-94402
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/22/the-lie-of-fiscal-responsibili
Two more partisan links......biggovernment.com and reason.com
Your record of posting the most partisan links (far more than anyone else) in this discussion is intact.
Just keeping my promise to point that out, Merc. :D
Two more partisan links......biggovernment.com and reason.com
Your record of posting the most partisan links (far more than anyone else) in this discussion is intact.
Just keeping my promise, Merc. :D
Doesn't change the facts in the article. Dispute them if you think you can. Nearly all the weaknesses that I have pointed out are now the topic of the majority of the news concerning the new Obamacare.
biggovernement is partisan because they are anti-Obamy, Reason is libertarian. So that must make them partisan because they don't support your propaganda of the White House or the Dems. I get it.
Keeping my promise on calling you out on your propaganda.
The Reason Foundation is an American nonprofit think tank founded in 1968 that also publishes Reason magazine. Based in Los Angeles, Reason is self-described as nonpartisan and publishes a statement of values that can best be described as libertarian. Like most think tanks, they are a non-profit, tax-exempt organization that provides papers and studies to support a particular set of values. According to Reason's web site, these are "the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies."
So now a libertarian magazine is not partisan because it says its non-partisan?
What facts? I see partisan opinions that you support. So whats new.
Please point out any facts in those opinion pieces that you can document from a verifiable source.
Or just get over it....the law is now the law of the land.
So now a libertarian magazine is not partisan because it says its non-partisan?
No. It is not partisan because it supports neither the Demoncrats or the Republickins. That would be like saying the Green Party is partisan.
What facts? I see partisan opinions that you support. So whats new.
Dispute them.
Or just get over it....the law is now the law of the land.
Yea, see you in Nov. The "law of the land" will bankrupt us. Reid is screwed in the next election and hopefully that bitch Pelosi will get some too. :lol:
Five myths about the politics of health-care reform
March 21, 2010
1. This could have been a bipartisan bill.
Very unlikely. Bipartisanship in politics is built on two pillars: trust and mutual benefit. And from the start it was apparent that both were in short supply in the 111th Congress.
While Obama's election -- and Democratic gains in the House and the Senate -- in 2008 were heralded as a new beginning in politics, the distrust and partisanship that had typified Congress in the recent past left a bitterness that no election could heal. Obama's efforts to bridge those gaps (often more personality-driven than policy-focused) came up short, with Republicans wary of being made into political pawns.
Nowhere was that wariness on better display than during last month's televised health-care summit at Blair House. Republicans came armed for rhetorical battle -- complete with copies of the massive bill as props -- rather than bipartisan compromise. That meeting also made plain the wide policy gap between the two parties; Democrats were focused primarily on expanding coverage, while Republicans were fixated on controlling costs.
Congressional Republicans also made an early strategic calculation that unified opposition to the president's overall agenda was their best course of action. The fact that just three Senate Republicans -- including one, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who later become a Democrat -- backed Obama's economic stimulus package was an omen that bipartisanship on health care was a pipe dream.
2. Democrats gave up on the public option too soon.
To this day, the left insists that if the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stood strongly behind the creation of a public option -- a government-run health-care plan -- it could muster the necessary votes in the Senate. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is even sponsoring an ad that plucks public statements from a handful of Senate Democrats -- Mark Warner (Va.), Jim Webb (Va.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.) among them -- to prove that a majority could be built around the measure.
But the fact is that expressing support for the public option is a consequence-free win-win situation for Senate Democrats. Politicians know that a vote on the controversial measure simply won't happen because neither the White House nor the congressional leadership has any desire to bring it back up. As a result, these lawmakers are free to voice their strong support for the public option while never having to worry about the political consequences of casting a vote in favor of it.
3. Scott Brown changed everything.
Yes and no. From a procedural standpoint, the stunning upset by Brown, a Republican, in the Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election forced Democrats to reassess their plan for passing the health-care overhaul; they drew a road map heavy on parliamentary procedures that led us down the current path. Without 60 seats, Democrats are unable to break Republican filibusters and therefore have been forced to slow-walk legislation that they had been on the precipice of passing before Brown's win.
But the meat of the bill -- an attempt at broad reform -- never really changed. From the start, the president made clear that nibbling around the edges of health care didn't interest him. Brown's victory did little to change Obama's "go big or go home" approach, even if it did raise the electoral stakes heading into the midterm elections this fall.
The psychological effect on Democrats of Brown winning the late Ted Kennedy's seat is harder to gauge. Democratic strategists fretted that the loss of the seat would lead to a rush of retirements on their side, a fear that hasn't been entirely borne out as the retirements have come more in dribs and drabs.
4. The public is undecided about health-care reform.
Divided? Yes. Undecided? No. Poll after poll shows that people, by and large, have made up their minds about where they come down on this bill. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released last week, 36 percent said they believed Obama's health-care plan was a good idea while 48 percent called it a bad one, leaving just 15 percent without an opinion.
A broad look at the survey data on the support and opposition for overhauling health care -- helpfully compiled by the good folks at Pollster.com -- shows a similar, steady trend line. Opposition runs in the upper 40s, support in the low to mid-40s and undecided respondents in the low single digits. Those numbers haven't moved much since August 2009, when the raucous receptions that members of Congress received at town hall meetings across the country signaled growing leeriness toward the legislation.
The American public is deeply divided over this bill -- what's in it, what it will do, whether it's the right thing -- but not at all unclear on how they feel about it.
5. How lawmakers vote on health-care reform will be the top issue in the 2010 midterm elections.
Health care will indeed be an important issue in November, but it will be secondary to Americans' concerns about jobs and the economy. In a Gallup poll conducted this month, 31 percent of people identified unemployment as the most pressing issue facing the country, while 24 percent named the "economy in general." Twenty percent chose health care.
In the immediate aftermath of passage (or failure) of a reform bill, health care is likely to experience a bit of a bump in terms of voter priorities in polls, but it will probably recede as anxiety about the economy and the job market reasserts itself. Historically, when the economy is struggling (or is perceived to be struggling), all other issues take a back seat -- hence the successful "it's the economy, stupid" slogan of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.
Democrats will try to sell the health-care legislation as a jobs bill by emphasizing the benefits it offers for small businesses. Republicans will cast health-care reform as the biggest piece of evidence that the Obama administration took its eye off the economy at a critical time. Either way, they'll be talking economy first and second (and probably third) on the campaign trail this fall.
Chris Cillizza is a national politics reporter for The Washington Post and the author of The Fix, a politics blog at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/thefix.
Dispute them.
I will ask again.
What facts?
I will ask again.
What facts?
Dispute the points in the article. Pretty much everything I have been talking about for the last year is now coming to the top of the discussions.
So you have no way to support the assessments of the experts on the issue and the potential fallout of the bills passage. Bottom line, this bill is not going to do what they say it will and it will cost us a hell of a lot more than the fantasy reports of the OMB.
Here is a great report about those lobbyists who feed on the whores of Congress.
{warning, from that partisan site NPR}
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125170643Dispute the points in the article. Pretty much everything I have been talking about for the last year is now coming to the top of the discussions....
The points in the article are not facts, they are undocumented opinions and I disagree with them..and you. Doesnt make either one of us right...only time will tell.
I do agree that the CBO budget estimate of deficit reductions are optimistic...but nearly half of the cost is offset with hard money....$150 billion in cuts in overpayments to MA providers and a 0.9% increase in medicare payroll tax for top wage earners (over $200K) for another $250 bill.
The significant investment in medical/health care technology (in both the stimulus bill and the health reform bill) will save $$$ billions over time...just difficult to determine with certainty exactly how much.
Here is a good one totally wrapped in lies and fallacy.
Build more clinics.
Who is going to staff them?
Where are you going to get the doctors to see all these new patients? How about nurses? How about medical support staff? Who is going to find money to help the states pay for these unfunded mandates?
There are still millions of un-insured people at the end of the day and not a damm thing has been done to control the costs of the insurance company controlling the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles of those who already have insurance. The whole system is flawed and it was sold to the American public with lies. Fact.
Here is another fact. If the Republickins take control of the House, Senate, or White House in the next 10 years all bets are off.
Here is a good one too. Fact: the majority of the American public think this is a bad idea and the Demoncrats ignored the electorate.
The points in the article are not facts, they are undocumented opinions
I will take an expert opinion over those of an unknown unnamed poster who is a self proclaimed Demoncratic shill on a public forum anyday, you lose on that account hands down.
I do agree that the CBO budget estimate of deficit reductions are optimistic.
One of the few admissions that I have seen you make since you started to post here, and that is an understatement. You don't mean those estimates from that Deciever in Chief, Peter Orsag?
The significant investment in medical/health care technology (in both the stimulus bill and the health reform bill) will save $$$ billions over time.
Total bullshit. There are no facts that support this, only opinion.
Here is a good one totally wrapped in lies and fallacy.
Build more clinics.
Who is going to staff them?
Where are you going to get the doctors to see all these new patients?
The bill significantly increases funding (more than double) for the
National Health Service Corps to provide scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for a commitment to work in under-served areas.
Total bullshit. There are no facts that support this, only opinion.
Between $400 - $500 billion in revenue and cost reductions is hard money...as I pointed out.
If you dont think the significant investment in technology will also result in savings, then we disagree. Look at any industry that has invested in technology and you will find savings over time.
Fact: the majority of the American public think this is a bad idea and the Demoncrats ignored the electorate.
cite?
The bill significantly increases funding (more than double) for the National Health Service Corps to provide scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for a commitment to work in under-served areas.
Great. Who can make the grade? Who qualifies to make it in the profession? You think anyone can just walk up and be a healthcare provider, a nurse, a doctor? How long does it take from beginning to end to make one? How competitive is it to get into school? Ask around and you will see that plan is a complete failure. The one thing that will happen is that you will see a huge influx of FMG's come to the US from other nations to perform the work. Job creation my ass.
Between $400 - $500 billion in revenue and cost reductions is hard money...as I pointed out.
It is funny money created by moving the numbers around. All bets are off if they don't cut the Medicare by 21%, which will sink any Dem who votes for it in the next election, which they have not been able to pull off for years. And when a new administration takes office all bets are off again, they just vote in overrides and change the law, again.
If you dont think the significant investment in technology will also result in savings, then we disagree. Look at any industry that has invested in technology and you will find savings.
As a healthcare worker myself I know it is bullshit. No, what we find in government investments is the funneling of money for political gain to projects that have no proven track record of success and most of the money being sent to states and projects within the districts of the Congressional Whores who happen to have power at the time of the Bill. Different side of the same coin.
Take electronic medical records, which we have talked about numerous times on here, savings? Some. But it will never do what the Obama Admin and his Handlers said it would do and it never will.
Those "technology" estimates of savings are a guess, opinion.
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
Fact: the majority of the American public think this is a bad idea and the Demoncrats ignored the electorate.
cite?
Man, you must really have your head in the sand if you need help with that one. No wonder you are going lose Reid in Nov. :lol:
So you dont have a cite. If it is a fact as you stated, prove it.
Because the tea baggers are screaming the loudest, you think it represents the majority of Americans?
I know you dont like polls, but the polls dispute your assertion.
The Nevada Senate election should be interesting....particularly if the Nevada Tea Party runs a candidate and splits the vote on the right.
Unfortunately, one of the Tea Party candidates is
facing felony charges.
The other issue in Nevada is the possible resignation of the other senator, John Ensign, who is facing a
federal grand jury investigation as a result of a payoff to the husband of a staff worker with whom Ensign had an affair.
So there might be two senate races in Nevada in Nov.
So you dont have a cite.
I know you dont like polls, but the polls dispute your assertion.
For every poll you put up there is an equal and opposit poll that disputes your assertions.
The total topic of discussions on all news sites are about the subjects I am bringing up now, and have been bringing up for the last year.
You will just have to take your medicine now and your party will have to take responsibility for shoving an unpopular bill down the throats of the electorate through non-bipartisan means with little debate and input from anyone who is not party to the propaganda.:D
So it is not a fact that the majority of Americans think it is a bad idea as you stated.
Its just your opinion.
So it is not a fact that the majority of Americans think it is a bad idea as you stated.
Its just your opinion.
Nope it is a fact. But of course you can't prove me wrong now can you? Or maybe you can post a poll to prove me wrong. :lol2:
Now go back to my other assertions. Can you dispute the facts in the articles I have posted by subject matter experts or not?
So we'e back to your opinions and the opinions of libertarian columnists with an agenda and whom you agree are facts and my opinions are not?
Its been fun. :)
Another great one!
Health Care 2020
A dispatch from the future on the effects of health care reform
March 23, 2020—At the beginning of the last decade, there was great excitement about the future of medicine. Advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, diagnostics, information technology, stem cell treatments, vaccines, and organ transplants were poised to radically improve the health prospects of Americans. Looking back from 2020, we can see that most of these major biomedical advances failed to materialize. What happened? Three words: health care reform.
Thanks to the health care reform legislation, a higher percentage of Americans are now covered by health insurance than ever before—up from 83 percent in 2010 to nearly 95 percent of the legal population now. About half of the newly insured are covered by Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program. Most of the remainder purchased subsidized coverage through the new state insurance exchanges. There have been some improvements in the overall health of Americans. Cardiovascular disease continued its decline because cholesterol lowering statins, which are no longer under patent protection, are more widely prescribed under new federally set treatment guidelines. Over the past 10 years, cancer mortality rates have also continued to decline, at least in part because people now covered by government programs or subsidized insurance now receive earlier cancer screening. Nevertheless, in 2020, cardiovascular disease and cancer remain the leading causes of death among Americans.
It seems like 2020 is a good time for American health care. But these benefits are what 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat would call the visible, or “seen” effects of health care reform. Bastiat pointed out that the favorable “seen” effects of any policy often produce many disastrous “unseen” later consequences. Bastiat urges us “not to judge things solely by what is seen, but rather by what is not seen.” A bad economist looks only at seen effects, according to Bastiat, while a good economist tries to foresee the unseen effects of a policy. So trying to play the role of a good economist, what were some of the deleterious unseen effects of health care reform enacted back in 2010?
Since 2010, insurance companies had been turned essentially into public utilities with the feds setting strict minimum benefits requirements. The health reform bill also limited the administrative costs of insurers, which has ended up basically guaranteeing their profits. With competition all but outlawed, the increasingly consolidated insurance industry has had very little incentive to pay for new treatment regimens outside those specified by government standard-setting agencies. Federal government health agencies have been reluctant to authorize newer treatments because they often lead to higher insurance premiums that then must be subsidized by higher taxes.
Then there is the doctor dearth. The signs of the impending shortage were already clear back in 2010. For example, as reimbursement rates from government health care schemes tightened, more and more doctors were refusing to accept Medicaid and Medicare patients. After health care reform passed, the physician shortage was exacerbated when many doctors faced with declining incomes simply chose to retire early. Already bad in many areas back in 2010, waiting times for a doctor’s appointment 10 years later have nearly quadrupled, reaching the Canadian and British average of about 110 days.
The hardest unseen effect of health care reform to evaluate is what it did to biomedical innovation. Innovation is a trial-and-error process, and making predictions about what might have been is speculative at best. But let’s take a look back at where budding biomedical technologies to treat cancer, replace damaged organs, and develop new vaccines stood back in 2010.
Big pharmaceutical companies initially did fairly well under health care reform, but as the cost of health care rose partly as a result of covering more Americans, Congress enacted legislation allowing government health care schemes to “negotiate” pharmaceutical prices. The negotiation requirement quickly devolved into price controls that have ultimately turned the big drugmakers into little more than cost-plus government contractors. In addition, the feds have established a comparative effectiveness evaluation commission similar to the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which limits patient access to treatments based on their overall cost-effectiveness. The result of these restrictions is that investments in pharmaceutical and biotech research and development have fallen off sharply.
In his first address to the nation, President Barack Obama promised to seek “a cure for cancer in our time.” In 2020, the five year survival rate from cancer has marginally improved as standard treatments have been more widely deployed, but there is no “cure.” It didn't have to be this way. For example, back in 2010 the biotech startup InCytu was developing a very promising technology that aimed to educate and harness a person’s immune system to destroy tumors. BIND Biosciences was creating a nanoparticle therapy that targeted and destroyed tumor cells while leaving normal tissue alone. Numerous startups were pursuing cancer immunotherapies using cancer vaccines. A couple of treatments, like Dendreon’s prostate cancer vaccine, made it through government approval process. But as health care budgets tightened, private research and development (R&D) funds for new cancer therapies dried up. Sadly, InCytu went out of business in 2014. In 2020, a “cure” for cancer seems as far away as ever.
Hoping to address the shortage of transplant organs, Congress changed the law in 2015 on organ donation to a system of presumed consent. This change did boost the availability of organs, but eventually donations leveled off and tens of thousands of patients needing organs remained on the waiting lists. Back in 2010, treatments using stem cells to repair damaged organs looked promising, especially induced pluripotent stem cells that matched the immune systems of individual patients. An even more visionary proposal was using three dimensional printers to print organs to order, as explained in this retro YouTube video from the startup Organovo. Of course, these possible therapies might have come to nothing, but we’ll never know since private R&D investment funding became scarce as increasing government price controls made the prospects for profiting from new treatments much riskier.
Finally, there's the flu. The 2010 flu epidemic turned out not to be nearly as severe as many at first feared, which is fortunate since vaccine production fell far short of initial goals. Production relied on an 80-year-old technology using inoculated chicken eggs that didn’t work well with the new virus strain. Ever risk-averse, government agencies rejected newer cell-based technologies that could produce flu vaccine three times faster than old-fashioned egg-based technology. In addition, R&D on a universal flu vaccine was put on the shelf for lack of funding. As we now know, this shortsightedness turned tragic when the long-predicted bird flu pandemic finally broke out in 2018, killing over one million Americans. The foregone development of innovative vaccine production techniques could have greatly speeded up the process of inoculating people against the disease.
The seen aspect of health care reform is that it has had some success in providing more Americans with access to vintage 2010 medical therapies. The unseen aspect is that more people are suffering from and dying of diseases that might well have been cured had the Obama version of health care reform never been enacted. As a result of health care reform, Americans forfeited 2020 medicine in favor of more equal access to 2010 treatments.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/23/health-care-2020So we'e back to your opinions and the opinions of libertarian columnists with an agenda and whom you agree are facts and my opinions are not?
Its been fun. :)
It has been fun to continue to expose you as a shill of the Demoncratics and White House. So far you have provided nothing to support your positions, only the bill which most Americans see as being filled with smoke and mirrors. Good luck in Nov.
Personally I can't wait to vote the whores out.:D
Here is a great story about Orszag.
An unlikely power figure has emerged in the Obama Administration. He’s not a great orator, nor trendy, nor well-known. But, if the ability to influence national leaders, shape a national agenda and influence public opinion are indicators, then, Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is, arguably, the most powerful and, potentially, most dangerous, man in Washington, DC.
As Director of OMB, Peter Orszag is the arbiter of all financial information shared with Congress. A series of little-known, OMB “circulars”, such as A-11, have established the rules, and repercussions if violated, by which Executive branch agencies communicate with Congress, especially regarding budgets, funding and agency priorities.
OMB, the President’s gatekeeper for budget matters, executes a complicated juggling act, balancing Obama Administration priorities and budgetary spin, against agency needs. Frequently, to secure a critical vote, an elected member may be rewarded with a pork project for the folks back home, and, often, it’s the OMB director that has to figure out how to avoid the appearance of a bald-faced bribe, while manipulating CBO scoring on infrastructure projects. Orszag, as the former head of CBO, understands exactly how this game is played. Thus, most of the project and budget information that Congress reviews have been shaped by OMB’s preferences.
Peter Orszag controls much of the content and quantity of the data flow to Congress, to the President and to American citizens. Orszag has oversight over most of the federal government’s critical data reporting structures. Apart from the ineffective and error-prone Stimulus reporting sites (data.gov, recovery.gov),, OMB oversees federal contract opportunities and federal grants.
Perhaps even less well known, OMB reviews and edits most of the testimony submitted to Congress, and edits most of the responses that Cabinet members and federal agencies submit in response to Congressional queries. Hence, Mr. Orszag is able to not only manipulate the numbers, but is simultaneously able to insure that there is discipline throughout the Administration regarding talking points.
The great concern is that Mr. Orszag, by all accounts a bright fellow, seems to demonstrate an ability to misrepresent facts and figures to further the confusion. Put bluntly, Mr. Orszag does not seem to be a truthful man. Moreover, he seems unusually good at deception. From the deceptions and messiness of his personal life, where salacious stories, recently publicized about his personal life, of two girlfriends and an illegitimate child, generated a media frenzy, we learn that Peter Orszag seems especially adept at deceiving those closest to him, people that know him best. In his official capacity, Mr. Orszag seems to have been especially deceptive, able and willing to misrepresent facts.
This past year, to advance the myth of “jobs created/jobs saved”, Orszag seems to have used his power to fudge the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment numbers (dropping millions of unemployed Americans off the reports, thereby enhancing the monthly unemployment statistics) and he has enhanced the “jobs created” numbers, by issuing a memo, directing Agency heads to claim that all existing federal government jobs, where work is performed administering Stimulus funds, should count as “jobs saved”.
Nowhere will this willingness to deceive be more keenly felt than in the follow-up to the recent Healthcare Reform legislation signed into law by President Obama. Congress has trusted a CBO scoring that requires over $500Billion in cuts to various government programs and entitlements. OMB is the office that will ultimately have the responsibility for identifying, tracking and reporting on these cuts, since expenditures for Health and Human Services (HHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) report to OMB. What OMB decides to show Congress is what Congress is going to see.
The Administration will, understandably, be eager to claim that cuts were made, but if the past year’s accounting by OMB is any indication, the cuts are unlikely to occur, though the data may be manipulated to imply that the cuts occurred. This kind of obfuscation is bad for Congress, which will be trying to measure whether the Healthcare Reform program is working as advertised, and bad for American taxpayers, who are getting stuck with the bill.
Americans might expect that others , wise to these sorts of shenanigans, might blow the whistle, but that’s not likely to happen since for the OMB Deputy Director chairs the (President’s) Committee for Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) which oversees the federal government’s Inspectors General. Indeed, when one IG at OPM recently tried to go around OMB, an OMB staffer bluntly asserted that “we will make your life miserable”.
Peter Orszag is responsible for implementing President Obama’s campaign promise of a line-by-line review of the federal budget to eliminate any non-performing federal programs , exposing federal programs that are non-performing and wasting taxpayer money.
Mr. Orszag’s most publicized, cost-cutting effort was the SAVE competition, designed to encourage federal employees to identify waste and propose solutions to trim the ever-growing $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. The winning idea recommended that patients at Veteran Hospitals take home unused eye drops and other over-the-counter medication when discharged. Not a bad idea, but it is becoming clear that the SAVE program, like so many of Mr. Orszag’s other efforts, was primarily a PR gimmick that helped deflect criticism about the Administration’s out-of-control spending.
When all the man hours, and effort, that was poured into implementing the SAVE program at OMB are considered, Americans will likely find that the costs of running the SAVE program far exceeds any gains or savings that the program may achieve.
Mr. Orszag has been especially active in government contracting, (the head of federal procurement – the Office of Federal Procurement Policy [OFPP] is part of OMB) and Orszag has boasted of improvements. But, the results flowing from his decisions are making existing procurement problems worse, crushing small business opportunities and exacerbating the very problem he hopes to solve. Indeed, the health of the once-vibrant, small business, government contracting community has probably never been so dire, and is likely to get much worse as a result of Mr. Orszag’s ham-handed efforts to improve the federal acquisition system.
What makes Peter Orszag so dangerous is his access to more information, at a granular level, than any federal employee. Information is power, and the ability to sculpt information with impunity makes Orszag dangerous. Information withheld can cause as many problems as information that has been doctored, and whether intentional, or not, inaccurate information, disseminated by OMB, presented as fact to Congress and the American people, is what has often occurred.
So, at a time when our nation needs to confront our budgetary problems with honesty and determination, Americans should be asking themselves: are Orszag’s skills at deception what we really want to see in our OMB director?
http://biggovernment.com/ldoan/2010/03/23/deceiver-in-chief-peter-orzag/#more-94786It has been fun to continue to expose you as a shill of the Demoncratics and White House. So far you have provided nothing to support your positions, only the bill which most Americans see as being filled with smoke and mirrors. Good luck in Nov.
Personally I can't wait to vote the whores out.:D
Seriously, Merc. I honestly dont know how to discuss it further with you if you insist that your opinions and other libertarian opinions are facts and all else is just partisan bullshit.
Perhaps I will have better luck having an honest discussion with UG on the constitutional issues, but I doubt it.
Seriously, Merc. I honestly dont know how to discuss it further with you if you insist that your opinions and other libertarian opinions are facts and all else is just partisan bullshit.
Perhaps I will have better luck having an honest discussion with UG on the constitutional issues, but I doubt it.
So anyone who does not buy your partisan Demoncratic Talking Points, many right out of the White House web site, are automatically partisan? No, there are many varried groups who disagree with the party currently in power. That does not make all those who disagree with the Dems partisan and your party not partisan. That only makes you partisan.
This party has failed the American public and lied to them to get through one sided bills that may bankrupt the future of this country does not make your party the party of the people. That is the problem when you Rham bills through the process. More people disagree with your plans for this country than there are those who agree when it comes to healthcare.
The only saving grace is that it is all reversable. That is what makes our country great. But the promises you have tried to sell on here and that your party has tried to sell to the electorate will fail when it comes to healthcare reform. And I have stated how and why numerous times, and now everyone is talking about the very same issues I have raised. Again, good luck in Nov. :D
Merc...for the record, partisan is not limited to Democrat and Republican.
Partisan means supporting or espousing a particular position or cause with a bias.
[INDENT]noun
1.an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
adjective
3.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics. [/INDENT]
..and when you flood the discussion with links to libertarian opinions, not facts, you are flooding the discussion with partisan talking points. :)
Seriously, Merc. I honestly don't know how to discuss it further with you . . . Perhaps I will have better luck having an honest discussion with UG on the constitutional issues, but I doubt it.
Look: objectively, neither of us believes the other
is quite honest.
I see no reason for anyone of intellect to remain a Democrat. None. Why, do you suppose, might I come down to that? Would it be the Dem's penchant for economic illiteracy? Would it be their inability to win any war against totalitarians and undemocracies, which are the one sort of war we fight -- and have fought for over one hundred years? (1898, and still counting -- we shed blood for the greater liberty over the lesser liberty, every time) Would it be their socialist-leaning policies, always trending to develop a dependent class of Americans rather than Americans of the free, adult variety? Damned insidious, I must say -- and no longer veiled. Would it be their habit of policy support for dictatorships of policy inimical to the United States and humanity's interest worldwide, viz., Senator Kerry and the Sandinistas? Let these few examples stand for many blemishes upon the Dems' record. They are permanent black marks.
In furtherance of this, I should really go bother a Democrat I know, who is bright. But I haven't seen him since months before the Health Care Intrusion And Just-About Poll Tax, and I'd like to find out how he feels now that his team has done something like this.
..and when you flood the discussion with links to libertarian opinions, not facts, you are flooding the discussion with partisan talking points. :)
Don't change the subject: it is Democratic talking points, not Libertarian. (I'll try to be a gentleman, and wag this reproving finger -- not some other.)
The Libertarians, however unwise they may be from time to time, reject Democratic talking points as half truths.
And do they not make a case sufficient to persuade the objective viewer? That means you'd end up wondering why you just can't make a dent. You seem to believe your ideas are persuasive enough to air them, rather than keep silent. We have our reasons, readily enough expressed, for holding a different view.
. . . who consistently calls anyone who might disagree or challenge him either a hypocrite or a partisan and whose own opinion he expects to be treated as factual while he dismisses the facts of others as partisan opinions.
You know the one...who consistently refers to one side as scumbags and whores and/or Nazis but claims not to be a hypocrite or a partisan. ;)
Merc probably comes to these characterizations through his targets' manifest lack of anything he can recognize as values worth valuing.
Nor, Redux, have you been any too slow with the P-word yourself, here. And do remember, as your quoted post seems to forget in the phrase "the facts of others" that while one is entitled to one's own opinion, one is never entitled to one's own facts. Not even in representative politics. Reality doesn't give a damn about your opinion of it.
There are no citations. How can we check the veracity of his points if he doesn't cite chapter and verse?
[Sigh] Well, you can try finding an opposing bias, propping them up against each other, and dropping a plumbline and seeing if it lands somewhere that would satisfy a critical view. That's the least you can do.
UG... I assume this means you have no interest in defending your position on the constitutionality of the legislation.
Then again, you were going to get back to me on how the Bush DoJ was not the most politicized in recent times and how gun control leads to genocide.....and you went silent on both.
Just keep throwing those stones.
Oh, I know I ought to hurry up instead of dillydally... but I promise you the epiphany you are due on how disarmament by law helps genocides like practically no other measure. Redux + Didn't Study doesn't add up to Urbane + Bizarre.
Now what was that remark about "Assume" again? You keep feeding me those straight lines... well, if it entertains, I'm okay with that.
Meanwhile, I still believe I can induce you to become quite honest.
Or you could explain why you believe the legislation is unconstitutional.
For starters, you show me where in the Constitution you're going to find authority for Congress to tell the citizenry where they are going to spend their moneys. And if you reply "Commerce Clause," I'm going to say, "Oh really?"
See, your overriding assumption is that Government intrusion on any and every level is invariably good. What possessed you to try and tell that to a libertarian? To quote the present Speaker of the House, "Are you serious?" And if you think you're serious, why?
Is the problem any other than that the medical-insurance market has been impaired and gone expensive precisely because of government mandate? Even as mildly centrist a libertarian as myself (about minus one and change towards the libertarian end of the Political Compass' axis) would say you're not thinking libertarianly enough. As far as you're concerned, the political creation of a dependent class of Americans is a fine thing -- along with every other doctrinaire lefty Democrat. I can't see the fineness in being kept in a subadult condition. It's suboptimal psychologically, and deprives America of her economic engine.
Oh, goody! I just heard on the news that insurance companies have found a loophole and can still deny coverage to children with pre-exisiting conditions! Thank God!
for a minute there, I was worried some poor fu**ing kid would get some health care. Whew!
For starters, you show me where in the Constitution you're going to find authority for Congress to tell the citizenry where they are going to spend their moneys. And if you reply "Commerce Clause," I'm going to say, "Oh really?"
Start with the taxing powers of Congress:
[INDENT]Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.[/INDENT]
For the common defense AND the general welfare.
Now you can argue that affordable and accessible health care for all (or most) Americans is not in the general welfare of the US and I would disagree.
And yes, the Commerce Clause which the Courts have interpreted to go beyond simply interstate commerce (or economic activity).
The precedents are numerous, including recent examples in which conservatives like Scalia broadly interpreted the commerce clause.
Historically, George Washington and Congress in 1790 enacted the first health care mandate.
In 1790, Congress (many of the same founding fathers who wrote the Constitution) enacted a law requiring ships to carry medical supplies and provide health care for crew.
In 1798, those same Founding Fathers enacted the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen which created the U.S. Public health Service as well as the Marine Hospital Services (MHS).
The law forced every merchant mariner to pay 20 cents a month into a fund to pay for their medical care. This was one of the first direct taxes on individual citizens.
Government mandates for health care are nothing new.
Oh, goody! I just heard on the news that insurance companies have found a loophole and can still deny coverage to children with pre-exisiting conditions! Thank God!
for a minute there, I was worried some poor fu**ing kid would get some health care. Whew!
The "loophole" only means that insurance companies claim they may not have to cover pre-existing conditions in kids immediately as the law intended, but it would have to wait until 2014.
Its easy enough for Congress to fix when they get back from recess.
An unprincipled and inflationary attack upon the American economy is newish, and unwise, and it's not providing for the general welfare either. And it's something Republicans don't do, for which I'll salute them. Even Nixon's non-conservative wage and price freezes weren't what this is, and were abortive in any case. It was Reagan who managed the successful formula -- and Kennedy preceded him in the same. The laws of economics do not alter with the majority party. (Start reading with Hazlett. I did.)
Of course, we can take the power to levy this tax away from Congress, advising them that the next try had better be a reform that doesn't nationalize a sixth of the economy or anything near it. We have a few years to get that done, at least. Then we can Hope for something more in our pockets than Change.
Nothing in the power to levy taxes says, "magnify the public debt until it destroys the currency," and that is where Washington has been screwing up for a long time. I can't cheer along irresponsibility of that kind; I want good government -- you clearly don't -- and I'm not getting very much. If they wanted something to brag on, they should have kept that one-year Clinton surplus (the existence of which I still rather doubt -- it seemed to have the half-life of some isotopes of californium), achieved without mucking with tax rates, something they are openly contemplating again now. Well, everybody but the Dem Party knows you can't tax your way into prosperity. You prosper by lowering the cost of doing business, and that includes taxation along with everything else.
An unprincipled and inflationary attack upon the American economy is newish, and unwise, and it's not providing for the general welfare either. And it's something Republicans don't do, for which I'll salute them. Even Nixon's non-conservative wage and price freezes weren't what this is, and were abortive in any case. It was Reagan who managed the successful formula -- and Kennedy preceded him in the same. The laws of economics do not alter with the majority party. (Start reading with Hazlett. I did.)
Of course, we can take the power to levy this tax away from Congress, advising them that the next try had better be a reform that doesn't nationalize a sixth of the economy or anything near it. We have a few years to get that done, at least. Then we can Hope for something more in our pockets than Change.
Nothing in the power to levy taxes says, "magnify the public debt until it destroys the currency," and that is where Washington has been screwing up for a long time. I can't cheer along irresponsibility of that kind; I want good government -- you clearly don't -- and I'm not getting very much. If they wanted something to brag on, they should have kept that one-year Clinton surplus (the existence of which I still rather doubt -- it seemed to have the half-life of some isotopes of californium), achieved without mucking with tax rates, something they are openly contemplating again now. Well, everybody but the Dem Party knows you can't tax your way into prosperity. You prosper by lowering the cost of doing business, and that includes taxation along with everything else.
None of the above makes the case that the taxing powers of Congress, including to tax citizen for the general welfare of the US is unconstitutional.....just that you dont like it.
The other weak argument centers around those states, like Virginia, enacting their own legislation to prohibit the individual mandate to be enforced in the state.
That ignores the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution:
[INDENT]Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding[/INDENT]
The "unconstitutional" arguments make for great political theater and the opportunity for a few state AGs to win political favor from the right...but the legal arguments are weak.
You clearly do not wish to engage on the philosophical front -- on what a government should be doing -- when you can retreat into legalisms, which are weak philosophically. This is really a discussion on the philosophy of government -- and you are up against a small-government, liberty-minded sort of chap. Now then, dare you demonstrate how much the opposite you are?
Actually, you demonstrate that very thing, at length, in every political thread you post in. Makes me wonder why you would place such value upon subadulthood, that you would argue for it so fiercely, even while occasionally disclaiming either fierceness or argument. But no -- that you are motivated in the direction of aggrandizing the state is beyond merely evident; it is dominant.
And there is neither Constitutional mandate nor any especially sensible reason to magnify the public debt, or the public sector -- as I was at pains to point out.
You clearly do not wish to engage on the philosophical front -- on what a government should be doing -- when you can retreat into legalisms, which are weak philosophically. This is really a discussion on the philosophy of government -- and you are up against a small-government, liberty-minded sort of chap. Now then, dare you demonstrate how much the opposite you are?
Actually, you demonstrate that very thing, at length, in every political thread you post in. Makes me wonder why you would place such value upon subadulthood, that you would argue for it so fiercely, even while occasionally disclaiming either fierceness or argument. But no -- that you are motivated in the direction of aggrandizing the state is beyond merely evident; it is dominant.
And there is neither Constitutional mandate nor any especially sensible reason to magnify the public debt, or the public sector -- as I was at pains to point out.
When all else fails and you cant support your assertion that the health reform legislation is unconstitutional, fall back on your "sub-adult" characterization of those with whom you disagree...in and of itself, not very adult.
UG, you're a one trick pony.
As to maginfying the debt, the greatest perpetrators of that in the last 50 years were Reagan and Bush, both of whom more than doubled the national debt.
And as to aggrandizing the state, I would point you to again to the last 50 years and those accomplishments that libertarians scream are "big government, anti-freedom" and that most Americans proudly supported.
[INDENT]civil rights - including equal access to public accommodations and an end to workplace discrimination
cleaner and healthier environment resulting from comprehensive government regulations
medicare - providing affordable health care and extending the quality of life for millions of seniors
reducing childhood hunger
significantly reducing disease through tax payer funded medical research
enhanced consumer protections - food safety, auto safety, toys/household products, etc - through numerous regulatory controls of the "free market"
expanding opportunities for higher education to millions of kids of working families through govt subsidies[/INDENT]
I could go on, but I dont want to overwhelm you with these anti-libertarian successes
Tell me, which of the above dont you like or believe would have been accomplished by the "free market" with little or no government intervention?
added:
Oh, and while I am all for support democratic movements in other countries, where in the Constitution does it suggest that the US should be "freedom fighters" or the police force of the world if the US is not facing a direct threat?
This is really a discussion on the philosophy of government
This is a standard libertarian trick: if you can't get a good result in the Real World, where people make and judge and implement laws, just change the argument to the libertarian utopian "philosophy" world that doesn't actually exist and never has existed.
And then the argument is about what kind of world that would be, and you can win any of those arguments, because you've constructed it.
Oh, goody! I just heard on the news that insurance companies have found a loophole and can still deny coverage to children with pre-exisiting conditions! Thank God!
for a minute there, I was worried some poor fu**ing kid would get some health care. Whew!
Yup - you would think in 2000+ pages they could have at least gotten
that part right.
I'm sure we'll be promised fixes and they will attempt to address it, but I got a feelin' its gonna cost more, like all the rest of the changes they're probably going to include. Perhaps then we can get a better idea of what this really is and what it will cost.
What's wrong with the comprehensive health care reform legislation?
Not a 2000 page bill (it was about 225 pages in the final printing in the Record) or the even smaller (20 page?) reconciliation bill.
Its racist!
According to "Doc" Thompson, substituting for Glenn Beck (he of the phantom 12,000 new IRS agents) today:
[INDENT]"Racism has been dropped at my front door and the front door of all lighter-skinned Americans. The health care bill the president just singed into law includes a 10 percent tax on all indoor tanning sessions starting July 1st, and I say, who uses tanning? Is it dark-skinned people? I don’t think so. I would guess that most tanning sessions are from light-skinned Americans. Why would the President of the United Stats of America — a man who says he understands racism, a man who has been confronted with racism — why would he sign such a racist law? Why would he agree to do that? Well now I feel the pain of racism."[/INDENT]
Not only racist, but anti-freedom!
Who cares if the tax might serve as a disincentive to the carcinogenic practice of indoor tanning...bah, its anti-freedom...."if I want to increase the chance of skin cancer, its my right!"
added:
UG...I hope you have better sense than to fry yourself for purely cosmetic purposes like Boenher. ;)
Health overhaul likely to strain doctor shortage
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
Better beat the crowd and find a doctor.
Primary care physicians already are in short supply in parts of the country, and the landmark health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.
The new law goes beyond offering coverage to the uninsured, with steps to improve the quality of care for the average person and help keep us well instead of today's seek-care-after-you're-sick culture. To benefit, you'll need a regular health provider.
Yet recently published reports predict a shortfall of roughly 40,000 primary care doctors over the next decade, a field losing out to the better pay, better hours and higher profile of many other specialties. Provisions in the new law aim to start reversing that tide, from bonus payments for certain physicians to expanded community health centers that will pick up some of the slack.
Who is going to staff these "new" non-existing clinics?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTHBEAT_PRIMARY_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-29-03-18-15Nurse practitioners.
There is a clinic in my grocery store that staffs only nurse practitioners, and they can give checkups, as well as diagnose and prescribe medications for every common ailment. We also go to two doctors' offices where the default appointment is with the nurse practitioner, and you only get to see the primary care doctor if there's something strange wrong with you.
With less required schooling, they can get practicing in the field quicker, have less educational debt to have to pay off, and can carry minimal (perhaps even no?) malpractice insurance, all of which means better access and lower prices for sick people. I like the trend.
My experience is that nurses, nurse practioners, physician assistants, and technicians are already doing to much of a doctor's job.
I really like both the nurse practitioner and the PA in my doctor's office. If I just need something for a cold or something I can get in to one of them about any time. But, I really like my doctors in general: I have one main one I see in the practice, but have seen them all at one time or another. My mom got us in on the ground floor when two of them started the practice, because I was insisting I was way too old to continue seeing the pediatrician.
Nurse practitioners.
There is a clinic in my grocery store that staffs only nurse practitioners, and they can give checkups, as well as diagnose and prescribe medications for every common ailment. We also go to two doctors' offices where the default appointment is with the nurse practitioner, and you only get to see the primary care doctor if there's something strange wrong with you.
With less required schooling, they can get practicing in the field quicker, have less educational debt to have to pay off, and can carry minimal (perhaps even no?) malpractice insurance, all of which means better access and lower prices for sick people. I like the trend.
I like the trend as well and fully support it. :D
It is not an answer to the problem. Not now and not in the immediate future. There are not enough to go around.
Btw, yes they all carry malpractice insurance. But it does not cost as much, about 10 - 20% less than a doc.
My experience is that nurses, nurse practioners, physician assistants, and technicians are already doing to much of a doctor's job.
Nurse practitioners seem to have much better people skills than a lot of docs as well. We seem to be paying for a lot of ego in health care, I'd rather pay for competence. My cow-orkers husband is a NP in an Emergency Room and has gotten some good job offers lately.
Nurse practitioners seem to have much better people skills than a lot of docs as well. We seem to be paying for a lot of ego in health care, I'd rather pay for competence. My cow-orkers husband is a NP in an Emergency Room and has gotten some good job offers lately.
I guess my issue is that we're
paying for a
doctor's visit, but visiting someone who is
not a doctor.
Well, like any profession...
The doctor could be some old dithering codger who hasn't kept up on modern medicine, and the nurse practitioner could be the smartest person on earth and know all the latest.
Doctors sometimes act like gods because people think they ARE gods. You don't want them to think they are god but you think they are better than everyone else in the medical profession.
*shrugs*
This is a standard libertarian trick: if you can't get a good result in the Real World, where people make and judge and implement laws, just change the argument to the libertarian utopian "philosophy" world that doesn't actually exist and never has existed.
And we reply with the philosophical question
And just why shouldn't it? We figure that we've got some insight into a better, small-government road. It's adult thinking, not dependent thinking. Free thinking, not bound.
I for one do not believe in Utopia and never did and thus escape that pitfall. I've put it to Libertarians that "pure libertarianism," however defined, isn't possible. Accepting that, some more libertarian ideas in our political culture would not go amiss among the party of adult thinking however denominated.
You were the first to advance Constitutionality. Once Dux met your arguments one for one, at that point - about a week into it! - you said that addressing the legalisms is not the real crux of the argument.
You were losing the game you asked to play, so you demanded to play a different game.
Adult thinking? Childish behavior.
You were the first to advance Constitutionality. Once Dux met your arguments one for one, at that point - about a week into it! - you said that addressing the legalisms is not the real crux of the argument.
You were losing the game you asked to play, so you demanded to play a different game.
Adult thinking? Childish behavior.
He shoots, he scores!
As I stated numerous times...
Health Reform Risk: Young People May Opt For Fine Over ‘Obamacare’
A big unknown in the new national health care reform championed by President Obama is whether the 14 million or so young uninsured young people will choose to pay thousands in premiums or to pay the $95 government fine that begins in 2014.
“If I am 25 years old and relatively healthy, it might be an economically rational decision for me to pay the $95 penalty for the year versus the thousands of dollars in premiums,” Leslie Norwalk, the former acting administrator for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, was quoted in a CNN report. “But for insurers to pay for more sick people, they also need more healthier people to sign up for coverage.”
The fine goes up to $695 by 2016, or 2.5 percent of an individual’s income, but some experts say that might not be enough to force the “young invincibles,” people under age 30 who haven’t previously been insured, to buy health insurance. Of course, many in this 14 million-strong group of young people are uninsured because they haven’t been able to afford it.
http://indyposted.com/17135/health-reform-risk-young-people-may-opt-for-fine-over-%E2%80%98obamacare%E2%80%99/I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.
Good read.
I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.
Good read.
They counted on everyone signing up, that is why the math was fuzzy and the plan would never work as they said it would. If I were a 20 something I would much rather pay the fine even when it gets to the $600 range as it will be cheaper than insurance.
I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.
Good read.
Start with some basic numbers.
Of the 40+ million uninsured, about 15 million are under 29 yrs old and 25 million are between 30-65 (ballpark figures)
Of those 15 million under 29 yrs old, a significant number (50%?) would qualify for Medicaid with the expansion to cover all individuals at or below 133% of poverty level.
Of the remaining, some might stay on the parents plan....but those married probably wont since their spouse would not be covered.
If they want to start a family, they will certainly buy into an insurance plan on the Exchange, unless they want to pay $8,000 (ave cost) to have a kid.
As was discussed previously, one can take a risk and pay the fine....but a serious accident, sudden major illness...and you risk bankruptcy at a very young age.
And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.
And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.
Ok then, how many did they assume would join?
As was discussed previously, one can take a risk and pay the fine....but a serious accident, sudden major illness...and you risk bankruptcy at a very young age.
And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.
Bullshit....
You will be covered under Obamacare.
Ok then, how many did they assume would join?
Try reading the CBO report and the description of the econometric modeling used.
It describes how it determined a range of individual participation rates based on the rate of subsidy...the higher the subsidy, the higher the participation rate.
It also look at other mandates and used other modeling based on experiences of those mandates, including the experience in Mass (an estimated 3% are paying the penalty), experience with other mandates (ie car insurance and factoring in that health insurance is more costly than auto insurance) etc.
added:
Bullshit....
You will be covered under Obamacare.
I would be happy to have a moderated discussion with both you guys.,,,where claiming "bullshit" or "failed" does not validate your position. :)
Until next time.
Try reading the CBO report and the description of the econometric modeling used.
It describes how it determined a range of individual participation rates based on the rate of subsidy...the higher the subsidy, the higher the participation rate.
It also look at other mandates and used other modeling based on experiences of those mandates, including the experience in Mass (an estimated 3% are paying the penalty), experience with other mandates (ie car insurance and factoring in that health insurance is more costly than auto insurance) etc.
You can't back it up with objective data. If you can, present it. I would be glad to tear it apart for you.
It also look at other mandates and used other modeling based on experiences of those mandates, including the experience in Mass (an estimated 3% are paying the penalty), experience with other mandates (ie car insurance and factoring in that health insurance is more costly than auto insurance) etc.
So 97% bought in? Or is it that only 3 % were not covered by other means like medicaid.
So 97% bought in? Or is it that only 3 % were not covered by other means like medicaid.
Approximately 3% of taxpayers were determined by the Commonwealth to have had access to affordable insurance but paid an income tax penalty instead. Approximately 2% were determined not to have had access to affordable insurance, and a small number opted for a religious exemption to the mandate.[37] As of June 30, 2008, the estimated number of uninsured had dropped to 2.6%.[37] Comparing the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2008, spending from the Health Safety Net Fund dropped 38% as more people became insured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#OutcomesNot extrapolated to the greater population of the US no matter how you statistically screw it. No way, no how...
My last post was poorly written - I took your word for it that the number in MA was 3% -
Is that the number the CBO assumed is would opt-in nationally?
My last post was poorly written - I took your word for it that the number in MA was 3% -
Is that the number the CBO assumed is would opt-in nationally?
No....the CBO uses widely accepted econometiric modeling and the MA experience was only one factor in which it would account for the difference in demographics to determine a reasonable expectation of participation.
The other factors are equally important, particularly determining different participation rates based on the different subsidy rates.....higher subsidies --> higher participation.
It is also a fact that a significant number (50% or more) of the uninsured between 19-26 would now be Medicaid eligible based solely on income.
It is also a fact that if you opt out and pay the penalty, you cant suddenly opt in at the time of an accident...and I think it is reasonable to assume that if you are young and newly married and want to start a family, then you would likely opt in rather than pay $8,000 (cost of a pregnancy) to start that family.
I got all that the first time. The question stands. What % did they assume would opt-in? They had to make an assumption in order to do the cost comparisons? How else could the administration make the claim that Obamacare is going to be cost neutral?
tangent/I'm shocked at the MA numbers.
AKA total fucking guess work. Any way you look at it you will be covered under Obamacare, just like all the illegal aliens are today. Well that is of course if they are not covered as they are now. So far the penalties will in no way encourage people to buy insurances.. just as I have been saying for over a year now.
Oh, but no worry, the tax payers will pay for it...
I got all that the first time. The question stands. What % did they assume would opt-in? They had to make an assumption in order to do the cost comparisons? How else could the administration make the claim that Obamacare is going to be cost neutral?
tangent/I'm shocked at the MA numbers.
If you take the time to read the report and the modeling description, it explains the different scenarios and outcomes.
I...the modeling description,.....
Read between the lines people...
THIS is freaking guess work with your tax payer dollars and your childrens future...
Don't trust these scumbags...
If you take the time to read the report and the modeling description, it explains the different scenarios and outcomes.
ok I'll have to go back and find it.
Who is going to see all these new patients?
Medical Schools Can't Keep Up
As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years
The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.
Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.
The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.
The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.
A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.
Proponents of the new health-care law say it does attempt to address the physician shortage. The law offers sweeteners to encourage more people to enter medical professions, and a 10% Medicare pay boost for primary-care doctors.
Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.
But medical colleges and hospitals warn that these efforts will hit a big bottleneck: There is a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecondNote to self: take a few bio classes, become a physician's assistant, diagnose the easy stuff like kids' ear infections and make six figures.
Note to self: take a few bio classes, become a physician's assistant, diagnose the easy stuff like kids' ear infections and make six figures.
You absolutely could do that.
And people are wondering where all the jobs are going to be.
I would encourage anyone who thinks they can make it through a program to go for it. Problem is many can't and there are not enough slots to go around to meet the need. Another reason that people are going to be highly disappointed when they try to get care.
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]As stated numerous times here...[/COLOR]
Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases
The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year.
'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.
Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.
And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.
Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.storyWell, one way you don't have health insurance and don't get treated; the other way you do have health insurance and don't get treated. It is my understanding that the shortage of primary care physcians is because so many doctors opt for one of the higher paying speciality fields. I think that is a greater problem than the greatunwashed and previously uninsured stampeding through medical doors.
Those selfish sick children will be clogging up my doc's office. Buncha fuckers.
Well, one way you don't have health insurance and don't get treated; the other way you do have health insurance and don't get treated. It is my understanding that the shortage of primary care physcians is because so many doctors opt for one of the higher paying speciality fields. I think that is a greater problem than the greatunwashed and previously uninsured stampeding through medical doors.
I think there is a lot of truth to that, esp with the costs of the education. And there are people who just don't find family medicine all that interesting.
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]As stated numerous times here...[/COLOR]
Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases
The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year. 'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story
There are strong disincentives in the legislation (as noted in the article) to keep premiums from rising:
For the first time, all insurance companies would have to dedicate at least 75% of their premiums to paying medical claims; this would reduce the proportion of companies' revenue that could go to administrative expenses, such as executive salaries and stockholder dividends. Some analysts think that requirement could restrain premium growth.
The healthcare bill allows regulators to ban insurers from the exchanges if their rates are deemed unjustified.
There are several independent studies that conclude that these provisions will stabilize premiums. You and others disagree.
Will those disincentives be enough? The fact remains that no one knows with certainty what will happen until regs are written and the reform is fully implemented...at which time, additional regs may or may not be needed.
As you like to ask others all the time....
where's the evidence that the legislation wont control premiums. It is pure speculation.
And where is the evidence that illegal immigrants will be covered as you claimed?
And where is the evidence that the CBO assumed all young adults would opt in as you claimed?
And where is the evidence that the majority of the country does not support the reform as you claimed?
Why are you the only one who does not have to provide evidence to support your opinion?
There are strong disincentives in the legislation (as noted in the article) to keep premiums from rising:
There are several independent studies that conclude that these provisions will stabilize premiums. You and others disagree.
But the fact remains that no one knows with certainty what will happen until regs are written and the reform is fully implemented...at which time, additional regs may or may not be needed.
As you like to ask others all the time....where's the evidence that the legislation wont control premiums. It is pure speculation.
And where is the evidence that illegal immigrants will be covered as you claimed?
And where is the evidence that the CBO assumed all young adults would opt in as you claimed?
And where is the evidence that the majority of the country does not support the reform?
Why are you the only one who does not have to provide evidence to support your opinion?
Where is your evidence to dispute it?
I guess Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a lying bitch. Go figure. Not that I am surprised...
Where is your evidence to dispute it?
As I stated, the impact on premiums is pure speculation...there is no evidence one way or another until regs are written and full package is implemented. I agree with one set of studies and you agree with another. My opinion doesnt "failed" any more than yours does until there are facts.
The evidence regarding illegal immigrants is in the unambiguous language in the legislation .
The evidence regarding young adults optingn in to the mandate is in the CBO report, which is based on many paying the fine instead...to the tune of $2 billion in fine/tax revenue.
The evidence regarding public supporting or not supporting the legislation can be seen in polls. While some polls put the majority of opinion as opposed to the legislation, it it because a significant minority thinks it does not go far enough..not that it goes too far.
Your turn. :)
I guess Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a lying bitch. Go figure. Not that I am surprised...
Feinstein is a proponent of stronger legislation and has been from the start and she is stating her opinion, which is no more factual than yours or mine. The fact remains that there is no evidence either way until regs are written and the bill is fully implemented.
As I stated, the impact on premiums is pure speculation...there is no evidence one way or another until regs are written and full package is implemented.
That is not what was sold to the American Public. And you know it.
The evidence regarding illegal immigrants is in the unambiguous language in the legislation .
So you can't really dispute it.
The evidence regarding young adults optingn in to the mandate is in the CBO report, which is based on many paying the fine instead...to the tune of $2 billion in fine/tax revenue.
The point is the whole thing falls appart if people don't participate. You know, the healthy people you were counting on.
The evidence regarding public supporting or not supporting the legislation can be seen in polls. While some polls put the majority of opinion as opposed to the legislation, it it because a significant minority thinks it does not go far enough..not that it goes too far.
Not significant.
So you have no evidence to support any of your claims.
No surprise.
Later, dude.
So you have no evidence to support any of your claims.
No surprise.
Later, dude.
Sorry, I am just not interested in your Obamapropaganda.... The floor is yours to defend.
And this is what the whole problem with this Administration is... they sold the public on so much BS... "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs"... "Healthcare for all!"... "We will close Gitmo!"..... and it was all smoke and mirrors...
The electorate has taken notice.
Sorry, I am just not interested in your Obamapropaganda.... The floor is yours to defend.
And this is what the whole problem with this Administration is... they sold the public on so much BS... "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs"... "Healthcare for all!"... "We will close Gitmo!"..... and it was all smoke and mirrors...
The electorate has taken notice.
Your standard fallback post when you are asked to cite or provide evidence to support your "facts" and you cant or wont.
We'll see what happens in November. The Democrats will lose seats in both the House and Senate....I predicted months ago they they will lose anywhere from 20-30 in the House and 5-7 in the Senate. But it is still six month away and far too soon to tell. I might revise my prediction after Labor Day.
BTW.. yesterday in Florida..in the first
election for a vacant House seat since the health reform was enacted, the Democrat beat the Republican who made the campaign all about the "socialist" bill ("government takeover") that will "hurt seniors" ("gutting Medicare").....62% to 35%. It was a Democratic district, but also a very heavy senior district and the fear and smear campaign didnt work....not even close.
In the meantime, I am still trying to understand why you think it is reasonable for you to demand cites and evidence from others but do not have to provide cities and evidence of your own when requested.
How do I get that special exemption?
Or to put it another way.
Why are your opinions any more valid than those that you declare as "failed" or "bullshit" because they are counter to yours?
From your link:
Lynch, a contractor, sought to make the race a statement on the health care bill ~snip~
Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1.
the district, voted about 65 percent for Obama in 2008.
Good for Deutch. Was this ever a contest? No.
Did anyone really think at any point in time that a contractor making a statement was going to beat an established politician?
From your link:
Good for Deutch. Was this ever a contest? No.
Did anyone really think at any point in time that a contractor making a statement was going to beat an established politician?
Democrats had nearly a 3:1 voter registration in Massachusetts.
My point is that one Senate or House election is not a trend as many want to suggest from the Brown victory in Mass.
If anything came out of the Florida congressional election, it is that the Democratic base was as energized as the opposition this time around.
And it is not as simple as some here choose to believe. Many factors will come into play, including the possibility of Tea Party candidates as third parties, splitting the vote on the right. This is the greatest fear of the Republican establishment.
Hell, even Harry Reid, who is probably DOA in a two-party race, has more than a fighting chanced if there is a Tea Party candidate as is a very real possibility.
And further...."The electorate has taken notice" is not a valid response to every question in every discussion as much as it is a means of deflection.
And further...."The electorate has taken notice" is not a valid response to every question in every discussion as much as it is a means of deflection.
But it is a fact. Even if you choose to keep your head in the sand.
What discussion?
Why are your opinions any more valid than those that you declare as "failed" or "bullshit" because they are counter to yours?
Oh, they aren't. But your comments are 99% Obama White House and Demoncratic Talking points. That makes most of the BS from the start.
Oh, they aren't. But your comments are 99% Obama White House and Demoncratic Talking points. That makes most of the BS from the start.
There is a very simple and civil way to settle it and in which some find even find interesting or at least, entertaining.
Let an independent and objective person moderate a live discussion between us....unless you think UT has a hidden leftist agenda.
Man up, dude. :D
There is a very simple and civil way to settle it and in which some find even find interesting or at least, entertaining.
Let an independent and objective person moderate a live discussion between us....unless you think UT has a hidden leftist agenda.
Man up, dude. :D
[yawn] No one gives a shit. You would post crap that you belive, I would post crap that I believe. It would be a big waste of time. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours, and don't care to try, it was never my intention in responding to your BS propaganda. Only to expose it for what it is.... BS propaganda.
[yawn] No one gives a shit. You would post crap that you belive, I would post crap that I believe. It would be a big waste of time. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours, and don't care to try, it was never my intention in responding to your BS propaganda. Only to expose it for what it is.... BS propaganda.
It is not about changing each others minds.....it is about presenting an objective, civil discussion moderated by someone who has no vested political interest in the outcome and w/o the charges of "failed" or "bullshit" or "propaganda"....and let others decide for themselves.
No balls....just as I suspected.
Carry on.
No balls....just as I suspected.
Carry on.
What a silly response. What? you think this is some highschool game?
No, I just no respect for you or your opinions.
Children you have your own thread - go sling shit there.
[COLOR="White"](I can't believe I just typed that)[/COLOR]
Democrats had nearly a 3:1 voter registration in Massachusetts.
Very different situation. This guy is a friggin contractor - not a politician.
If anything came out of the Florida congressional election, it is that the Democratic base was as energized as the opposition this time around.
That is a very positive way to look at it - Good for you.
And it is not as simple as some here choose to believe. Many factors will come into play, including the possibility of Tea Party candidates as third parties, splitting the vote on the right. This is the greatest fear of the Republican establishment.
And a great hope of the D's
Hell, even Harry Reid, who is probably DOA in a two-party race, has more than a fighting chanced if there is a Tea Party candidate as is a very real possibility.
Scary - very scary, but probably true.
Very different situation. This guy is a friggin contractor - not a politician.
That is a very positive way to look at it - Good for you.
And a great hope of the D's
Scary - very scary, but probably true.
The secret plan is to use
12,000 IRS that you claimed were in the bill (when in fact, that was a figment of Beck's imagination that you bought into) to take out the opposition house by house. ;)
How many are they going to hire then? No one says that they aren't hiring more. The 16,500 number was based upon the report of the the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. If I read it correctly, it is a high number -
In its analysis, the CBO wrote that it had "not completed an estimate of the discretionary costs that would be associated with the legislation," including the costs for the IRS and other "federal agencies that would be responsible for implementing the provisions of the legislation."
But CBO did offer an estimate of the costs to the IRS for "implementing the eligibility determination, documentation, and verification processes for premium and cost-sharing credits." The IRS, the analysis said, "would probably" need to spend "between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years."
However, CBO did not translate that dollar range into a possible number of new hires. Instead, that task was taken up by another group -- the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Politifact
The real number is unknown. Reported guesses, and thats all they are, are somewhere between 8,250 and 16,500. I guessed at the middle which was the 12,000 you conveniently cited.
The truth is there will be hires at the IRS and the actual number is unknown at this time. Could it be 12,000? Absolutely. Maybe more? Well from what I've seen by our Gov't they never spend less and nothing is ever under budget.
Of course there will be hires as well as much the funds dedicated to an enhanced infrastructure and other non-personnel expenditures to process forms to provide as documentation to those who opt in to the Exchange.
The high numbers in the Republic analysis are as much, or more, a political statement, rather than a statement of facts.
But thanks for at least providing a credible link.
It does get tiring seeing comments posted as "facts" that more often than not, are not backed up with a link when requested. The argument that "I dont have to prove I am right..,,,you have to prove I am wrong".....IMO, is not an honest way to discuss an issue.
And finally. the politics of health care, and the so-called propaganda, is not all on one side as some would to suggest.
One cant cite the CBO when it suits ones purpose, then claim it is "a tool of the White House" when it does not....or conveniently cite govt data when it suits you and dismissing govt data as biased when it doesnt.
But my comment was mostly meant as a joke.
Of course there will be hires
Thanks for admitting that.
The high numbers in the Republic analysis are as much, or more, a political statement, rather than a statement of facts.
Gee really? That is why I chose in the middle.
It does get tiring seeing comments posted as "facts" that more often than not, are not backed up with a link when requested. The argument that "I dont have to prove I am right..,,,you have to prove I am wrong".....IMO, is not an honest way to discuss an issue.
Not my game - got a bitch with someone else? Take it up with them.
And finally. the politics of health care, and the so-called propaganda, is not all on one side as some would to suggest.
Nope the D's are spinning just as much as the R's.
One cant cite the CBO when it suits ones purpose, then claim it is "a tool of the White House" when it does not....or conveniently cite govt data when it suits you and dismissing govt data as biased when it doesnt.
Was there some other source of data in this case? And no I didn't personally cite the CBO. It was used to reference how the number was derrived.
But my comment was mostly meant as a joke.
Backhanded at best the way I'm reading it. w/e ... I tried.
IMO, you do much the same as you accuse others of doing....with the addition of always being the martyr ("w/e...I tried")...or your "hidden" signature...not a cheap shot at someone?
The examples are numerous....the posting of statements of "fact" and when asked to cite a source, you turn the table. (my favorite example? How is a site that relies solely on govt data -- stimuluswatch.org - more credible than the govt data? I still dont get it)
Taking the middle road? More like straddling the fence. (How do you take the middle road when charges of Nazis in Congress are thrown into discussions?). You either stand up and say "bullshit" or you go quiet and enable it.
And the endless links that you find "interesting"....if they are so interesting, take a fucking position on them...not wait to see what others might think!
The jokes? Come on, dude....you are always complaining that people dont get it when you "joke"...because they (or at least I) see it as backhanded shots.
Honestly, I gave up on having honest discussions here....now I'm just here (dont worry, it will be less often...I have a site where adults actually discuss the issues from all sides w/o making it personal) for the kick of pointing out the hypocrisies and double standards.
So......on with the Merciless Merc and Classhole comedy hour! The floor is all yours, guys. :)
Well at least there is that one positive.
IMO, you do much the same as you accuse others of doing....with the addition of always being the martyr ("w/e...I tried")...or your "hidden" signature...not a cheap shot at someone?
The examples are numerous....the posting of statements of "fact" and when asked to cite a source, you turn the table. (my favorite example? How is a site that relies solely on govt data -- stimuluswatch.org - more credible than the govt data? I still dont get it)
Taking the middle road? More like straddling the fence. (How do you take the middle road when charges of Nazis in Congress are thrown into discussions?). You either stand up and say "bullshit" or you go quiet and enable it.
And the endless links that you find "interesting"....if they are so interesting, take a fucking position on them...not wait to see what others might think!
The jokes? Come on, dude....you are always complaining that people dont get it when you "joke"...because they (or at least I) see it as backhanded shots.
Honestly, I gave up on having honest discussions here....now I'm just here (dont worry, it will be less often...I have a site where adults actually discuss the issues from all sides w/o making it personal) for the kick of pointing out the hypocrisies and double standards.
So......on with the Merciless Merc and Classhole comedy hour! The floor is all yours, guys. :)
Oh, give us the link. :lol:
Insurance premiums are likely to keep going up over the next few years. Experts predict that the law's early benefits — such as expanded coverage for children and young adults — could nudge rates a little higher than would otherwise have been the case. Also, insurers and medical providers could try to raise their prices ahead of big shifts set for 2014.
Under the 10-year, $1 trillion plan, 2014 is when competitive insurance markets for individuals and small businesses are expected to open, and tax credits start flowing to help millions of middle-class households now uninsured. Medicaid will expand and pick up millions of low-income people. Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers no longer could turn away those in poor health.
More than 30 million previously uninsured people would gain coverage quickly — and they'll start going to the doctor for care previously postponed. Increased demand will push up health care spending, putting more pressure on premiums.
The cost controls in the bill are unlikely to provide much of a counterweight. Democrats scrambling to line up votes for the final bill weakened a provision that would have enforced austerity through a hefty tax on high-cost employer coverage.
Other savings in the law — mainly Medicare cuts — may prove politically unsustainable, according to the government's own experts.
The problem isn't that the 2,700-page law is devoid of ideas for curbing costs. Many mainstream proposals are incorporated in some form. But what will work?
While the law creates a commission to keep pursuing deeper Medicare savings, there's no overall cost control strategy and no single official to coordinate many experiments seeking greater efficiency.
"This bill takes a sort of spaghetti approach to cost control," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who supports the broad goals of the overhaul. "You throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what will stick. Health care, Round Two, is when we will make a serious effort at cutting costs down, based on what this law has shown us."
If the law gets a B plus for expanding coverage to 95 percent of eligible Americans, it probably deserves a C minus or D for cost control. The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, with some results worse than what other developed countries get by spending far less.
"Most people who have problems with health care costs now are not going to see much change in the next few years," said Mark McClellan, who ran Medicare under former Republican President George W. Bush. "Hopefully some of these ideas will work, but it's not automatic. I do hope we can revisit this in a more bipartisan manner."
linkI hope the premiums go out of the roof.... :lol:
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/23/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Law-Costs.html?_r=2Endangered House Democrat Baron Hill justified his vote for the health-care bill by declaring:
This reform version covers more uninsured Americans than the respective House and Senate bills, while also reducing the deficit more effectively. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the revised bill reduces the deficit by one hundred and thirty eight billion dollars during the first ten years of the program, and reduces the deficit by more than one trillion dollars in the second ten years, effectively making it the biggest deficit reduction legislation since 1993.
Endangered House Democrat John Boccieri justified his vote for the health-care bill by declaring:
This bill may not be perfect but it strikes the proper balance of reducing costs, increasing consumer choices and lowering the staggering deficit from runaway health care spending.
Endangered House Democrat . . . eh, you're catching the drift.
Charlie Wilson of Ohio:
I have seen the CBO score and the reconciliation changes for myself. This bill will not add a dime to the deficit.
Suzanne Kosmas of Florida:
The bill before us now represents the single largest deficit reduction in over a decade, saving nearly $140 billion in the first 10 years and over $1.2 trillion in the decade to follow. This legislation provides truly fiscally responsible reform, and it contains the strongest measures ever enacted to help eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the system, to rein in skyrocketing health care costs, and to stabilize Medicare while preserving benefits.
AmericanThinker
What's new, medical shit has been going up 6%ish a year for awhile, even though the recession.
What Health Law Didn't Fix: Medicare Doctor Pay
Call it Medicare's version of Groundhog Day.
For the third time this year, Congress has just days to avert a scheduled 21 percent cut in pay to doctors who treat seniors and others on the Medicare program. And while just about everyone agrees a cut of that magnitude would be devastating for Medicare and the patients it serves, no one seems to be able to figure out how to solve the problem in anything except a stopgap way.
How It Began
The trouble actually dates back to 1997, when Congress passed a balanced budget law that put the current formula in place determining how doctors will be paid. The idea was that if doctors as a group cost Medicare too much, their pay would be docked to make up the difference in future years.
But James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, says it was clear from the start that the "sustainable growth rate" would be anything but.
"We want to keep people healthy, and this formula penalizes [doctors] for doing the quality care you want," Rohack says.
For example, he says, "by keeping people's blood sugars under control, or helping them stay out of the hospital when they have heart failure," doctors may save Medicare money overall, but run up overall physician spending that then triggers future physician pay cuts.
Finding Physicians Who Take Medicare
And if those cuts get big enough, people worry that over time there will be more patients like Janice Jessup, a Medicare beneficiary in Virginia Beach, Va.
The last time Jessup needed to find a new primary care doctor a couple of years ago, she says she called as many as 40 doctors all over town. And what did they tell her?
"They weren't taking Medicare patients anymore," she says.
Jessup, who had severely cut her leg and ended up needing substantial follow-up care, eventually went to a walk-in clinic where she did get the care she needed. But it wasn't the care she wanted.
"It isn't the full medical attention you need with a primary physician. No lab tests or anything," she says.
'Chaos' For Doctors
From the doctors' point of view, however, it's not hard to see why they're getting more reluctant to take on new Medicare patients.
"We haven't had a raise in seven years," says Joseph Stubbs, the immediate past president of the American College of Physicians, which represents more than 100,000 internists.
Stubbs says as professionals, doctors feel a strong sense of duty to continue to care for their Medicare patients, even when profits erode. But at some point the balance will tip, he says, including for his own group of nine doctors in Georgia.
"We're having to face, well, if those cuts go into effect, we need to cut personnel," he says. "It will cost us, instead of reimburse us, to take care of Medicare beneficiaries."
And Congress has now made matters even worse, Stubbs says, by delaying the cuts not a year at a time, but — because of complicated federal budget rules — only by a month or two.
That's because making the cuts disappear entirely would add to the federal deficit at eye-popping amounts. An estimate issued last week by the Congressional Budget Office said merely canceling projected cuts in Medicare pay for doctors over the next decade — without giving them any increases — could cost $276 billion over the next decade.
But the short-term fixes have left physicians wondering what their income might be, and what to tell patients.
"It is absolute chaos for us as business people," Stubbs says. "What business could deal with not knowing whether your price is going to be up in the next month, or the same, or be cut by 21 percent? It's no way to be able to plan."
Searching For A New System Isn't Easy
Groups representing patients want to ensure that there are enough doctors to serve Medicare beneficiaries. But they're wary about the doctors' prescription for fixing the problem, which calls for repealing the current formula in its entirety.
"We don't just want to just remove all limits on what doctors can charge. That's a good way to get to bankruptcy," says John Rother of the senior group AARP.
Still, Rother agrees with the physician groups that Congress has not been fair about its handling of their Medicare payments.
"No one would defend a month at a time. Even a year at a time is problematic. So we certainly believe if it can't be permanent, it ought to be a multiyear fix," he says.
Physicians, not surprisingly, are a bit more emphatic about what they want from Congress, particularly after the issue got punted from the recently enacted health overhaul bill because of its price tag.
"From a fiscal standpoint, when they say they, 'Well gee, we can't do it because it will add to the deficit,' well, the reality is every one of these temporary patches has grown the deficit," says Rohack. "They could have fixed this three years ago for less than $50 billion."
Now the number is rapidly approaching $300 billion.
So the search continues for a new system that would pay doctors on Medicare fairly, but neither too much nor too little. That search has, so far, been elusive.
And the latest delay in the cut expires on May 31.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126535110The ink was barely dry on President Obama's signature before the RAND Corporation released a report concluding that not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb premium increases, but the bill would drive premiums up as much as 17 percent for young people.
This should not have been a surprise: the Congressional Budget Office had already warned that the bill would do almost nothing to reduce future premium hikes. And when New York implemented the same time of insurance reforms in the 1980s, it led to a nearly $500-per-year increase in premiums for young people. But somehow, the media didn't pay much attention.
And of course, back during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under the bill. Some of those will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.
In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back into traditional Medicare.
And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill recently, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over the next 10 years.
At the same time, the actuary warns that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur.
"The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.
Continues:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/07/obamas_health_care_promises_already_busted_105494.htmlThat's why they should have passed a single payer system.
As I said before, I wish if they were going to go in they at least added the GOBBERMENT option. But no... the fucks would rather appease and screw our children and grand children for generations on end and never fix the problems...
Just like the failed Bail-out programs...
Where are the jobs Dems???
You guys are about to eat a big shit sandwhich.
As I stated earlier in this debate, they bullshitted all of us with the numbers and how much it was going to cost. Now here we are..
May 12, 2010
um...about those budget savings we were going to get from Obamacare...
Ethel C. Fenig
Whoops! There goes the Congressional Budget office again--proving with hard facts and figures that Obamacare will cost more, as a matter of fact, much, much more, $115 billion more over ten years than President Barack Hussein Obama (D) estimated.
But...but...but Obama claimed his bill would reduce costs. Ah, but as the first ever female Speaker of the House, Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated while pushing it through, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Well ok, Barack, Nancy and all the others, we are now finding out what's in what you passed.
The budget scam that would have made Bernie Madoff blush. Medicare won't be cut.
And then there are all types of administrative money devouring costs and discretionary spending that CBO didn't mention in the original draft but are now part of the final health care legislation.
[A]dministrative expenses for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service for carrying out key requirements of the legislation.
Explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending for which the act identifies the specific funding levels it envisions for one or more years.
(snip)
Explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending for which no specific funding levels are identified in the legislation.
The $115 billion cost overrun doesn't even include the third item.
Ok the law was passed in what Pelosi believed was the most open process ever.
Greece, here we come! But who will loan us money then? China? Saudi Arabia?
hat tip: David Hogberg, investors.com
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/umabout_those_budget_savings_w.htmlI read something about that last night. IIRC, it appears as though there were OPTIONS for some discretionary spending that could be as much as $115 Billion.
The right picked up on it and repeated it as gospel. I don't think it was quite that cut and dried.
I read something about that last night. IIRC, it appears as though there were OPTIONS for some discretionary spending that could be as much as $115 Billion.
The right picked up on it and repeated it as gospel. I don't think it was quite that cut and dried.
Yea, the CBO report actually said the numbers were not written in stone. Here is another report on the subject from CNN:
CBO doubles some health care spending estimates
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/11/cbo-doubles-some-health-care-spending-estimates/
Bottom line is it will cost more and the propaganda fed to the publick about "Deficit neutral" was bullshit...
Long story short ... it's a work in progress. The R's better figure out why the Single payer/Universal plan they fought off is worse than this clusterfuck of unknown shit.
Long story short ... it's a work in progress. The R's better figure out why the Single payer/Universal plan they fought off is worse than this clusterfuck of unknown shit.
They don't really have to figure out shit until they are in power again in some form. Until them it is all in the Dems lap; lock, stock, and barrel.
Not in my book. The R's fought long and hard for what they thought was better than the Single payer/Universal the D's wanted.
IMO, both parties have to tel me why this is the best for America.
"Because thats all we could get." is not an acceptable answer for me.
Not in my book. The R's fought long and hard for what they thought was better than the Single payer/Universal the D's wanted.
IMO, both parties have to tel me why this is the best for America.
"Because thats all we could get." is not an acceptable answer for me.
The Repblickins made a half-assed attempt to be involved even though they were completely shut out of the final move to get a Bill to Congress. They really had little to do with it other than to bitch about it. Not that they did not have a right to bitch, and even those mod R's complained that the D's failed to follow through with an open amendment process after the fact, as Ms Snow was told (according to her anyway).
That is a matter of perspective. I'm not interested in hearing that anymore.
The D's will say that the R's just said "NO". . .
The R's say they were shut out. . .
I don't give a shit. These are the men and women that are supposed to LEAD our country. Figure it the fuck out. That what they are paid for.
I'm way past sick and tired of hearing them whine like children. ALL. OF. THEM.
Kick every frigging one of them out in Nov. I have joined that group. :D
I just ordered some awesome bumperstickers for my truck.
Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate
Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.
Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.
“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”
More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.
The largest number of doctors opting out comes from primary care, a field already short of practitioners nationally and especially in Texas. Psychiatrists also make up a large share of the pie, causing one Texas leader to say, “God forbid that a senior has dementia.”
The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010. Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.
Link
Is this a national, regional or local trend? Anyone know?
The cost of medicalizing human conditions
Medicalization of human problems is a growth industry -- but what does it cost?
The researchers, led by Brandeis sociologist Peter Conrad, evaluated 12 conditions that had been defined as medicalized by physician organizations, and for which there were current medical spending data. The other conditions considered in the study were anxiety and behavioral disorders; body image; male pattern baldness; normal sadness; obesity; sleep disorders, and substance-related disorders.
The robust trend toward ever-greater medicalization of human conditions is undeniable, with an increasing number of medical diagnoses and treatments for behavioral problems and normal life events. Conrad and his colleagues analyzed medical spending on these disorders—payments to hospitals, pharmacies, physicians and other health care providers—and discovered that they accounted for $77.1 billion in medical spending in 2005—3.9 percent of total domestic health care expenditures.
"We spend more on these medicalized conditions than on cancer, heart disease, or public health," said Conrad. "While medicalization is unlikely to be a key driver of skyrocketing health care costs, $77 billion represents a substantial dollar sum."
Is this a national, regional or local trend?
Seems to be national or at least spread in pockets around the country.
Dr. Keith Jantz, an internist at Kansas City Internal Medicine, fears that if the 21% cut goes through next year, "physicians around the country would stop seeing any Medicare patients."
"It's happening in places like Las Vegas and in Anchorage, Alaska, and this could be a harbinger of what's to come unless Medicare maintains decent [payment] rates," Jantz said.
But....
The federal government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said it is aware of anecdotal reports of doctors not taking Medicare beneficiaries.
However, the agency maintains that its own data, and other industry reports, show only a small percentage of beneficiaries unable to get physician access.
CMS said 96.5% of all practicing physicians, nearly 600,000 doctors, currently participate in Medicare.
"Geographically, the level within every state is less than 5% of Medicare beneficiaries who have difficulties accessing a doctor," said Renee Mentnech, director of CMS' Research and Evaluation Group.
Mentnech also pointed to an August report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent branch of the Congress, that showed less than 3% of Medicare beneficiaries reported major difficulties accessing physician services in 2007 and 2008.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm?postversion=2009110100I think those numbers are mileading (yeh me questioning the gov't) The issue is more of how many are accepting NEW patients not just those who participate.
Now that I think about it, I wonder what the gov't definition of "participate" is.
This part of that article is :eek:
Dr. John Hagan, a Kansas City-area ophthalmologist, offers a unique perspective. "I can speak to both sides of this," he said.
As many as 75% of patients at his group practice are Medicare beneficiaries who are treated for problems such as glaucoma or undergo cataract surgery. And if payment rates are cut 21%, after already being reduced to about half the going $1,200 rate for cataract surgery and care in Missouri, Hagan said he won't be able to see more Medicare patients because he won't be able to cover his expenses.
But Hagan himself became Medicare-eligible this month -- and he's nervous. "If I accept Medicare for myself and my wife, I'm fearful I won't be able to stay with my cardiologist and my wife won't be able to stay with her physicians," he said.
Hagan has elected not to enroll in Medicare. Instead, he's paying extra out of pocket for his company's insurance coverage.
"At some point I won't want to work," said Hagan. "At that time, I will be on Medicare, and I am scared to death."
**bold mine**
IOW, TX docs are dropping out of Medicare at a rate of 0.3% per year. Alarmed?
If 0.3% per year is an accurate number - no not really. But those are only the ones that are dropping completely out. The question I was trying to raise is how many are NOT accepting NEW patients. I think thats a totally different number. Some/most will continue to care for their current patients, but not accept any new ones.
I dunno if its an issue. I have had quite a bit of trouble finding one in my area that is accepting new patients. Many say the accept medicare/caid, but when you call they aren't accepting new patients.
I think those numbers are mileading (yeh me questioning the gov't) The issue is more of how many are accepting NEW patients not just those who participate.
I'm guessing most numbers will be misleading. The government, assuming it is somewhat political, will want to make it seem like a less of a problem while the AARP, and similar groups, will want to exaggerate the data.
But yes, Medicare is going to be a large problem. From almost every article I've read, treating Medicare patients a lot of times results in zero profit. Many doctors are accepting this zero profit because they morally are not going to drop existing patients. Others are dropping patients or at least not accepting new ones. But yet, I don't know if that zero or negative profit are exceptions or across the board.
One of our primary care physicians has a sign up at the front desk that specifically says if/when the 21% cut goes into effect, they will no longer accept any (not just new) Medicaid. But then again, several of our doctors don't take any insurance at all, so we're in a biased group. It does seem to me that if a doctor is good enough to have any loyalty from patients whatsoever, then they won't need any Medicaid patients to keep their practice running. I honestly think Congress has expected for years that Medicare and most of the recent healthcare reforms are going to implode, and they're using this as the stepping stone to gain real support for a single-payer system.
OPINIONMAY 18, 2010.No, You Can't Keep Your Health Plan
Insurers and doctors are already consolidating their businesses in the wake of ObamaCare's passage.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
President Obama guaranteed Americans that after health reform became law they could keep their insurance plans and their doctors. It's clear that this promise cannot be kept. Insurers and physicians are already reshaping their businesses as a result of Mr. Obama's plan.
The health-reform law caps how much insurers can spend on expenses and take for profits. Starting next year, health plans will have a regulated "floor" on their medical-loss ratios, which is the amount of revenue they spend on medical claims. Insurers can only spend 20% of their premiums on running their plans if they offer policies directly to consumers or to small employers. The spending cap is 15% for policies sold to large employers.
This regulation is going to have its biggest impact on insurance sold directly to consumers—what's referred to as the "individual market." These policies cost more to market. They also have higher medical costs, owing partly to selection by less healthy consumers.
Finally, individual policies have high start-up costs. If insurers cannot spend more of their revenue getting plans on track, fewer new policies will be offered.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250264210294510.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_readClod, one of the places I work at has done the same, as well as sent out letters to all the Medicaid patients.
I agree, it is nothing more than a move to a single payer system.
Well imagine this. Just as was stated repeatedly....
Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov't Analysis Concludes
Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.
Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.
The "midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013," according to the document.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=537208
If you don't like that link here is another:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9G993800&show_article=1Say it isn't so!?!? Low wage earners are about to get the shaft.
Health law could ban low-cost plans
Part of the health care overhaul due to kick in this September could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage, violating a key goal of President Barack Obama’s reforms.
Under the provision, insurance companies will no longer be able to apply broad annual caps on the amount of money they pay out on health policies. Employer groups say the ban could essentially wipe out a niche insurance market that many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees have come to rely on.
This market’s limited-benefit plans, also called mini-med plans, are priced low because they can, among other things, restrict the number of covered doctor visits or impose a maximum on insurance payouts in a year. The plans are commonly offered by retail or restaurant companies to low-wage workers who cannot afford more expensive, comprehensive coverage.
Depending on how strictly the administration implements the provision, the ban could in effect outlaw the plans or make them so restrictive that insurance companies would raise rates to the point they become unaffordable.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38219.htmlWell imagine this. Just as was stated repeatedly....
Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov't Analysis Concludes
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=537208
If you don't like that link here is another:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9G993800&show_article=1
Two partisan opinions.
Here is one that presents both sides.
Business groups gave mixed reviews this week to new Obama administration rules limiting how much employers and insurers can change their health insurance plans while remaining exempt from potentially costly new consumer protections.
Consumer groups praised the regulations, saying the rules would ensure that millions of Americans receive the full benefits of the new health care law....
...The rules, released Monday, spell out when plans would lose their grandfathered status, including if they make major increases in premiums, modest increases in co-payments or significantly cut benefits. The administration estimates that half of all employers, including two-thirds of small employers, could lose their grandfathered status by 2013.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/15/1681895/new-health-care-rules-for-employers.html#ixzz0qxdGw1UQ
So....employers with plans that would allow major increases in premiums or co-pays or benefit cuts wont be grand-fathered and will change.
Sounds good to me.
Bottom line this administration and the Demoncrats lied to the US taxpayers about how much this is going to really cost us in dollars and how much it is going to affect our current insurance. Just as I predicted, numerous time.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=537208
Sorry, but I am certainly not opening
that one!
Bottom line this administration and the Demoncrats lied to the US taxpayers about how much this is going to really cost us in dollars and how much it is going to affect our current insurance. Just as I predicted, numerous time.
We all knew that those with health insurance would have their plan rates increased or lose benefits. It was a given.
We all knew that those with health insurance would have their plan rates increased or lose benefits. It was a given.
Or getting new benefits like free (no co-pay) preventive care, including mammograms and colonoscopy, no more exclusions for pre-existing conditions, limits on out-of-pocket expenses so you wont go bankrupt as a result of an illness/medical condition, a tougher dispute resolution process so insurers cant drop you on a whim, limits on premium increases (as percent of insurers admin costs)....
Redux :lol2:
Your party fails...
And the electorate has noticed... :D
Not that I didn't say this was going to happen or anything...
Prices jump for individual insurance premiums
77 percent of those who buy their own coverage have had cost increases
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37829862/ns/health-health_care/Imagine this...
Doctors limit new Medicare patients
WASHINGTON — The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program.
Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low. The cut went into effect Friday, even as the Senate approved a six-month reprieve. The House has approved a different bill.
• The American Academy of Family Physicians says 13% of respondents didn't participate in Medicare last year, up from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004.
• The American Osteopathic Association says 15% of its members don't participate in Medicare and 19% don't accept new Medicare patients. If the cut is not reversed, it says, the numbers will double.
• The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htmInteresting assessment. I wonder how it will play out between now and 2014?
Healthcare reform's high-risk insurance pools could end up excluding hundreds of thousands of Americans or costing three times more than what's budgeted now, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday. In a letter sent Monday to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee ranking Republican Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), CBO Director Doug Elmendorf laid out the stark choices facing a program that's meant to help cover sick Americans until the nation's healthcare system is overhauled in 2014.
The program's $5 billion budget will probably run out before 2013, Elmendorf writes. Extending it until 2014 to the 600,000 to 700,000 eligible Americans who are likely to enroll by then would cost an extra $5 to $10 billion, for a total of $10 to $15 billion. Several million people would be eligible for the program, he adds, but most are not likely to enroll.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also has the authority to cap enrollment.
"On that basis, CBO expects that the number of enrollees in the program will average about 200,000 over the 2011-2013 period," Elmendorf wrote. "If, instead, more people are allowed to sign up initially, the available funds will probably be exhausted prior to 2013, but total spending for the program will still be capped at $5 billion."
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch"On that basis, CBO expects that the number of enrollees in the program will average about 200,000 over the 2011-2013 period," Elmendorf wrote. "If, instead, more people are allowed to sign up initially, the available funds will probably be exhausted prior to 2013, but total spending for the program will still be capped at $5 billion."
Are you/they implying that they will then refuse admission to the plan when the cap is reached?
Not that I didn't say this was going to happen or anything...
Prices jump for individual insurance premiums
77 percent of those who buy their own coverage have had cost increases
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37829862/ns/health-health_care/
A survey (poll) of 1,000 people? You dont accept polls of 1,000 people as valid, if I recall.
From your article:
Policy analysts say some aspects of the new law could slow premium growth, while others might increase it.
The law does not grant federal authority to reject premium increases. It does, however, call for insurers to justify any deemed “unreasonable.” Regulations that would define unreasonable are being developed. Federal regulators, working with the states, can also recommend barring insurers with a history of unreasonable increases from the new marketplaces for insurance sales, called exchanges, which are set to open in 2014.
Premiums could be affected by other provisions in the law, such as one barring insurers from charging higher premiums based on a person’s health, a rule that begins in 2014. That could mean lower premiums for those with health problems, but higher rates for those who are younger or healthier.
Insurers must also spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenue on direct medical care for individual policyholders — or pay rebates, starting next year. Rules about what counts as medical care are still being developed. The requirement could shed more light on what insurers pay out — and how much they keep for administrative costs and profits.
Until we have regulations...until the Exchange is created....until we know the level of subsidy for millions (up to 4x poverty level).....
We wont know how many of those currently not in a large group program will have lower costs (millions with the subsidies) or how many might face higher costs.
Bottom line. This administration and this Congress lied to the American people as to how much this was going to cost us in real dollars. To on the one hand sell it as giving us lower costs and now modifing the propaganda to now "how many might face higher costs is a far cry from what was being sold previous to the passage of the bill.
As I have stated numerous times, and now it's coming to a reality near you...
Bottom line. This administration and this Congress lied to the American people as to how much this was going to cost us in real dollars. To on the one hand sell it as giving us lower costs and now modifing the propaganda to now "how many might face higher costs is a far cry from what was being sold previous to the passage of the bill.
As I have stated numerous times, and now it's coming to a reality near you...
IMO, the first regs for the Affordable Care Act, being developed as a patient's bill of rights, lays out the reality of the law to most consumers:
http://healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html
Others will likely describe it as propaganda...so whats new.
What's new is that the issues that many of us stated would come to be due to the passage of the bill have begun to occur. What's not new is that this Administration and esp this Congress lied to the American people to get the bill passed. And the costs to the American public are going to be much more than what was sold to the voters.
IMO, most objective people will withhold judgment until they facts....on costs....on whether it is all a lie... or how millions of those currently uninsured and those with employer-based insurance are likely to benefit...which wont happen until the law begins to be administered and people can see and feel the effect.
Those unwilling to wait have an agenda.
IMO, most objective people will withhold judgment until they facts....on costs....on whether it is all a lie or whether and how millions of those currently uninsured and those with employer-based insurance will benefit...which wont happen until the law begins to be administered and people can see and feel the effect.
Those unwilling to wait have an agenda.
At least you stated IMHO. That narrows it down pretty well. I have referenced all of my sources that support my view over the last year, whether you like them or not. I support the views of subject matter experts over an anon poster who holds himself out to be a hack of this Admin and the current Congress in power. But we have been through this before, haven't we....
At least you stated IMHO. That narrows it down pretty well. I have referenced all of my sources that support my view over the last year, whether you like them or not. I support the views of subject matter experts over an anon poster who holds himself out to be a hack of this Admin and the current Congress in power. But we have been through this before, haven't we....
There are subject matter experts on both sides....cherry picking the ones that support YOUR opinion by posting THEIR opinion is not objective.
In the end, only time will tell.
There are subject matter experts on both sides....cherry picking the ones that support YOUR opinion by posting THEIR opinion is not objective.
And that makes you and your opinons differnt how?
In the end, only time will tell.
Given the whorish spending by this Administration and the current power in Congress I am not willing to allow this to continue. and hopefully come Nov there will be a lot more people who think like me and a whole hell of a lot less that think like you. You are right. Time will tell and it may be the death of this Nation as we currently know it. Another thought I am not willing to risk. If that is the case more radical actions will need to be taken by those in the minority.
And that makes you and your opinons differnt how?
Given the whorish spending by this Administration and the current power in Congress I am not willing to allow this to continue. and hopefully come Nov there will be a lot more people who think like me and a whole hell of a lot less that think like you. You are right. Time will tell and it may be the death of this Nation as we currently know it. Another thought I am not willing to risk. If that is the case more radical actions will need to be taken by those in the minority.
I never said it makes my opinion different or better.
I have said repeatedly that, IMO,it is a good (not perfect) bill, addresses nearly all the problems and wont cost most Americans more.
Just my opinion unlike repeatedly saying "told you so...I am right, and those admin suck-ups are wrong"
Nothing more to say to you on the subject...for now.
... addresses nearly all the problems and wont cost most Americans more.
This is false statement. If you believe it to be true IMHO you do not understand the business of healthcare in America today. And yes it is a business.
"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan."
Throughout the long health care reform debate, that promise from President Obama was one of the few constants, made to reassure the bulk of Americans who already have insurance that the sweeping legislation would not have a downside.
But now that regulations about existing employer-sponsored plans have been issued, it's becoming clear that many of the 160 million Americans with job-based coverage will not, in fact, be able to keep what they currently have.
Republican critics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act point to the Obama Administration's own estimates that by 2013, 39% to 69% of employer plans will be subject to new regulations and not grandfathered in, or exempted from the new rules. House minority leader John Boehner issued a press release about the new regulations with the headline "New ObamaCare Tagline Should Be 'If You Like Your Health Care Plan, Too Bad.' "
That partisan rhetoric may be heated, but it's not entirely off base. The truth is that employer-based plans, which many assumed would easily be categorized as grandfathered, will be subject to the full regulatory thrust of the new law if they are altered in ways that are standard practice in the industry. Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket - known as co-insurance - lose their grandfathered status. The same is true for plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments. An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status. These kinds of changes are common year to year in the current marketplace, since employers are constantly looking for ways to limit their expenses in the face of rising costs.
Still, while many employer-based plans will be snared in the regulatory net of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of those with this coverage could actually stand to benefit.
It will be years before it's clear exactly how much the employer-based health-insurance system will be upended, and only then will consumers know precisely how costs will be affected. It's already apparent, however, that protecting the current system of private job-based insurance was not a mission of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, promises about keeping your plan notwithstanding.
LinkWhat a bizarre complaint. The evidence that the legislation won't let you keep your plan is that if your insurance or your employer make your plan worse for you, they don't get to pretend it's still the old, grandfathered plan?
Is the fact that "increas[ing] the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket", "significantly decreas[ing] the percentage that employers contribute to premiums", or "significantly increas[ing] deductibles or co-payments" was "standard practice in the industry" part of what people like about their health care plan?
Just facts.
Obama: You can keep the plan you have.
Reality: Actually no you can't.
It's not "just facts".
Do you think that "Obama: You can keep the plan you have." meant that he would force insurers and employers to never change their plans?
Old plans are grandfathered in. You can keep them to the extent that you could ever keep your plan, before or after this legislation - based on the contract between your employer and insurer. This legislation did not change that.
But it did discourage the continuing worsening of the new contracts, by saying that if you want to increase employees' costs, you have to give up your grandfathering status. So some employees may be able to keep the plan they like longer than they would have been able to before.
HM, the problem is that the people who are insured are going to eat the majority of the costs associated with Obamacare. And there was never any intent to protect the currently insured in that bill. It has only been after the fact that the lawmakers are now jumping through hoops to try to modify that effect. I am sure it is of no concern for those who have little to no healthcare insurance now. To the rest of us it is a huge concern.
It's not "just facts".
Do you think that "Obama: You can keep the plan you have." meant that he would force insurers and employers to never change their plans?
Nope, not at all. I would fully expect them to change as they had in the past.
Old plans are grandfathered in. You can keep them to the extent that you could ever keep your plan, before or after this legislation - based on the contract between your employer and insurer. This legislation did not change that.
Completely false. Read again for comprehension. That is the main reason why I posted the link.
But it did discourage the continuing worsening of the new contracts, by saying that if you want to increase employees' costs, you have to give up your grandfathering status. So some employees may be able to keep the plan they like longer than they would have been able to before.
Uh, no thats not how I read that at all. Unfortunately we really do not know how this is going to play out, but it is beginning to look like things will change based upon what most reasonable people would consider to be technicalities.
Completely false. Read again for comprehension. That is the main reason why I posted the link.
Perhaps you didn't read my post for comprehension. You can keep what you have, as long as your employer and insurer let you. Which is the same as it ever was.
The change is that now, if they want to make the plan worse for you, they have to lose their grandfathered status.
Look at the list of things that end the status:
[LIST]
[*]Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket.
[*]plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments.
[*]An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status.
[/LIST]
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]If my company did that, I would not consider myself to still have the plan I liked. If my company decided not to do these, in order to avoid the new regulations, I would consider myself to have kept the plan longer than I would otherwise have been able to.
The insurance companies can no longer follow the plan
they like - continually raise prices and decrease benefits without following the new regulations.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
* Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket.
* plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments.
How much? Costs increase all the time. For everything, not just health insurance. So if a plan requires the insured to pay a $15 co-pay for prescriptions instead of a $10 co-pay .... OUT.
Additionally if the premiums rise by (what percentage?) is the plan no longer grandfathered. That may or may not be a good thing. I think its situationally dependent. This again is an issue that may or may not be a good thing. If an employer goes to a plan that better suits the needs of the employees from one which doesn't - too bad, OUT.
* An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status.
[COLOR="Red"]
ETA[/COLOR]
So a doctor retires and "the plan" selects a new one to replace him ... OUT.
If a plan wants to ADD doctors to INCREASE the options for the insureds .. OUT.
Its simply not as cut and dried as you want it to be.
Which is why I bolded -
Still, while many employer-based plans will be snared in the regulatory net of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of those with this coverage could actually stand to benefit.
It will be years before it's clear...
How much? Costs increase all the time. For everything, not just health insurance.
Percentage. Costs can increase, but the
percentage of those costs that the employees pay can't. There might be some issue as to what a significant deductible or co-pay increase consists of, but once that's defined the plans will be able to decide whether to follow the new regulations, or raise the co-pay by a bit less.
[B]
[/B]So a doctor retires and "the plan" selects a new one to replace him ... OUT.
If a plan wants to ADD doctors to INCREASE the options for the insureds .. OUT.Incorrect.
Insurance provider. Not doctor. If your employer moves from Aetna to UnitedHealthcare, they obviously can't call it the same plan. Again, it is your employer changing the plan from the one you like.
The only thing controlled in the Bill is percentage differences between the upper and lower tiers. There are no cost controls. The insurance companies were given a gift.
Percentage. Costs can increase, but the percentage of those costs that the employees pay can't. There might be some issue as to what a significant deductible or co-pay increase consists of, but once that's defined the plans will be able to decide whether to follow the new regulations, or raise the co-pay by a bit less.
Got it. ... once that is defined.
I read it this way at first and then changed my mind.
Incorrect. Insurance provider. Not doctor. If your employer moves from Aetna to United Healthcare, they obviously can't call it the same plan. Again, it is your employer changing the plan from the one you like.
... to perhaps a better one or similar one for less cost or a worse one. It doesn't matter. There are too many unknowns. And insurance costs may change from plan A to plan B so that in one case copay for prescription increases while at the same time the co-pay for a doctors visit decreases. How does that work out? No one knows - - - - - yet.
Completely false. Read again for comprehension. That is the main reason why I posted the link.
Hey, Classic, I think you need to look more closely at your own link. It reads:
Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket - known as co-insurance - lose their grandfathered status. The same is true for plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments. An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status.
(emphasis my own)
In other words, if an employer wants to increase the amount that employees pay for health care, he can't. What's wrong with that? Do you want to pay even more for health coverage? Most people will be glad that their current plans are grandfathered in.
Sam, do you think that any insurance company can survive by not changing rates in the future? I mean to say that as long as costs go up, every single insurance company in the country will have to eventually change, therefore the idea that "you can keep the plan you have" is based on the false premise that some plans will never have to change over the next 20 years. I don't buy it and I don't believe that those who wrote the bill believed it either.
Sam, do you think that any insurance company can survive by not changing rates in the future? I mean to say that as long as costs go up, every single insurance company in the country will have to eventually change,
Percent.
If costs rise 10%, the insurance company can raise their rates 10%. But not 20%.
Percent.
If costs rise 10%, the insurance company can raise their rates 10%. But not 20%.
How does an insurance company measure that cost?
I misspoke; raising rates won't lose them their grandfathered status. It is raising the percent of costs that employees still have to pay even after paying those rates.
I misspoke; raising rates won't lose them their grandfathered status. It is raising the percent of costs that employees still have to pay even after paying those rates.
Sounds like co-pay.
And deductibles. And probably more, for people who actually have to use it.
Sam, do you think that any insurance company can survive by not changing rates in the future? I mean to say that as long as costs go up, every single insurance company in the country will have to eventually change, therefore the idea that "you can keep the plan you have" is based on the false premise that some plans will never have to change over the next 20 years. I don't buy it and I don't believe that those who wrote the bill believed it either.
Well - let's face it - its not as if insurance companies just raise their rates to reflect their increased costs. They have raised their rates because they can get away with it.
Again, from Classic's link:
Plus, it's not as though the employer-based insurance market is reliable and stable in its current form. Most employees don't have any control over the structure of their health insurance. As a result, coverage has been steadily eroding in the past decade, with premium costs for workers increasing 131% from 1999 to 2009, even as the actuarial value of those plans, on average, decreased.
I shed no tears for the insurance companies.
none of us do Sam - that really wasn't the point that at least I was trying to make.
I guess I am not being clear and I'll end up getting frustrated with this.
The claims that were made when this was being sold to the public may not necessarily be true. In some cases it may be BETTER for the consumer and in others not so. We do not know for sure and will not for years.
“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”Donald Berwick
"Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered," Max Baucus
On the other hand...
Max Baucus proves, yet again, that he's a major obstacle to any improvement in our nation's health care system. Now he's throwing a hissy fit over Obama's recess appointment of Donald Berwick. Dailykos
Bwahahahah
What's the "Bwahahahah" about?
The whole thing. The wording, the attitude adn dismay of the comments ... After the Kagan hearings this guy wants to ask "the tough questions" AND have them answered?? :lol: That and the ridiculousness of dailykos as a whole. After reading all the comments I couldn't help but laugh.
As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country's biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.
The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.
But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.
The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.
But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.
Bold mine.
On the positive side, the first "uninsurable children" provisions kicked in July 1st, and this directly affects dozens of families I personally know whose children with pre-existing conditions were not only uninsurable, but made the entire family uninsurable, even if the family wanted a plan that didn't include the diagnosed kid.
There's still a lot of "bad things may happen" predictions out there, and some of them may come true, but right now I see actual working families who have been financially devastated by medical bills for years (or simply unable to afford treatment at all,) who are now getting medical coverage as a direct result of this bill.
Imagine that. Everyone who had insurance is going to pay more and more for the same or less service.
What are the costs clod? Have they shared any of that with you?
No, I haven't seen any real numbers yet. Part of the deal is you have to provide recent rejection letters from three insurance companies before you can get on the new plan, so all the families I know are still in the process of re-applying so they can get re-denied, and go forward from there.
I did a little preliminary checking just in case... the rates I was getting were 300-400% more than what my total premiums are now.
Imagine that. Everyone who had insurance is going to pay more and more for the same or less service.
Up until the moment one of their family members gets severely ill... then they'll be paying "more and more" for a series of services that are still worth far, far more than they'll ever pay in for. That's the whole point of insurance, Merc. You pay more than your actual usage costs, in order to protect yourself from the chance of ever having to pay catastrophic usage costs. If you really didn't like the rules of the game, you wouldn't be carrying medical insurance on your family right now--and yet I bet you are.
I did a little preliminary checking just in case... the rates I was getting were 300-400% more than what my total premiums are now.
Yeah, my understanding is that it's really not for people who are capable of getting any kind of medical insurance on their own. It's for those who are completely unable to get a premium of any kind, and are stuck with literally tens of thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket medical costs. 300-400% of your premium is still quite possibly less than they're currently paying in medical bills, so it's a better deal for them.
Yes it is - or potentially is. Its different if you are insured and there is the possibility of changing jobs. Its kind of a killer actually.
Up until the moment one of their family members gets severely ill... then they'll be paying "more and more" for a series of services that are still worth far, far more than they'll ever pay in for. That's the whole point of insurance, Merc. You pay more than your actual usage costs, in order to protect yourself from the chance of ever having to pay catastrophic usage costs. If you really didn't like the rules of the game, you wouldn't be carrying medical insurance on your family right now--and yet I bet you are.
Yea, we carry it, but I am no different than anyone else in that case.
Right, because in the end, you do like the protection insurance gives you, just like everyone else. You just think some people shouldn't get to be part of that group... why? "I already got mine, Jack," is a bullshit philosophy to live your life by.
You just think some people shouldn't get to be part of that group... why? "I already got mine, Jack," is a bullshit philosophy to live your life by.
No where have I made that statement. In fact I said if the gobberment were going to go to the extent of controlling our lives by mandating insurance they should have gone all in and had a public option completely paid for by the gobberment and directly competed with the insurance companies. But they did not, they caved to the insurance companies by not providing the public option. So that puts the complete burden on all of us with insurance. That is a bullshit philosophy to support...
All possible plans would be funded by the people who can afford to pay, whether through taxes or premuims. I agree that a public option would add efficiency, and further believe that single payer would be even better, but we had to deal with the fact that all Republicans and some Democrats wouldn't do it.
But paying more for less coverage is the status quo, not the fault of HIR. I'm sure the Republicans and the insurance companies will take great glee in blaming all of the companies' misbehavior on the new laws, but they've been doing it for years.
They'll probably be on their worst behavior for a while, in hopes of getting a repeal. I hope it backfires on them.
So instead we have traded a good plan for "getting any plan passed" at great cost to the taxpayer that will be ineffective in controlling costs and add to the deficit? The plan is a one party plan, owned by the Dems, passed by an all Dem Congress and signed by a Dem President. It was ramrodded through passage. Not a good way to pass enormously expensive Bills. This will backfire on them.
The plan is a one party plan, owned by the Dems, passed by an all Dem Congress and signed by a Dem President.
If that's true, then why didn't they pass the plan they wanted?
If that's true, then why didn't they pass the plan they wanted?
Because they had to deal with the details in their own party. Don't get me wrong, if the Repub's were in charge of the whole thing they wouldn't have done any better.
July 19, 2010
An Ugly Preview of ObamaCare
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- If you want a preview of President Obama's health care "reform," take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a "reform" that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging. The state did the easy part: expanding state-subsidized insurance coverage. It evaded the hard part: controlling costs and ensuring that spending improves people's health. Unfortunately, Obama has done the same.
Like Obama, Massachusetts requires most individuals to have health insurance (the "individual mandate"). To aid middle-class families too well-off to qualify for Medicaid -- government insurance for the poor -- the state subsidizes insurance for people up to three times the federal poverty line (about $66,000 in 2008 for a family of four). Together, the mandate and subsidies have raised insurance coverage from 87.5 percent of the non-elderly population in 2006 to 95.2 percent in the fall of 2009, report Sharon Long and Karen Stockley of the Urban Institute.
People have more access to treatment, though changes are small. In 2006, 87 percent of the non-elderly had a "usual source of care," presumably a doctor or clinic, note Long and Stockley in the journal Health Affairs. By 2009, that was 89.9 percent. In 2006, 70.9 percent received "preventive care"; in 2009, that was 77.7 percent. Out-of-pocket costs were less burdensome.
But much didn't change. Emergency rooms remain as crowded as ever; about a third of the non-elderly go at least once a year, and half their visits involve "non-emergency conditions." As for improvements in health, most probably lie in the future. "Many of the uninsured were young and healthy," writes Long. Their "expected gains in health status" would be mostly long-term. Finally -- and most important -- health costs continue to soar.
Aside from squeezing take-home pay (employers provide almost 70 percent of insurance), higher costs have automatically shifted government priorities toward health care and away from everything else -- schools, police, roads, prisons, lower taxes. In 1990, health spending represented about 16 percent of the state budget, says the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. By 2000, health's share was 22 percent. In 2010, it's 35 percent. About 90 percent of the health spending is Medicaid.
State leaders have proven powerless to control these costs. Facing a tough re-election campaign, Gov. Deval Patrick effectively ordered his insurance commissioner to reject premium increases for small employers (50 workers or less) and individuals -- an unprecedented step. Commissioner Joseph Murphy then disallowed premium increases ranging from 7 percent to 34 percent. The insurers appealed; hearing examiners ruled Murphy's action illegal. Murphy has now settled with one insurer allowing premium increases, he says, of 7 percent to 11 percent. More settlements are expected.
Attacking unpopular insurance companies is easy -- and ultimately ineffectual. The trouble is that they're mostly middlemen. They collect premiums and pay providers: doctors, hospitals, clinics. Limiting premiums without controlling the costs of providers will ultimately cause insurer bankruptcies, which would then threaten providers because they won't be fully reimbursed. The state might regulate hospitals' and doctors' fees directly; but in the past, providers have often offset lower rates by performing more tests and procedures.
A year ago, a state commission urged another approach: Scrap the present "fee-for-service" system. The commission argued that fee-for-service -- which ties reimbursement to individual services -- rewards quantity over quality and discourages coordinated care among doctors and hospitals. The commission recommended a "global payments" system to force hospitals, doctors and clinics to create networks ("accountable care organizations"). These would receive flat per-patient payments to promote effective -- not just expensive -- care. Payments would be "risk adjusted"; sicker patients would justify higher payments.
But the commission offered no blueprint, and efforts to craft consensus among providers, consumer groups and insurers have failed. State Senate President Therese Murray, an advocate of payment change, has given up for this year. "Nobody is in agreement on anything," she told The Boston Globe.
All this anticipates Obamacare. Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed -- which seems unlikely -- the effect on overall spending would be slight. The system's fundamental incentives won't change. The lesson from Massachusetts is that genuine cost control is avoided because it's so politically difficult. It means curbing the incomes of doctors, hospitals and other providers. They object. To encourage "accountable care organizations" would limit consumer choice of doctors and hospitals. That's unpopular. Spending restrictions, whether imposed by regulation or "global payments," raise the specter of essential care denied. Also unpopular.
Obama dodged the tough issues in favor of grandstanding. Imitating Patrick, he's already denouncing insurers' rates, as if that would solve the spending problem. What's occurring in Massachusetts is the plausible future: Unchecked health spending determines government priorities and inflates budget deficits and taxes, with small health gains. And they call this "reform"?
from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/19/obamacares_future_foretold_106358.html at July 22, 2010 - 05:04:04 PM CDT
So instead we have traded a good plan for "getting any plan passed" at great cost to the taxpayer that will be ineffective in controlling costs and add to the deficit?
It eliminates "preexisting conditions". That's worth the rest of it. Plus there are plenty of other good parts, which make it worth it all the more.
It eliminates "preexisting conditions". That's worth the rest of it. Plus there are plenty of other good parts, which make it worth it all the more.
I would agree that the elimination of the pre-existing condition is good. But you can't put one good thing in a 3000 page bill and call it good, not at the estimated long term costs to the taxpayer.
"Hey great button on the dash, to bad the car is a piece of shit."
Eliminating preexisting conditions requires the mandate. The mandate requires subsidies. My guess is that takes up quite a few of those 3000 pages. All whinging I've heard about the plan is either
a) About the mandate or the cost of subsidies, which are required.
b) Far outweighed by the elimination of preexisting conditions.
or c) that the plan doesn't go far enough, with which I and most Democrats agree. If there had been any non-tool Republicans to offset the tools among the Democrats, maybe we could have done something about that. Hopefully some time in the future, we will. But that's an argument for doing more, not an argument against doing what was done.
Eliminating preexisting conditions requires the mandate. The mandate requires subsidies. My guess is that takes up quite a few pages. All whinging I've heard about the plan is either
a) About the mandate or the cost of subsidies, which are required.
b) Far outweighed by the elimination of preexisting conditions.
or c) that the plan doesn't go far enough, with which I and most Democrats agree. If there had been any non-tool Republicans to offset the tools among the Democrats, maybe we could have done something about that. Hopefully some time in the future, we will. But that's arn argument for doing more, not an argument against doing what was done.
And none of that controls costs which is why it will fail in the end. And none of that requires that everyone contributes, only that those who have insurance and money pay for those who don't. And none of that will fix the problems in healthcare, Mass tried this approach, see above link, and it failed. You have deluded yourself. So far the government programs of Medicaid are expensive, bloated, and inefficient, and this is the same government that is going to control this bill. There is so much wrong with this Bill it does not outweigh the good. There was so much potential for the Dems to do the right thing, they failed.
Obama: Mr. Incredible
By David Keene - 07/19/10 05:34 PM ET
During the healthcare debate, President Obama and his operatives assured congressional Democrats and the media that once Obama-Care passed, all would be well. The president himself said the GOP focus on process would be forgotten quickly by a public far more interested in “policy than process.”
However, the public has made it clear it likes neither the product (about which more is being learned by the day) nor the process that led to passage. Many of the deals needed to piece together majorities in the House and Senate received enough publicity at the time to outrage many, but as time goes on revelations about additional concessions made to woo votes are justifying what were dismissed as simple partisan attacks during the debate.
Moreover, the possible consequences of the bill are making many wake up and take note.
When critics of the legislation alleged during the debate that the enforcement of its many provisions would vastly increase the power of the IRS and empower tax collectors to go where they had never gone before, administration spokesmen reacted in outrage. The president’s critics, they charged, were not just wrong, but lying to scare people.
It turns out that the critics were dead right and that if there was any lying going on, they weren’t the guilty ones. In the days since passage, we have learned that the IRS will have to hire literally thousands of new agents, auditors and analysts to make sure everyone required to buy into the program does so and to catch those who violate its many provisions as well as to collect the data that will be required of small businesses to help the government collect new taxes to pay for the scheme.
The result is that small-business owners who were promised they would benefit from the new law are up in arms as they discover that they will in fact be targets of an IRS planning to impose even more regulations on the way they operate. The absolute ludicrousness of the new requirements is that business owners will apparently now be required to file forms reporting on aggregate annual payments of as little as $600 to “vendors” like Staples or the office coffee supplier.
Meanwhile, it turns out that while some members of Congress were being promised one thing in return for their votes, others were being assured that such promises would never be kept. Thus, while members concerned about whether benefits would be extended to illegal immigrants were assured that this would not be the case, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the House were being told that they shouldn’t worry about any restrictions in the healthcare bill because they would be removed later … in the administration’s promised immigration reform bill.
Recent news reports that Democratic leaders promised Hispanic Caucus members that provisions inserted in the healthcare to win the votes of others would be removed later suggest that South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R) charge that President Obama’s denial that the healthcare bill would cover illegal aliens was a lie was dead on.
The healthcare bill as passed and signed into law prohibits illegals from buying into the so-called healthcare exchanges that will be established under the law and denies even temporary legal immigrants access to Medicaid unless they’ve been here for five years. Hispanic Caucus leaders are now charging that the administration specifically promised to eliminate these and other restrictions and are vowing to hold the president and congressional Democratic leaders to that promise.
Under the Obama plan, of course, Medicaid has been expanded and something like half of all illegals in the country would qualify if the restrictions written into the law are removed, increasing the costs of a program that is already expected to exceed the estimates publicized by the administration before its passage by tens of billions of dollars.
The monetary cost of delivering on this promise would be enormous, but the political cost could be even higher. President Obama gives pretty good speeches, but fewer and fewer Americans are paying much attention to what he says. Some are beginning to ignore him for lack of follow-through or because he’s overexposed, but increasing numbers of those who were initially shocked by Wilson’s outburst are becoming convinced that he was right.
A president’s credibility is key to his success. When those he deals with in Washington or those on whose votes he relies for reelection conclude that his word isn’t worth much, his ability to lead vanishes.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-keene/109631-obama-mr-incredAnd none of that controls costs which is why it will fail in the end.
We'll see what happens on the exchanges. But if they don't work, then "the end" could be the impetus to go public option or single payer. It would be nice if we didn't have to take the long way round, but we are giving them the rope to hang themselves. Hopefully we're willing to be hangmen when the time comes.
And none of that requires that everyone contributes, only that those who have insurance and money pay for those who don't.
The only alternative to that is to let poor people die in the streets. Our current method is emergency rooms. At least under the new system, the poor will be able to get preventive care that way, rather than just catastrophic care.
And none of that will fix the problems in healthcare,
That's... unspecific. There will probably be plenty of problems it doesn't fix. It's only 3000 pages, after all. but it does fix the biggest problem - preexisting conditions. And that fix has the further effect of curbing the second biggest problem - recisions. If you can't cut someone for a preexisting condition, you can't cut them for not reporting it.
So far the government programs of Medicaid are expensive, bloated, and inefficient,
But less so than private insurance, so I agree that a public option would have been great.
But, as I said, things the bill doesn't do are things to do in the future. They aren't arguments against what the bill does.
The cost alone is an argument agains the bill.
(deleted)
The only alternative to that is to let poor people die in the streets. Our current method is emergency rooms. At least under the new system, the poor will be able to get preventive care that way, rather than just catastrophic care.
That is not happening now and never has, so what makes you think that this Bill will fix something that is not broken? What makes you think that if given the opportunity that the poor will seek preventative care. They often don't take care of themselves now so how would this change? Not to say that some would not take advantage of some preventative care in the future, nor would this be a bad thing. Take for example smoking. Do you think there will suddenly be a rush on people taking smoking cessation classes? How about alcoholism among the poor? Do you think the poor who drink excessively or have other abuse problems will suddenly seek out a healthier lifestyle?
That is not happening now and never has,
I am assuming that "that" refers to "let poor people die in the streets".
Yes, we don't do that now. Like I said, it is the only alternative to having people with money subsidize the healthcare of people without. Our current method is emergency rooms, which is the most ineficient way to do it.
What makes you think that if given the opportunity that the poor will seek preventative care. They often don't take care of themselves now so how would this change? Not to say that some would not take advantage of some preventative care in the future, nor would this be a bad thing.
You refute yourself immediately. Saves me the trouble.
Take for example smoking. Do you think there will suddenly be a rush on people taking smoking cessation classes? How about alcoholism among the poor? Do you think the poor who drink excessively or have other abuse problems will suddenly seek out a healthier lifestyle?
Where are you going with this? Poor people won't use preventive healthcare even if they can afford it? Some will, some won't. My guess is that lots of parents will, for their children if not for themselves.
I am assuming that "that" refers to "let poor people die in the streets".
Yes, we don't do that now. Like I said, it is the only alternative to having people with money subsidize the healthcare of people without.
That happens now and does not change under the new plan. Certain incomes don't contribute to the Federal Income tax system now. This bill does not change that.
Our current method is emergency rooms, which is the most ineficient way to do it.
Agreed.
You refute yourself immediately. Saves me the trouble.Where are you going with this? Poor people won't use preventive healthcare even if they can afford it? Some will, some won't. My guess is that lots of parents will, for their children if not for themselves.
Children are covered under other plans. This bill mostly addresses adult care.
All children will be covered under the parent's new plan starting 9/19/10. This includes "adult children" up to some age (25 ?)
That happens now and does not change under the new plan.
It will NEVER change, nor should it. Like I said, the only alternative is letting the poor die in the streets.
An if, as I hope, we aren't willing to do that, what we can do is increase the efficiency of subsidizing the poor. Subsidizing their movement into the normal healthcare system instead of just the emergency rooms is a good start.
It will NEVER change, nor should it. Like I said, the only alternative is letting the poor die in the streets.
An if, as I hope, we aren't willing to do that, what we can do is increase the efficiency of subsidizing the poor. Subsidizing their movement into the normal healthcare system instead of just the emergency rooms is a good start.
Again. The poor are not dying in the streets. That is a bleeding heart straw man argument.
My only point was, as you championed the healthcare of the "poor", is that they do not now seek preventive care, and would still not do so even if it was "free".
These are but small portions of the bill.
How about the role of the IRS in this new process. Latest estimates are that the IRS is going to have to hire thousands of people just to monitor this process, so now we have created more bigger and bloated government at great cost and for what return?
All children will be covered under the parent's new plan starting 9/19/10. This includes "adult children" up to some age (25 ?)
Sort of a misnomer don't you think. You can go to Iraq and die at 18 so you are an adult at 18 or in many cases at 17. But they are not really children. They are adults who can be covered under parents plans to the age of 26. In some cases this is a good thing.
Sorry, I should not have posted ("adult children" vs " ") as a joke, so I'm editing it out.
I used "adult children" mainly to avoid the idea that at 21 yrs they were excluded from the parent's plan
Sorry, I should not have posted ("adult children" vs " ") as a joke, so I'm editing it out.
I used "adult children" mainly to avoid the idea that at 21 yrs they were excluded from the parent's plan
No worries. I was just pointing out the contradiction in the terms. I find it interesting that we strive as parents to get our children to grow up and go forward to be on their own but often continue to have to support them long after any of our parents would have ever considered supporting us in the same manner. The new law allows this and in many cases this will be helpful to struggling young adults as they enter the work world. But how long should it take? It would be under very rare conditions that I would consider supporting my adult children to the age of 26. Even then I would limit such support.
Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in. :lol:
Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.
Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in. :lol:
Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.
I think any person who is technically an adult who lives at home should pay rent, even if they work at McDonalds. Needing shelter/care/support should be graduated based on the situation. I don't think any young adult should live in your house for free.
Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in. :lol:
Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.
I think any person who is technically an adult who lives at home should pay rent, even if they work at McDonalds. Needing shelter/care/support should be graduated based on the situation. I don't think any young adult should live in your house for free.
These define exactly our current situation. We have taken in our "adult" grandson because he was unemployed and destined to be homeless.
Since we are not his legal guardians, he could not be on our health insurance, tax return, etc. even though he was (at first) completely dependent on us.
He will be added to his Mom's (company-paid) health plan in Sept. He's now working a minimum wage job and has been accepted into an ODFW (fisheries) training program. So, he has started paying only his electric bill, gas for the car, and his meals away from our house. He would never be able to afford rent, utilities, and a health care plan in his current situation.
So you do what you have to do.
And why aren't his parents supporting him? So many grandparents have to continue to raise kids full time into their retirement years. I will avoid that at all costs. But you are right, you do what you have to do. But there is no free ride, anywhere.
"Adult children" sounds funny, like "jumbo shrimp", but "jumbo shrimp" are indeed big for shrimp, and children will always be the children of their parents, no matter their age.
Again. The poor are not dying in the streets.
You are indeed saying that again, but
why? I've been saying the same thing. And the reason they aren't is because we subsidize their care in our emergency rooms. Which is less efficient than bringing them into the system. Either way, people who can pay will subsidize people who can't, but now in a better way. Do you want the people who can afford it to
not subsidize those who can't?
That is the "poor dying in the streets" situation. And just to make it clear: no, that is not the current situation. The poor are not dying in the streets.
My only point was, as you championed the healthcare of the "poor", is that they do not now seek preventive care, and would still not do so even if it was "free".
Some would, some wouldn't, just like rich people. The ones that don't will be where they are now. The ones that do will be utilizing the system more efficiently.
No matter what, some poor will always die in the streets... Wolf knows them.
Indeed. But given the trouble I was having getting him to notice that I wasn't disagreeing with that statement, adding a caveat seemed risky.
You are indeed saying that again, but why? I've been saying the same thing. And the reason they aren't is because we subsidize their care in our emergency rooms. Which is less efficient than bringing them into the system. Either way, people who can pay will subsidize people who can't, but now in a better way. Do you want the people who can afford it to not subsidize those who can't?
No, what I want is everyone who has income to subsidize care, including those who make any amount. I do not support income redistribution as the current powers that be want to push a socialistic solution onto those who already pay the majority of the federal bills. All I want is to have every single person who makes any form of income at any level have an investment as the same proportion of their income. But to put it all on those who already have insurance or who make 2x or 3x or 4x more than x is completely a socialistic system of income redistribution. It is sort of like my kids and college. I make every one of them take out a personal loan for school so that they are invested in their education. Otherwise it is just a free ride and there is no incentive to do well or do better. Same goes for our current idea that at x income you pay little or nothing, but breech the threshold by one dollar and you suddenly pay a HUGE increase in the percentage of your income to people who pay nothing.
The current healthcare bill is a total fucking sham. It was continually sold as Deficit Neutral. I, among many others told you it was bullshit. But no it was sold as something completely different, deficit neutral. And now it turns out I was right. This Administration will bankrupt this country with it's spending practices and the healthcare bill is but one example of how we are going to become more divided and polarized as more and more spending bills are passed with not a single plan to pay for them. This Congress must be stopped at all costs.
No matter what, some poor will always die in the streets... Wolf knows them.
I know them as well, because they don't die at her place of work but at mine.
Same goes for our current idea that at x income you pay little or nothing, but breech the threshold by one dollar and you suddenly pay a HUGE increase in the percentage of your income to people who pay nothing.
No you don't. The standard deduction and personal exemption add to $9350. If you make $9350, you pay nothing. If you make $9351, you pay... nothing still, because of rounding. If you make $9355, you pay 10% of $5, 50 cents rounds to a dollar. One dollar out of $9355 is 0.01%. So, when you go from $9354 to $9355, your percentage goes up by 0.01%. The horror!
Chances are if you only make $9355, they'll be giving you money.
There are plenty of additional factors; I was describing the way progressive taxation works in general, using the simplest set of circumstances (single, no kids, no other complications). Wherever your set of circumstances places the point at which you start paying taxes, you only pay those taxes on the amount past that point.
You don't suddenly start paying 10% on all your income once you make it past some breakpoint. Everyone pays 0% on the amount of their income counted as deductions and exemptions. Wealthy people pay 0% on many many more dollars of their income than poor people do.
They get more benefit, too, though it's not always in the form of straight up cash, as with many programs that help the poor.
T...... as with many programs that help the poor.
Oh the Horror...
So you support all of those who have should give to all of those who have not, no matter the cost.
Your examples of progressive taxation are not reality based.
A minority of the population pays the majority of Federal Taxes.
Until everyone pays something to Federal Taxation I can never support your socialistic notions of society.
Some how or another I get the impression that you think society and government owe you something for nothing and should support you.
What do what do you owe society for your freebee's? Where in the Constitution does it say government owes you anything other than what is expressly written?
Read it and weep....
Some insurers stop writing new coverage for kids
Ahead of requirement to cover kids with medical problems, some insurers drop out
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said several big insurers in his state will stop issuing new policies that cover children individually. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of local insurers in her state are doing likewise.
In Florida, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna, and Golden Rule -- a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare -- notified the insurance commissioner that they will stop issuing individual policies for children, said Jack McDermott, a spokesman for McCarty.
The major types of coverage for children -- employer plans and government programs -- are not be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies -- those that cover children as individuals -- may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children's coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Some-insurers-stop-writing-apf-1129458619.html?x=0&.v=19,000 to 10,000 new policies a year
will now be covered by the public option, and the problem is moot. We're talking less than .01% of the population of one state. Am I missing anything?
Your examples of progressive taxation are not reality based.
That's how it works. You only pay the taxes on the money in the bracket.
Some how or another I get the impression that you think society and government owe you something for nothing and should support you.
What do what do you owe society for your freebee's?
I'm fairly well off. I pay plenty of taxes. I don't begrudge the portion of them that help the poor at all.
This guy nails it, and to think it was from CNBC.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38412580
For President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, the reckoning is near.
In hubris, they imposed a radical liberal agenda on an unwilling centrist electorate. Now, the economic recovery is failing and voters are set to rebuke Democrats in November.
From electing Scott Brown in Massachusetts to vociferous dissent at town meetings, Americans made it clear they did not want the Democrats' health care reforms.
Those create vast new entitlements, levy higher taxes, impose mandates on businesses and state budgets, and increase demand for medical services and drugs, without expanding the supply of health professionals or loosening the monopoly grip of pharmaceutical companies. It imposes few meaningful cost controls.
As feared, businesses face runaway employee health insurance costs, dramatically increasing their incentives to outsource more jobs to Asia.
The financial reform law creates employment for liberal lawyers and community activists in the federal bureaucracy to write 500 new regulations and staff a new consumer watchdog that will duplicate reforms for credit cards, bank accounts and consumer loans already being put in place by the Federal Reserve.
The big banks are still too big to fail, controlling a larger share of the nation's deposits than before the crisis.
Restrictions on bank trading and derivatives miss the mark. Bad loans, not trading, took down Citigroup [C 4.15 0.13 (+3.23%) ] and Bank of America [BAC 14.15 0.41 (+2.98%) ], and few effective restrictions or controls are imposed on mortgage-backed securities and similar financial instruments that permitted giant banks to disguise lousing lending decisions from unknowing investors.
The financial system is even more vulnerable to abuse and collapse than before.
The 8000 regional banks remain cash starved, because the President failed to use the TARP to create an analog to the Savings and Loan Crisis era Resolution Trust to purge balance sheets of toxic real estate loans and mortgage backed securities. Big Democratic contributors at Goldman Sachs [GS 148.20 0.82 (+0.56%) ], J.P. Morgan [JPM 40.33 0.50 (+1.26%) ] and other New York financial houses are making too much money working out those financial instruments, and the President acceded to their pleas for profits, against the best interests of jobs creation.
Now, small and medium sized businesses that rely on regional banks for credit can't expand and add employees. For ordinary working families, credit is scarcer and more expensive. Neither phenomenon is good for jobs creation.
Having failed to push a carbon tax through a voter wary Senate, the President is intent on punishing energy use by executive fiat through the Environmental Projection Agency.
The Council of Economic Advisors claims the $787 billion stimulus package saved or created about three million jobs but the Administration head count of jobs directly funded by the economic Recovery Act simply contracts the assumptions behind this analysis.
A good deal of the money was wasted or delayed private hiring, exacerbating unemployment. For example, subsidies to build windmills or green buildings displace other investments in new generating capacity and commercial space but don't add to the kilowatts purchased and office space rented two and three years from now. The economy gets the same investments-those just costs more and gets postponed.
The President managed to make much temporary stimulus spending permanent, creating trillion dollar deficits for many years to come and endangering the federal government's triple-A bond rating. Obama's response is to increase income and estate taxes, and Pelosi is floating a national sales tax. None of those create jobs.
Signs abound that the economic recovery is faltering under the weight of statism. Retails sales and new home construction are sinking, Obama's inept Treasury and housing bureaucrats can't stem foreclosure for two million families this year, and non-financial companies are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash reluctant to invest and hire.
"It simply is not in Obama and Pelosi's DNA to believe ordinary people know what's good for them."
Peter Morici
Professor, Smith School of Business, University of Maryland
Now, the President's Harvard bred, Wall Street fed, Washington dressed economists tell Americans they must endure high unemployment and declining incomes for most of this decade.
Maybe common folk who vote and earn a living in the real world know something Ivy League professors living off endowment income and advising presidents can't fathom. Reckless, unproductive government spending, higher taxes and regulations that accomplish little but to raise costs, kill investment, drive jobs offshore, and destroy prosperity.
It simply is not in Obama and Pelosi's DNA to believe ordinary people know what's good for them.
Thankfully, the first Democrats, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, gave common folk a remedy for the arrogance of aristocrats-elections every two years.
______________________
Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
The ER myth
By Marc Siegel
One of the major myths attached to the new health reform law is that it will lead to fewer emergency room visits. Instead of having to go to the ER, the claim goes, more efficient care will be administered to the newly insured in doctors offices by primary care physicians like me.
President Obama himself perpetuated this claim. A year ago at a town hall meeting on health care reform, he said, "We know that when somebody doesn't have health insurance, they're forced to get treatment at the ER, and all of us end up paying for it. ... You'd be better off subsidizing to make sure they were getting regular checkups." In late May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in Roll Call that "the uninsured will get coverage, no longer left to the emergency room for medical care."
Now we know better.
It's not terribly surprising that real data from Massachusetts, which has had universal health coverage since 2006, show otherwise. From 2004 to 2008, ER visits in the Bay State rose by 9%, with no discernable improvement after 2006. Why? At least part of the reason has been the inability of patients to find primary care physicians for last-minute visits. Let's face it: The ER won't turn you away, but individual and overburdened doctors can and will. The Massachusetts Medical Society has reported that new patients wait for a primary care doctor visit up to two months.
A problem for all of us
With the new national health care law, Massachusetts' problem very well may be manifested across the USA. Already, we don't have enough doctors. Indeed, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the U.S. will be 160,000 short by 2025. ERs, too, have downsized over time. A yearly survey by the American Hospital Association has shown a 10% decline in emergency departments from 1991 to 2008, despite an increasing demand for such care. So if we have depleted ERs, not enough doctors and millions of more patients, the math doesn't work.
To make matters worse, 16 million more patients will be eligible for Medicaid by 2014, but doctors are limiting the number of such patients they see. Where will these patients go? You got it. The ER. Medicare will soon have the same problem, as more than 70 million Baby Boomers begin to flood the system.
Yet instead of simply complaining about our impending doom as we add 30 million more people to the health insurance coffers, I suggest that the folks in Washington transitioning the health care reform from law into reality must deal with the world as it exists, not as it was sold to the American people.
What can be done?
First, tackle the doctor shortage. In June, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that $250 million will be set aside to create 1,700 new primary care doctors, new clinics and to implement strategies to expand the workforce. This is a step forward — albeit a very small one. Medical students need to have incentives — scholarships, loan forgiveness or better pay — that will push more of them into primary care rather than more lucrative specialties.
Second, we need strategies to make medicine more efficient so patients get better, rather than rushed, care. Recent research suggests that computer analysis and improved schedule strategies can decrease patient waiting time by 40%. Integrating nurse practitioners and physicians assistants into doctors' practices also would help.
Most important will be re-orienting our system away from emergency intervention. Diet, exercise and smoking cessation would unclog ERs in a hurry. New technology and education can help doctors and patients predict, prevent, diagnose and treat a disease before it requires an urgent medical visit.
Consider the ER challenge just one of many we're likely to see as the health care law reveals itself, bit by bit, to the American people.
Marc Siegel is an internist and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone Medical Center. He is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-28-column28_ST1_N.htmMissouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.
About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.
The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.
Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies...
Bold MineYep, it's a Goddam epidemic. The states are beginning to reject the Federal socialist take over of our country by the sitting Congress. Pass the popcorn.
Hmmmmm....
Medicare's chief actuary vs. President Obama on the ObamaCare facts.
There probably isn't a worse job in Washington than Medicare trustee, unpaid Capitol Hill interns included. Every year the trustees issue the gravest warnings about entitlement spending and at best prompt a moment of brow-furrowing before the political class returns to its default state of indifference.
This year's report, issued last week, has more than the usual political meaning because Democrats are hailing it as validation of their claims that ObamaCare will save taxpayers money. The trustee report shows "how the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce costs and make Medicare stronger," the White House said in a statement.
One problem: That spin ignores the extraordinary companion analysis by chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster that repudiates this conclusion and is the most damning fiscal indictment to date of the Affordable Care Act.
The trustees do estimate the Medicare hospital trust fund will run out of money in 2029, some 12 years later than they estimated last year. (Keep in mind that the trust fund is a meaningless accounting artifact because Medicare was long ago financed in part by general tax revenues.) It's also true that, thanks to ObamaCare's changes under current budget rules, Medicare's unfunded 75-year liability has fallen to about $30.8 trillion from nearly $37 trillion in the previous audit.
Even in Washington, $6.2 trillion is real money. Yet this is a strange excuse for celebration. Democrats wrung about a half-trillion dollars from Medicare over the next decade, but then they turned around and plowed these "savings" into their new middle-class health-care entitlement. It's akin to paying off one credit card with another—while still being deeply in hock on the first.
But then comes the report's final appendix, where Mr. Foster disowns the previous 280-odd pages. Mr. Foster has been Medicare's chief actuary for 15 years, and as such he is required to evaluate the law as written. But as he notes in his appendix, the law as written bears little if any relation to the real world—and thus, he says, the trustee estimates "do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range . . . or the long range." In an unprecedented move, he directs readers to a separate "alternative scenario" that his office drew up using more realistic assumptions.
Mr. Foster shows that the Medicare "cuts" that Democrats wrote into ObamaCare exist only on paper and were written so they could pretend to reduce the deficit and perform the miracles the trustees dutifully outlined. With the exception of cuts in Medicare Advantage, those reductions will never happen in practice.
One of the fictions Mr. Foster highlights is the 30% cut in physician payments over the next three years that Democrats have already promised to disallow. Republicans would do the same, we hasten to add.
Another chunk of ObamaCare "savings" are due to cranking down Medicare's price controls for hospitals and other providers that Mr. Foster says are also "extremely unlikely to occur." In the absence of "substantial and transformational changes in health-care practices"—in other words, a productivity revolution in medicine that has never happened—costs will simply rise for private patients, or hospitals will refuse to treat seniors insured by Medicare. Congress will never allow that to happen either.
In other words, under ObamaCare the "cost curve" will not be bent as the White House has advertised.
Under his more plausible outlook, Mr. Foster notes that Medicare's share of the economy will rise 60% between now and 2040, while under the trustees report that Democrats are crowing about it would "only" rise by 35%. Didn't President Obama tell us that health-care reform is entitlement reform?
Politicians have deliberately written the ObamaCare rules, as they have for all entitlements, so the real costs are disguised and hard for taxpayers to figure out. During the ObamaCare debate, Mr. Foster was honest enough from his Medicare perch to expose the plan's true costs, and his new Medicare demarche continues this public service. He ought to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or at least some media attention. But in Barack Obama's Washington, his honesty will be rewarded with obscurity.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575413263344491010.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopthe law as written bears little if any relation to the real world—and thus, he says, the trustee estimates "do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range . . . or the long range." In an unprecedented move, he directs readers to a separate "alternative scenario" that his office drew up using more realistic assumptions.
Politicians have deliberately written the ObamaCare rules, as they have for all entitlements, so the real costs are disguised and hard for taxpayers to figure out. During the ObamaCare debate, Mr. Foster was honest enough from his Medicare perch to expose the plan's true costs,
Certainly a partisan piece, but still.... Damning statements from the one man who probably knows best.
Since there is no such thing as "ObamaCare", your arguments are invalid.:p:
Everyone calls it ObamaCare, therefore it is... :D
From Wiki ...
The term was usually used pejoratively, but some supporters of the act suggested after being passed that it be embraced and used positively.
Obamacare in Pictures Busts Health Care Myths
Heritage’s Center for Health Policy Studies has compiled the best and most recent research on the impact Obamacare will have on various aspects of the health care system. These charts (available for individual download or as a package) illustrate the unintended consequences of the new law and expose the unproven claims the President and other proponents of a government overhaul of health care made during the debate, such as:
* If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.
* It will bend the cost curve of health care spending.
* Obamacare won’t add a dime to our soaring federal deficit.
* Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for Obamacare.
* It will not lead to a government take over of health insurance.
The graphics available in Obamacare in Pictures show how, rather than achieving universal coverage, some 41 percent of Americans will be uninsured in 2019 under Obamacare. Additionally, more than 17 million Americans are expected to no longer have employer-sponsored coverage because of the new law. Then there’s the $529 billion in cuts to Medicare that will be used to pay for middle-income Americans to purchase subsidized health insurance. The list goes on.
The list of unintended consequences of Obamacare is long. Despite the exorbitant cost to Americans on several levels, the health care overhaul will fail to deliver on the promises for which it was sold. The best way forward is repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act so that Congress can start over and get health care reform right. Obamacare in Pictures makes this clearer than ever.
heritage.org
Definitely a biased piece, but it brings some good points to the table.
I guess the "Its a start, we'll modify it as we go" plan might be a good idea.
Obama and the Dems knowingly lied to the electorate. Payback is in Nov.
Now merc - go to the damn link first and actually read it - look at the pretty pictures and then make a snarky comment!
Isn't it funny how Heritage pretends to want to have a serious conversation about health care and yet they still call it "Obamacare".
Wake me when the solution is more important than the snark.
I noticed that too. I had to post it though.
While House and Senate leaders negotiate over the final version of a health care bill, they seem to have forgotten one thing: many of them, including the President, pledged to deny support to any bill which would add to the federal deficit. Until now, budgetary gimmicks have hidden the true cost of the health care bills, but neither chamber of Congress has succeeded at creating a bill which is deficit neutral and falls under $900 billion—the limit set by President Obama himself .
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/19/cost-of-health-care-bill-soars-despite-presidents-pledge/
FACT CHECK: Obama's tone shifts on health care
By ERICA WERNER and CALVIN WOODWARD (AP) – 3 days ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.
So far, the law he signed earlier this year hasn't had the desired effect. An analysis from Medicare's Office of the Actuary this week said that the nation's health care tab will go up — not down — through 2019 as a result of Obama's sweeping law, though the increase is modest.
Obama offered some caveats when asked in his news conference Friday about the apparent discrepancy between what he promised and what's actually happening so far. On several other topics, too, his rhetoric fell short of a full accounting.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — An occasional look at assertions by public officials and how well they adhere to the facts
___
A look at some of the claims at his news conference and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Said he never expected to extend insurance coverage to an additional 31 million people "for free." He added that "we've made huge progress" if medical inflation could be brought down to the level of overall inflation, or somewhere slightly above that.
THE FACTS: Those claims may be supported in the fine print of the plan he pitched to Congress and a skeptical public months ago. But they were rarely heard back then. "My proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses and the federal government," he declared in March.
Last August he predicted: "The American people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage, we're bending the cost curve, and we're getting insurance reforms."
On Friday, he conceded: "Bending the cost curve on health care is hard to do." The goal: "Slowly bring down those costs."
The White House contends that although health care costs will rise when most of the changes take hold in 2014 and coverage is extended to the uninsured, costs will go down over the longer term as controls kick in.
___
OBAMA: "We took every idea out there about how to reduce or at least slow the costs of health care over time."
THE FACTS: One idea that most experts believe would do the most to control health costs — directly taxing health benefits — was missing in Obama's plan. Opposition from unions and others was too great, and Obama himself had campaigned against the idea.
Some of the major cost controllers that did make it into the law — including a tax on high-value insurance plans — don't start until 2018. That tax was watered down and delayed, and other cost-control approaches also softened after opposition from hospitals and other interest groups.
Health spending already accounts for about 17 percent of the economy and is projected to grow to nearly 20 percent in 2019.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gayIiVSnEX8h2nbrvI2X4a9eo4qQD9I5913O1For every person that supported Obamacare I hope your premiums triple....
As insurers face health care law requirements, customers face cancellations
September 8, 2010
In the letter sent to the Alcantaras and other customers, Grand Prairie-based National Health Insurance Co. said it could no longer offer individual accident and health insurance policies. It blamed its decision on the company's inability to meet requirements of the health care overhaul signed into law this year.
The cancellation highlights one way the new law is reshaping the health care landscape in North Texas and elsewhere. Some health economists say more small insurers may soon buckle under the weight of the law's mandates.
The law's biggest challenge for insurers is a requirement starting Jan. 1 that specifies "medical loss ratios" – the percentage of an insurer's premiums spent on medical services for its customers. For individual plans, the new law requires that at least 80 percent of premiums go toward paying medical expenses; for large group coverage, the minimum rises to 85 percent.
Insurers that fail to meet the requirement will have to pay rebates to customers.
"The fact is that there are a number of plans who won't be able to meet this requirement and will simply exit the market," said Jared Wolfe, executive director for the Texas Association of Health Plans, an Austin-based group representing concerns of insurers.
But Ben Gonzalez, spokesman for the Texas Department of Insurance, said, "There is always some movement in and out of the market by smaller players. We do not see a specific trend at this point."
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has the responsibility of writing the rules for what will qualify as a medical expense, said insurers like National Health may be acting prematurely.
"We have recently heard reports that some insurers are making decisions about participation in particular markets based on the effect of these requirements," Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. secretary of health and human services, said in a statement. "It is premature for insurers to make business decisions about participation in particular markets based on rules that have yet to be published, or to apply for exemptions to rules that have not yet been drafted."
Approval to cancel
On July 26, the Texas Department of Insurance gave National Health approval to stop offering individual accident and health insurance policies. National Health sent letters to the Alcantaras and other customers four days later.
"After careful consideration of the recent health care legislation, National Health Insurance Co. has determined that it will not be able to meet the requirements set forth by the [health care law] recently enacted by the United States federal government," the company said in its letter. "With this knowledge, NHIC has decided to cease distributing and renewing its medical expense plans."
National Health, which declined repeated requests for interviews, did not say in its letter which of the requirements in the 906-page law it has trouble meeting.
But Wolfe said the new medical-loss ratio requirements will be more of a hardship for smaller insurance companies like National Health than for larger companies.
"The individual market has much higher administrative costs than the large group market due to a number of factors, [such as] costs are spread across fewer lives, the cost of underwriting and the role of brokers," Wolfe said.
A company the size of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas – the state's largest insurer, with 3.8 million members, 400 hospitals and 40,000 physicians – can rely on name recognition to generate business. But smaller insurers have to heavily rely on insurance brokers, and the new medical loss requirements will hurt their commissions, Wolfe said.
And, as smaller insurance companies bow out under weight of the medical loss ratio requirements, larger insurers stand to increase their market share. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas says it sees an opportunity.
"Although we are actively evaluating all aspects of pending health reform definitions and regulations, including the implications of minimum medical loss ratio requirements, we believe that individual insurance is a valuable service and are committed to that market," said spokeswoman Margaret Jarvis.
Financial pressures
The new law is adding to the pressures felt by companies like National Health, which has had financial troubles for at least three years, according to the insurer's financial records kept with the Texas Department of Insurance.
Since December 2007, its assets have fallen 31 percent, from $36.7 million to $25.2 million in December 2009. Premiums from its accident and health division fell 27 percent during the same period, from $8.1 million to $5.9 million.
And since October 2009, the insurer has racked up penalties in several states for not filing health care cost reports or financial statements on time, according to records kept by the Department of Insurance.
The insurer plans to continue writing Medicare supplement policies and specified disease policies. But as a condition of stopping its individual health insurance business, National Health will not be allowed to re-enter that market until 2015.
For the Alcantaras, the loss of their insurance policy is major blow, but not a complete surprise.
They've been pleased with their high-deductible policy, which is tailored to cover Al's Type 2 diabetes and gives them access to all the doctors they want. Their policy will be terminated Feb. 1.
"I honestly believed this would happen," said Jill Alcantara, a critic of the new health law.
High-risk pool
The Alcantaras now plan to join the Texas High Risk Insurance Pool. The plans available range from a $2,500 deductible with $1,025 monthly premium to a $7,000 deductible with a $662 monthly premium. Jill Alcantara acknowledges that's expensive.
"But that's just what we're going to have to do," she said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-CanceledPolicy_08bus.ART.State.Edition1.26bb3e6.htmlExclusive Video: Gov. Mitch Daniels on Obamacare’s Devastating Consequences
(first hand video documentation linked)
....note with special sadness that first and foremost amongst the bill's
consequences will be the probable demise of the Healthy Indiana Plan
(HIP). This program is currently providing health insurance to 50,000
low-income Hoosiers. With its Health Savings Account-style personal
accounts and numerous incentives for healthy lifestyle choices, it has
been enormously popular and successful.
Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid, soon to cover one in every four
citizens, will not only scoop up most of HIP's participants, but will
also cost the state between $3.1 and $3.9 billion over the next decade.
It is hard to see how my successors as governor will be able to avoid a
steep state tax increase to pay for it. Meanwhile, our medical device
companies and small businesses will shed jobs as they wrestle with the
taxes and penalties levied to help finance Washington's "reforms."
Of course, it's a misnomer to even refer to this as "reform." It doesn't
reform anything. Instead, it perpetuates and magnifies all the worst
aspects of our current system: fee for service reimbursement, "free" to
the purchaser consumption, and an irrationally expensive medical
liability tort system. It's a sure recipe for yet more overconsumption
and overspending.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/27/exclusive-video-gov-mitch-daniels-on-obamacares-devastating-consequences/Isn't it funny how Heritage pretends to want to have a serious conversation about health care and yet they still call it "Obamacare".
Wake me when the solution is more important than the snark.
It will always be known as Obamacare. Get over it and get use to it. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. Good or bad.
Yeah that's where I'm weird: I think finding the real solution is more important than winning the horseshit debate via name-calling and rhetoric and snark.
Yeah that's where I'm weird: I think finding the real solution is more important than winning the horseshit debate via name-calling and rhetoric and snark.
this
If it truly turns out to be this great and wondrous thing, you can bet your ass that it'll be called Obamacare. Finding the real solution is the most important thing. Learning about what this thing really is, is a necessary step in that direction.
I noticed that too. I had to post it though.
Of course you did. And it was very helpful.:comfort::thankyou:
Your welcome. Thanks for that valuable input, as usual.
I'd like to thank the republican attorney general of Pennsylvania for wasting my tax dollars by sueing my federal government over healthcare reform, which caused the federal government to waste my tax dollars defending healthcare reform. That there is fiscal responsibility!
Your welcome. Thanks for that valuable input, as usual.
It's my pleasure to add value to you're day! :blush:
I'd like to thank the republican attorney general of Pennsylvania for wasting my tax dollars by sueing my federal government over healthcare reform, which caused the federal government to waste my tax dollars defending healthcare reform. That there is fiscal responsibility!
Same could be said of the Feds suing AZ. At least the AG in PA has company - 21 other states have also sued over the "reform." There are also others still considering it also.
Should health-care reform be repealed?
A quick assessment from both sidesIf it truly turns out to be this great and wondrous thing, you can bet your ass that it'll be called Obamacare. Finding the real solution is the most important thing. Learning about what this thing really is, is a necessary step in that direction.
Of course, the term Obamacare is pejorative.
You bet your ass, if its successful, it will be take on a positive connotation? WTF?
I missed when Social Security became known as RooseveltSecurity or Medicare was called JohnsonCare.
But, hey, I'll play your silly game.
SUPPORT AMERICA - SUPPORT OBAMACARE
Several importation provisions of the Affordable Care Act start becoming effective later this month (six months after the bill's passage):
[INDENT]If you have children under the age of 19 with pre-existing medical conditions, you can add them to your family health insurance plan and their application for coverage cannot be denied due to a pre-existing condition.
Adults under 26 may qualify to rejoin their parent's plan, even if they're married, don't live with their parent, are no longer a student, and/or are no longer a dependent on their parent's tax return.
The end of out-of-pocket lifetime limits....you wont be forced to spend your way into bankruptcy to pay for a sudden or serious illness or medical condition.
Free (no co-payment) for most preventive care (immunizations, colonoscopy, mammogram, etc.)
Added protection from rate increases - Insurance companies required to publicly disclose rate increases and provide justification before raising premiums
No more dropping your when faced with a sudden (expensive) treatment - Insurance companies cannot rescind coverage unless you commit fraud or intentionally misrepresent the facts.[/INDENT]
SO, which of these DONT you support?
Of course, the insurance industry is already claiming that the Affordable Care Act is responsible for current rate increases....ignoring the fact that they have increased rates nearly 100% in the last ten years.
Rates will continue to increase...at least in the short term. The question is if that increase be at that same 100% over the next ten years or at a slower rate when the full effect of the Affordable Care Act kicks in.
In 2011, the provision that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care instead of overhead, salaries, administrative expenses and profits becomes effective.
And in 2014, with the Insurance Exchanges in place, there will be a much more competitive market, particularly for the uninsured and small group (small employers currently not offering coverage to employees).
In nearly every industry, competition generally inhibits cost increases. Will it apply in health care. We'll see. The naysayers have already said NO.
Will front-end investments (particularly in health care technology) in making the system more productive and efficient in the long-term lead to lower costs?
Certainly does for other industries and even on a personal level (you spend more on a high end home energy system to ultimately lower your monthy energy costs, but the payback takes time).
How to respond to "baiting" in the Cellar:
1) ignore
2) respond with childish remarks about blowjobs.
3) respond with humor
4) edit the posts of others
1) ______________
2) Go get a BJ - I hear they are cheap in Ohio.
3)see #2
4)see all of above
2) Go get a BJ - I hear they are cheap in Ohio.
3)see #2
4)see all of above
What a surprise.
Instead of addressing the specific facts and issues in my post....you stay in the gutter, with the BJ remarks. From one who whined for months about an attack on another member's wife....you continue to make odious disparaging references to a female member.
Classically classless.
That's Classhole to you. Don't like it? Don't respond to me or my posts.
We already went through this.
And calling me out for one offhand JOKE while your sig is the exact same thing (with links ) except its attached to every post you've ever made.
Where's that ignore button sparky?
I guess
this post crossed the line for super-sensitive members.
I am befuddled and bemused by the classic response...and IMO, others, should be equally offended by the BJ remark.
Where's that ignore button sparky?
Nope - HE can stop responding to me or HE can put
me on ignore. I'm not going to do it. He has initiated the interaction EVERY TIME. I have only responded to him. If he doesn't engage me, there will not be a problem. If he does, apparently there will. I have already said I wouldn't start it, but I will respond.
You only respond to baiting, ond only by being pissy about it.
If you tried occasionally responding to the substance of posts, you might get more sympathy about the baiting.
Or you might not; the experiment might not be worth it to you.
The end of out-of-pocket lifetime limits....you wont be forced to spend your way into bankruptcy to pay for a sudden or serious illness or medical condition.
What? I thought "out-of-pocket lifetime limits" meant you only had to spend X amount and no more. Eliminate them and you have to keep paying at the predetermined percentage, or dollar amount, regardless how much it is.:confused:
No; lifetime limits are on payouts. At least, the ones eliminated by HIR.
I don't think any insurer offers lifetime limits on what you pay them, though deductibles are yearly limits, to an extent.
OK, most policies I've seen have lifetime limits on what the insurance companies will pay, but they are never called "out of pocket", that always referred to the insured.
You are correct xob. "Out of pocket" and "lifetime limits" are two separate things.
OOP= max that the insured pays per year. Typically $5000.
LL= Maximum the insurance Co. will pay out over the lifetime of the policy or the insured. Typically $1-5 million.
One insured that I am aware of is already well over 2 million with a limit of 3. Not a good situation.
You only respond to baiting, ond only by being pissy about it.
Only to a selecct group.
If you tried occasionally responding to the substance of posts, you might get more sympathy about the baiting.
See above and you can keep your sympathy. I don't want it either.
Or you might not; the experiment might not be worth it to you.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Just to be clear, I have ZERO interest in ANY interaction with Redux. Z.E.R.O. none nada zilch. He is dead to me.
Lifetime limits are what has been eliminated (my latest benefits newsletter confirms this).
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Just to be clear, I have ZERO interest in ANY interaction with Redux. Z.E.R.O. none nada zilch. He is dead to me.
Zero
substantive interaction perhaps. You seem to resent any suggestion to have zero
actual interaction.
Correct, I believe... I know they are no longer written into policies. I assume they are being eliminated from all preexisting ones as well. That is part of the reason that rates will increase. The insurance companies will be on the hook forever in certain circumstances.
The companies are tryin instead to limit what they can pay on specific things instead. Theoretically there is no "Lifetime Maximum." BUT they are attempting to skirt the issue by writing limits into policies in other ways. Some of these are eliminating limiting certain procedures, treatments and/or medical supplies/items.
Zero substantive interaction perhaps. You seem to resent any suggestion to have zero actual interaction.
I will not engage him. I have made that clear, but if he is going to, I will respond. Which part of that are you not grasping. You're a bright guy, its not that complicated.
The companies are tryin instead to limit what they can pay on specific things instead. Theoretically there is no "Lifetime Maximum." BUT they are attempting to skirt the issue by writing limits into policies in other ways. Some of these are eliminating limiting certain procedures, treatments and/or medical supplies/items.
That's why we can never let up and just let them do what they want.
Actually, it's why we should go to single payer, but in lieu of that it is why they should be heavily regulated.
Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever. Severe regulation adds inherent costs that will offset any savings. The more bureaucratic this becomes, the more it will cost.
ETA - Dumping an additional 30million people onto an already taxed system with the prior planning, training, staff and facilities is going to be very bad - for how long is the only unknown.
Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever.
Thank you for being honest enough to admit the over riding Socialist agenda of the liberal progressive left demoncrats. You are the first to at least stand up and state the obvious.
I believe many wanted that - IIRC the R's prevented that from happening.
Anyone who understands what's wrong with our medical system, realizes single payer is the only practical solution. No system is perfect, but there are plenty of examples around the world showing that single payer works the best for 99% of the citizens.
Anyone who understands what's wrong with our medical system, realizes single payer is the only practical solution. No system is perfect, but there are plenty of examples around the world showing that single payer works the best for 99% of the citizens.
In the long term, I agree.
But in practical terms, with 200 million people in employer-based health care, you cant get there from here overnight....without massive disruptions.
In the long term, I agree.
But in practical terms, with 200 million people in employer-based health care, you cant get there from here overnight....without massive disruptions.
Fuck that, that is not what the Demoncrats or Obama or that bitch Pelosi promised the electorate.
Now you want to modify the pain. Ha. See you in Nov.
Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever. Severe regulation adds inherent costs that will offset any savings. The more bureaucratic this becomes, the more it will cost.
Another point for single payer. But we can't have that, so we're stuck with the insurance companies. And we can't let them do whatever they want just because it would be expensive to police them.
How to respond to "baiting" in the Cellar:
1) ignore
2) respond with childish remarks about blowjobs.
3) respond with humor
4) edit the posts of others
1) ______________
2) Go get a BJ - I hear they are cheap in Ohio.
3)see #2
4)see all of above
Really? Someone throws a stone at you, and you throw a stone at someone who is not even a bystander - someone who is at home minding their own business? Really?
Fuck that, that is not what the Demoncrats or Obama or that bitch Pelosi promised the electorate.
republican talking points.:corn:
Another point for single payer. But we can't have that, so we're stuck with the insurance companies.
Which I've already said was my preferred option
And we can't let them do whatever they want just because it would be expensive to police them.
NEVER did I say anything of the sort.
Really? Someone throws a stone at you, and you throw a stone at someone who is not even a bystander - someone who is at home minding their own business? Really?
So you decide to get into a pissing match that I wanted no part of to begin with. So you are interjecting your 2 cents for what purpose? Really?
For the record - I threw a stone right back at the asshole and his yapdogs, you included. Let it fuckin' die.
So you decide to get into a pissing match that I wanted no part of to begin with. So you are interjecting your 2 cents for what purpose? Really?
For the record - I threw a stone right back at the asshole and his yapdogs, you included. Let it fuckin' die.
This is why people don't like you.
NEVER did I say anything of the sort.
OK
Severe regulation adds inherent costs that will offset any savings. The more bureaucratic this becomes, the more it will cost.
So this was merely a prediction, and not an argument against severe regulation? It can be hard to judge tone on the internet.
This is why people don't like you.
And your getting into something that previously had NOTHING to do with you is why some people don't like you - me included. This type of behavior is why I had you on ignore. Additionally, your opinion doesn't matter to me. Some people like me some don't - thats life. Now for everyone's benefit why don't you stay out of mine.
So this was merely a prediction, and not an argument against severe regulation? It can be hard to judge tone on the internet.
Absolutely an argument FOR single payer. (shouldn't that be pay
or?)
What they've done now is probably worse financially. Certainly not an endorsement of no regulation, nor an endorsement of heavy regulation - just an opinion.
And your getting into something that previously had NOTHING to do with you
Had nothing to do with me until YOU brought me into. At least that's what you said:
I threw a stone right back at the asshole and his yapdogs, [COLOR="Red"]you included[/COLOR].
.... Now for everyone's benefit why don't you stay out of mine.
Sure, right up until you bring me back in. You're obsessed with me.
Health Insurers Seeking Rate Hikes Of More Than 20 Percent In Connecticut
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "These outrageous requests demonstrate the need for stronger Department of Insurance authority to block unjustified health insurance premium increases, as I strongly advocated in the last session. My proposed bill would have allowed the commissioner to consider insurer profitability, required insurers to inform customers of rate requests and mandated an up or down ruling on all increases."
On Sept. 23, health insurers will be required to comply with an array of provisions that were part of federal health reform laws passed six months ago. In Connecticut, some of provisions were already extended to consumers by state law. Others were not, and they are cited as part of the reason for proposed increases to premiums starting Oct. 1.
"If you fail to recognize that the new requirements around benefits that were passed in federal reform were going to drive price, I think you're being intellectually irresponsible," said Keith Stover, a lobbyist with the Connecticut Association of Health Plans.
New regulations include eliminating cash limits on how much insurers pay per person each year, and throughout a person's lifetime. Insurers won't be able to deny coverage to children under 19 who have a pre-existing medical condition. Additionally, some federal laws duplicate what was already law in Connecticut, such as allowing young adults to stay on their parents plan until they reach age 26.
"Those are new benefits that are going to cost money," Stover said. "You can't just wave the magic wand and say, 'Do all these things, and they're free.' It just doesn't work that way."
From here: Bold mine.
For the record, there was no stone thrown in
this post unless one is so super sensitive and takes any opposing view specifically directed at his post as a personal attack.
Today, the average cost of a family health insurance offered by an employer is $13,375. That's up 131% over the last decade—a period in which inflation rose only 28%. And one estimate says that if costs continue on their current trajectory, premiums will go up another 166% in the decade ahead
Read more: http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/#ixzz0zcb6Jd6D
From
hereHow to respond to "baiting" in the Cellar:
1) ignore
2) respond with facts and not by whining to a moderator that someone is picking on you or with childish remarks about blowjobs.
3) respond with humor; some are better than others at this approach (you know who you are)
4) don't edit the posts of others; it makes you look foolish and unable to think for yourself
Since we're playing the semantics game ...
This is attached to every post you make - deliberately. That in itself is enough.
Since we're playing the semantics game ...
This is attached to every post you make - deliberately. That in itself is enough.
You dont like my signature...too bad. Didnt you have a signature for quite a while directed at TW? You like to dish it out, but cant take it?
You over-reacted to the substance in my post in which there was no direct attack and no stones thrown and you responded with an ignorant and offensive remark about a BJ directed at another member...and then claim it was a joke? Bullshit.
You're not only super sensitive, as others have noted. IMO, you're a liar.
Gee for one who claims to take the higher ground - BWAHAHAHAA
Your opinion? Your opinion is meaningless.
Was that necessary, Merc? :eyebrow:
FTR. He likes to change shit he posts and then come back as all holier than thou....
But I get your point, and I shall refrain from further documentation....
Point taken.
A provider is coming between my patient and the product that is best for them and that they want.
VSP, one of the largest eyewear insurance providers has decided it will not pay for frames made by Aspex Eyewear Group. Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP.
Isn't our current system just wonderful?
It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.
It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.
Wrong.
Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.
Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.
Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP.
vsp was a very cool Dwellar back in the day, I wish he would return.
C-man, your objections here don't really parse for me. You are saying that supplier Aspex is at fault for suing?
I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?
Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.
A judge can order a restraining order preventing VSP from selling frames the made that are based on the Ampex patent. That's not what we have here. There's no law preventing VSP from doing business with Ampex or vice-versa.
Sorry to toss this in at this point in the discussion, but I think its warranted.
Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.
Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
WASHPO
What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so. If you are gonna regulate, do it right at least. Another reason why single payer was the only way to go.
Because these kinds of lawsuits happen all the time and insurance companies still do business with everybody. A lawsuit can be initiated by anybody and has no bearing on any other aspect of business.
Ok so if thats true, why do you think its different in this case?
It's no different. VSP is permitted to cover Aspex product. They have chosen not to.
Why would they choose not to in this case? Something has got to be different.
This is all I could find.
New York (May 21, 2010) -- A federal judge has endorsed vision insurer Vision Service Plan's argument that it does not have to do business with a courtroom adversary, denying eyeglass maker Aspex Eyewear Inc.'s bid for an injunction to keep it “in-network” while the two engage in patent and antitrust litigation.
Aspex has not shown it is likely to succeed in its antitrust case against VSP, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California...
Perhaps its because they are no longer an "in-network" provider.
Thats what must have happened.
ETA -
just found it - thats what happened.
VSP moved Aspex from in-network to not in-network. That is the insurance terminology for VSP saying they are no longer providing insurance for Aspex frames.
OH, I got that now. I didn't get that out of what Spex posted.
I've worked for several and dealt with many insurance companies and providers over the years - in my experience, that happens all the time.
That just happened to a major ambulance company that I had to deal with last year. I hope that my input was part of the reason why they are no longer in-network.
In fact, I hope they go out of business.
I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?
Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.
The company with the patent, Aspex, is the plaintiff. The defendant, vsp, is punishing Aspex for suing them.
What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so.
What gets me is that a company has to be forced to do the right thing.
Without knowing all the background on the company, we don't know why they chose to no longer keep them as an in-network provider. Perhaps there is another company that is selling comparable products at a more reasonable rate.
Don't you read your own links?
Citing ongoing “commercial disputes” between the two companies, the letter said VSP “has re-examined its business relationship” with Aspex as a consequence of that situation.
Occasionally. Usually I just post them here for the retired dwellars to read and point out the good parts.
Cartoonish explanation of reform
This Kaiser/Cokie Roberts cartoon explaining ObamaCare is getting a lot of attention. Great production values…
… but lousy on substance. Here’s why. It parrots the administration’s line that the bill brings down the deficit, but it doesn’t discuss:
—The cost of implementing the law, which the CBO says will be well over $100 billion
—The payment reductions that Medicare’s chief actuary admits will drive many health providers out of business
—The “doc fix” that could cost more than $300 billion
Other than that, the cartoon is great!
Joe Antos will have more on the high costs of ObamaCare on American.com tomorrow.
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers
By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News
Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.
Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.
REFORM: A consumer primer for health insurance changes in 2011
HEALTH CARE: New website compares coverage prices
"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."
The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.
The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.
McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.
The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.
The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskipGood, upstanding corporate citizens, they are.
I heard that the McDonald's plan cost the employee about $700 per year and had a maximum yearly payout of about $2000. That sounds more like a way to get money back from the employee than a benefit.
That's OK. You've seen the commercials, right? All the employees are healthy and happy and robust and they probably never need health insurance.
That's OK. You've seen the commercials, right? All the employees are healthy and happy and robust and they probably never need health insurance.
And they have all those Ronald McDonald Houses for when the employees get sick.:bolt:
[B]The biggest single waiver
, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund,
a New York union providing coverage for city teachers.[/B]
I heard that the McDonald's plan cost the employee about $700 per year and had a maximum yearly payout of about $2000. That sounds more like a way to get money back from the employee than a benefit.
That's equivalent to a plan costing $580 bucks a month, with a $20,000 max payout. Those are pretty standard numbers on many health plans. What it really boils down to is most people don't have the discipline to save that money each month for their inevitable health crisis down the road. To a certain degree health insurance is just an enforced savings plan.
You can burn through $20,000 coverage at the hospital, before they even figure out what's wrong.
Absolutely $20,000 is about 2 hours in a Shock Trauma unit... if that.
You can burn through $20,000 coverage at the hospital, before they even figure out what's wrong.
Damm right. Hell, my one day ER visit and a follow on 3 day ICU admission smoked through 20K. :D
OK - I'll give you all some perspective.
3 weeks in shock trauma well over $1,000,000.
$20,000 is almost not worth having. Heck most auto insurance policies have at least $5,000 on them.
Absolutely. Our health plan has paid out well over $20,000 already this year, and we haven't even had any major hospitalizations. My point was that a lot more than just the McDonald's employees have laughably inadequate coverage.
Like the nation's largest employer?
I wonder if the Teachers union waiver had anything to do with a political motive.
Damm right. Hell, my one day ER visit and a follow on 3 day ICU admission smoked through 20K. :D
OK - I'll give you all some perspective.
3 weeks in shock trauma well over $1,000,000.
$20,000 is almost not worth having. Heck most auto insurance policies have at least $5,000 on them.
Dang guys, can you imagine where you'd be if you DIDN'T have insurance?
Fucked, that's where. :rolleyes:
McDonald's Gets Taste of Obama Sausage-Making: Caroline Baum
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010.
She wasn’t kidding. The public got to peek under the hood last week when the Wall Street Journal reported that McDonald’s Corp. wanted out: out of a requirement in the new health-care law that compels employers to spend 80 to 85 percent of premiums on medical benefits.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-08/mcdonald-s-gets-taste-of-obama-sausage-making-commentary-by-caroline-baum.htmlDang guys, can you imagine where you'd be if you DIDN'T have insurance?
Actually the hospital eats the bill and then overcharges the rest of us, that is why the bills are so high.
One of the biggest losers in capturing $$ is from trauma care. Our state just voted in a $10 tag fee just to feed into the care of trauma patients.
Actually the hospital eats the bill and then overcharges the rest of us, that is why the bills are so high.
One of the biggest losers in capturing $$ is from trauma care. Our state just voted in a $10 tag fee just to feed into the care of trauma patients.
Dang guys, can you imagine where you'd be if you DIDN'T have insurance?
Fucked, that's where. :rolleyes:
I assume everyone complaining about the $ of trauma care is also in favor of capitalism for physicians and dentists.
That is, state-supported medical schools train med and dental students at a cost much higher than the tuition they pay,
so they can go into private practice to earn what ever the traffic will bear.
That's the capitalism part of it.
Did you know that private-practice dentists do not participate
in the trauma emergency response system... at least here in Oregon.
That's the dichotomy part of it.
Now for trauma care, we get to have a neuro-surgeon, an anesthesiologist, a full ER nursing staff,
a trained Trauma Coordinator, and their support staff either working or on-call 24/7.
We also have a emergency response team (Fire Dept ambulance) staffed with EMT's on 24/7 and a private ambulance (for transportation to the ER) to respond to the 911 calls.
That's the socialism part of it.
Did you know that private (non-specialized) physicians who are on-call (not working)
for the Central Oregon Trauma Center gets $1,000 per night, regardless of whether there is a call-in or not.
If there is a call-in (or even a phone consultation) the physician is then on his own (capitalism) clock
to be paid whatever is his "current and customary" rate will bear.
Dang guys, can you imagine where you'd be if you DIDN'T have insurance?
Fucked, that's where.
Yep I gots me some great insurance...Guess what?
I'm fucked anyway.
Did you know that private (non-specialized) physicians who are on-call (not working)
for the Central Oregon Trauma Center gets $1,000 per night, regardless of whether there is a call-in or not.
If there is a call-in (or even a phone consultation) the physician is then on his own (capitalism) clock
to be paid whatever is his "current and customary" rate will bear.
So what's the problem? That is how the system is set up in most places, but most places do not pay the on-call doc anything, they are just on Trauma Call and get only what they can get from the people who have insurance, the rest of the treatment they give is free. They call it Charity Call in a lot of places, and it is a condition of being a participating doc on staff and having admitting privileges for their regular patients. They have no choice but to participate. Some hospitals have docs who are employees, but that is not really the norm, and they may get paid something for call.
Obama Care strikes again....
ObamaCare's Incentive to Drop Insurance
My state of Tennessee could reduce costs by over $146 million using the legislated mechanics of health reform to transfer coverage to the federal government.
Let's do a thought experiment. We'll use my own state of Tennessee and our state employees for our data. The year is 2014 and the Affordable Care Act is now in full operation. We're a large employer, with about 40,000 direct employees who participate in our health plan. In our thought experiment, let's exit the health-benefits business this year and help our employees use an exchange to purchase their own.
First of all, we need to keep our employees financially whole. With our current plan, they contribute 20% of the total cost of their health insurance, and that contribution in 2014 will total about $86 million. If all these employees now buy their insurance through an exchange, that personal share will increase by another $38 million. We'll adjust our employees' compensation in some rough fashion so that no employee is paying more for insurance as a result of our action. Taking into account the new taxes that would be incurred, the change in employee eligibility for subsidies, and allowing for inefficiency in how we distribute this new compensation, we'll triple our budget for this to $114 million.
Now that we've protected our employees, we'll also have to pay a federal penalty of $2,000 for each employee because we no longer offer health insurance; that's another $86 million. The total state cost is now about $200 million.
But if we keep our existing insurance plan, our cost will be $346 million. We can reduce our annual costs by over $146 million using the legislated mechanics of health reform to transfer them to the federal government.
That's just for our core employees. We also have 30,000 retirees under the age of 65, 128,000 employees in our local school systems, and 110,000 employees in local government, all of which presents strategies even more economically attractive than the thought experiment we just performed. Local governments will find eliminating all coverage particularly attractive, as many of them are small and will thus incur minor or no penalties; many have health plans that will not meet the minimum benefit threshold, and so they'll see a substantial and unavoidable increase in cost if they continue providing benefits under the new federal rules.
Our thought experiment shows how the economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private. By 2014, there will be a mini-industry of consultants knocking on employers' doors to explain the new opportunity. And in the years after 2014, the economics just keep getting better.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopHey I got some news today...
My insurance premiums went up 70% Woo Hoo.
I can't imagine how much they would have gone up without HCR. Gobama!
Citing health care law, Boeing pares employee plan
In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
"The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources.
Boeing is the latest major employer to signal a shift for its workers as a result of the legislation, which expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people and ranks as President Barack Obama's top domestic achievement. Earlier, McDonald's had raised questions about whether a limited benefit plan that serves some 30,000 of its employees would remain viable under the law. That prompted the administration to issue McDonald's a waiver from certain requirements under the law.
Spokeswoman Karen Forte said the Boeing plan is more generous than what its closest competitors offer, and the company was concerned it would get hit with a new tax under the law.
The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans doesn't take effect until 2018, but employers are already beginning to assess their exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan.
Great... Read it and weep....
Boeing said annual deductibles and copayments will increase for all its plans next year.
Deductibles, the share of medical costs that employees pay annually before their plan kicks in, will go up to $300 for individuals, an increase of $100. For families, the new deductible will be $900, an increase of $300.
In addition, Boeing is instituting a copayment of 10 percent after the deductible has been met. The copayment will rise to 20 percent in 2012.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Oct/18/citing_health_care_law__boeing_pares_employee_plan.htmlHey I got some news today... My insurance premiums went up 70% Woo Hoo.
I can't imagine how much they would have gone up without HCR. Gobama!
Obama Care has hit mine as well. They are going up significantly and we have a good plan. But it remains to be seen if we are going to accept it or just completely drop it and ask to become a 1099 employee and get it from the gobberment, I will just take advantage of the screwed up system and put it back on the system.
Citing health care law, Boeing pares employee plan
WASHINGTON – Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.
In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_costs_boeingI read the letter from Boeing to the salaried employees. It's a business decision. Because the main competitor, Airbus, has employees who get medical coverage from their respective governments, also, medical costs have been going up at least twice the inflation rate for years.
This newspaper article blames the law, but the direct quotes are more telling.
We want to manage our costs so this tax doesn't apply to our plan, but that's down the road," said Forte. "If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."
I guess I just see that their hand is being forced by Obama Care either way. Maybe they are saying that to make it more palatable. But I don't trust them to tell the truth.
Either way Obama Care is pushing insurance rates up, up, up. Just as I predicted. Why? Because there are no controls in the bill and Obama is in bed with the insurance companies and unions. Color me purple. Isn't it interesting that now they are handing out "exceptions" to the law, to whom? Unions. Big Corps that supported the Demoncrats. The list will grow....
Where can I file for a waiver? I am now going to spend $600 a month on health insurance.
Thats triple what I was paying.
Join a Union. Maybe they will cut you a break. Not.
Just a question: have you had to use a lot of your benefits as of late? Have your cow orkers experienced the same (admittedly) huge jumps in their rates? I'm not being facetious, I just wonder if it's attributable to health care reform? Would you have any insurance at all, or could they have just cut you off completely?
Hey I got some news today...
My insurance premiums went up 70% Woo Hoo.
I can't imagine how much they would have gone up without HCR. Gobama!
Where can I file for a waiver? I am now going to spend $600 a month on health insurance.
Thats triple what I was paying.
70% increase triples your monthly payment?
Obama Care has hit mine as well. They are going up significantly and we have a good plan. But it remains to be seen if we are going to accept it or just completely drop it and ask to become a 1099 employee and get it from the gobberment, I will just take advantage of the screwed up system and put it back on the system.
That's the way to do it! You, sir, are a patriot and a scholar...a fine American.
Merc, I thought Vets were eligible for life-time health care through the VA. Is this not so ?
I know there is a problem for vets living a distance from their nearest VA hospital, but I also thought there was a Bill in Congress to provide an alternative assistance to allow such vets to receive care in their home town. But I don't think that Bill has yet been voted on.
Just a question: have you had to use a lot of your benefits as of late? Have your cow orkers experienced the same (admittedly) huge jumps in their rates? I'm not being facetious, I just wonder if it's attributable to health care reform? Would you have any insurance at all, or could they have just cut you off completely?
Very small group - two of the 4 employees jumped in age groups - for example one guy just turned 46 and the other 56...
This has zero to do with claims.
70% increase triples your monthly payment?
Yeh - policy is that the co. pays for the employee and the employee pays for his family. The "employee only" rate did not jump significantly (they rarely do)
The increase is the employee's responsibility.
Yeh - policy is that the co. pays for the employee and the employee pays for his family. The "employee only" rate did not jump significantly (they rarely do)
The increase is the employee's responsibility.
That sounds fishy. The part of the coverage that the employer pays for doesn't change, but the part that the employee pays for keeps escalating. Employer wins, employee gets screwed again. Hmmmmm...
Thanks for the clarification, and yeah...that is the sux.
That sounds fishy. The part of the coverage that the employer pays for doesn't change, but the part that the employee pays for keeps escalating. Employer wins, employee gets screwed again. Hmmmmm...
The employer pays whatever the employee rate is - VERY COMMON.
The employee pays the difference to cover his/her family - VERY COMMON.
The family rate increases much more than the employee only rate - VERY COMMON.
Which part?
The employer pays whatever the employee rate is - VERY COMMON.
The employee pays the difference to cover his/her family - VERY COMMON.
The family rate increases much more than the employee only rate - VERY COMMON.
Which part?
Why does the family rate increase much more than the employee rate?
Because other than the spouse, the family is usually children or old people.
Well, I remember working somewhere once that my insurance (me and husband) cost the same ("family") as one dude (him, wife, and nine children.) We hardly even used the insurance. That hardly seemed fair.
Family can be many - wife +multiple children. It mostly depends on how the tiers are set up. In this instance, it is all very common.
I will just take advantage of the screwed up system and put it back on the system.
That's very sneaky of you, doing what they wanted everyone to do in the first place, only now you're saying you're only doing it to spite them. They
want everyone to defer to the Federal plan, because ultimately they want to shift the whole system to single-payer. Of course it's going to be set up so it's cheaper for the states to do it that way.
This sounds like what corporations did for employees with their pension plans.
First the corp. pays all of the pension, but quietly transfers the $ to their operating budget.
Then they entice the employees by setting up 401 plans where they match $ for $ of the employee's contribution.
Then gradually, the corp. drops it's matching $ until the employee is paying 100% of their own pension.
It all happens so smoothly there are no uprisings or riots.
So if it works with pensions, it's bound to work with health plans too.
And as long as there is a surplus of workers looking for employment, they will get away with it. The labor force is in a severely vulnerable position right now and I don't think it will get better any time soon.
This sounds like what corporations did for employees with their pension plans.
First the corp. pays all of the pension, but quietly transfers the $ to their operating budget.
Then they entice the employees by setting up 401 plans where they match $ for $ of the employee's contribution.
Then gradually, the corp. drops it's matching $ until the employee is paying 100% of their own pension.
It all happens so smoothly there are no uprisings or riots.
So if it works with pensions, it's bound to work with health plans too.
It is bad enough that the Corps do it and have been doing it for quite some time. It is worse when the gobberment does it and lies to the public with comments like "you can keep the health plan you have", when in fact they know damm well that you can't.
Do you think they should have said, 'You can keep the health plan you have, unless your employer changes the agreement you have with them'? Isn't that always a given?
Do you think they should have said, 'You can keep the health plan you have, unless your employer changes the agreement you have with them'? Isn't that always a given?
Actually, I do believe that was what the final version said, which most of us found out
after the bill was passed, now we get the same thing under government control. Just because your plan changes does not mean that the costs will be radically different.
Family can be many - wife +multiple children. It mostly depends on how the tiers are set up. In this instance, it is all very common.
From
Here
Thystrup's business isn't the only one where premium increases are being blamed on the new health law. Celinda Lake runs the Democratic polling firm Lake Research. She said her firm's premiums are going up 20 percent.
"My broker told me that it's because of health insurance reform," she says.
But is it really?
Absolutely not, says Jay Angoff, who heads the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "It would be inaccurate and silly to blame it on the new law," he says.
Misinformation
"To the extent that the insurance companies blame the new law for rate increases, they know better," Angoff says. "They've said themselves that the new law would only raise rates by between 1 and 2 percent."
Insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski says there's still another reason premiums are rising so rapidly right now, particularly for individuals: the bad economy.
"What happens in a down economy is that people who are healthy have a tendency to drop their health insurance sooner, maybe [because] someone in the household has lost their job," he says. "But if you're sick, you're going to do everything you can — you'll take a second mortgage on the house if you have to — to pay your health insurance premiums because you think that maybe you're going to use the insurance."
That means the insurance risk pool is full of sicker people, and premiums go up faster. But Laszewski says even if the currently rising premiums can't be blamed directly on the new health law, its backers still have a very big problem: The law doesn't do enough to bring down the rising cost of health care.
There is one way that the health care bill may contribute to the higher premiums - as more parts of the bill phase in they won't be able to cheat you as much, so they're trying to do it as much as possible now. And if they can blame it on the health care bill, and foment support for its repeal, so much the better.
http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html
So what does getting a waiver for 2011 (only) actually do help or hurt the individuals getting benefits from the "issuer" ?
It sounds as though it's more of a book-keeping problem that some states have (minimum) plan requirements that health plan issuers must offer, or some companies/unions are offering plans for 2011 that do not meet the costs / benefits of the fed requirements, BUT that these will be corrected in subsequent years. Is that the case ?
What else am I missing ?
* Restricted Annual Dollar Limits on Coverage. Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care. Annual dollar limits are less common than lifetime limits, involving 8 percent of large employer plans, 14 percent of small employer plans, and 19 percent of individual market plans. But for people with medical costs that hit these limits, the consequences can be devastating.
o One study found that 10 percent of cancer patients reached a limit of what insurance would pay for treatment – and a quarter of families of cancer patients used up all or most of their savings on treatment.5
The rules will phase out the use of annual dollar limits over the next three years until 2014 when the Affordable Care Act bans them for most plans. Plans issued or renewed beginning September 23, 2010, will be allowed to set annual limits no lower than $750,000. This minimum limit will be raised to $1.25 million beginning September 23, 2011, and to $2 million beginning on September 23, 2012. These limits apply to all employer plans and all new individual market plans. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited
Employers and insurers that want to delay complying with these rules will have to win permission from the Federal government by demonstrating that their current annual limits are necessary to prevent a significant loss of coverage or increase in premiums. Limited benefit insurance plans – which are often used by employers to provide benefits to part-time workers — are examples of insurers that might seek this kind of delay. These restricted annual dollar limits apply to all insurance plans except for individual market plans that are grandfathered.
An
amusing tale:
An anti-healthcare-reform incoming GOP Representative was outraged when he learned that his healthcare coverage would take a month to kick in. Apparently, despite being a doctor, he was unaware of COBRA when asking what he would do during the gap. He asked if he could buy coverage from the government in the interim, apparently thinking that the public option actually existed.
When challenged on the apparent contradiction, his spokesman,
Nix said Harris, who is the father of five, wasn’t being hypocritical – he was just pointing out the inefficiency of government-run health care.
Of course, the government's health care isn't government-run, and this "inefficiency" is actually
better than average.
Well he will fit right in with the other idiot who passed Obamacare....
One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.
The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.
As premiums went up and employer contributions remained constant
Why did the contributions remain constant with increasing premiums???
Oh - because they are looking for someone else to pay ...
“We hope the state of New York will do the right thing and provide the funding necessary for this most vulnerable population of direct caregivers,” the union said in a statement.
:mad2:
What else am I missing ?
What you are missing is that when various special interest groups, the majority of them darlings of the party that formulated the plan, now see the pain in it and are getting political favors in the form of exceptions to the rule. Namely unions are getting big breaks. If a bill is so great for the masses that these special interest groups, that supported those who passed it, now need it to effect everyone but them, maybe it wasn't such a great bill to start with.
Namely unions are getting big breaks.
Merc, I find it difficult to believe unions such an anathema for you.
Yes, there are some unions
in the list of 222,
but there are also insurance companies, corporations, medical centers,
construction companies, maritime associations, religious groups,
manufacturing companies, ...
Do you believe all of these are "darlings of party that formulated the plan"?
But even if you do believe so, it's not issue.
If these organizations are to abide by their own State laws, and their
State-mandated insurance plans are now in conflict with the new Federal laws,
is it not reasonable to allow a 1 yr exemption, or 2 yrs or 3 yrs, for the State laws to be changed ?
Then these organizations (:eek: UNIONS :eek:, if you must) can modify their own insurance plans
to be in compliance with both State and Federal laws.
After all, by the end of the 3rd year, all of those exemptions will expire,
and all 222 will have to comply with Federal law.
What is wrong with that ?
Or, what alternative action do you advocate ?
Do you believe all of these are "darlings of party that formulated the plan"?
No but the supported it, and now want breaks.
is it not reasonable to allow a 1 yr exemption, or 2 yrs or 3 yrs, for the State laws to be changed ?
No, no exceptions. They made the bill, no speicial interest groups should get any breaks.
What is wrong with that ?
Or, what alternative action do you advocate ?
Because historically they will get the breaks again and again. I advocate making everyone play by the same rules when it comes to the bonedoggle of a bill.
♪
I'm justa giving the dog a bone
Giving the dog a bone, giving the dog a bone
Giving the dog a bone, giving the dog a bone
♫
Here is the list of those, to date, that don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.htmlSince all States (and insurers) have the same rights to apply for waiver, and the criteria for waiver are public information, maybe everyone
is playing by the same rules.
But then,
everyone playing by the same rules seems to be a somewhat flexible rule.
There are many flexible rules. It doesn't matter one iota about right or wrong, no matter all noble professions that it does. All that right or wrong boils down to are two issues: does it benefit ME, or is someone else getting something that I'm not getting?
People who adhere to those two principles often get caught in all sorts of viewpoints that oppose other viewpoints they previously touted, hoping no one would notice.
Since all States (and insurers) have the same rights to apply for waiver, and the criteria for waiver are public information, maybe everyone is playing by the same rules.
So are what you are saying is that if every single group or organization applies for a waiver they will get one?
But then, everyone playing by the same rules seems to be a somewhat flexible rule.
Correct, I support a flat tax over a progressive tax system where everyone pays different amounts, or in the case of the majority who pays none.
A pretty good assessment IMHO.
a snip:
I agree that this is, in fact, the likely outcome of repealing just the mandate--it certainly seems to be what has happened in New York, where they have the guaranteed issue and "community rating" rules without a mandate. (Though, of course, costs are also rising pretty briskly in Massachusetts, where they have all of the above plus a mandate, so use some caution in making predictions). But I don't think that the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down the mandate while leaving the rest intact. If the mandate goes, the Supreme Court will probably also invalidate the provisions that couldn't possibly have been enacted without a mandate. Such as, oh, community rating and guaranteed issue.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/judge-rules-health-reform-mandate-unconstitutional/67946/
Correct, I support a flat tax over a progressive tax system where everyone pays different amounts,
or in the case of the majority who pays none.
So this is where you prefer to go...
A 17 percent rate would apply to all taxable income,
whether the taxpayer is Bill Gates, Steve Forbes or the mechanic who fixes their cars.
B]Investment income would not be taxed at all under the individual tax,
which by itself benefits predominantly higher-income taxpayers.[/B]
A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
So this is where you prefer to go...
Generally speaking. Yes. And I would entertain a VAT on certain goods if that is what it takes to get rid of our current system. But I am also realistic to know that the likelihood is close to nil.
A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
It is a reality that we live with every day. Something akin to the opposite where "All animals are equal" is really a fantasy. We will never obtain that and I do not advocates such. Only that all the animals, those with lots of hay and a really cool barn, are penalized at the same percentage of their income. I bet if you eliminate the myriad of deductions and took 17% of Bill Gates pay it would be a nice chunk. And I bet the guy making 50k a year wouldn't mind paying $8500 a year if he got a lot more services for his money. But the overhaul would require more than that at the tax system, it would require a cessation of the spending like the stuff the Demoncrats are trying to shove through at the last minute as they get kicked to the curb by the electorate.
A idea brought back from Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
A look at your darlings take on it... One law, unequal treatment.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=3751"The law of unintended consequences must be gaulling to the [COLOR="Red"]masses of insured[/COLOR]."
I the idea of saying it is job killing is a ruse. It is giving thousand of new jobs to the insurance companies. Obamacare is a failure in many ways. It has a few things that should be retained the rest should be chucked in the trash. We only need to look at the Massachusetts healthcare plan to see where this is going. This is going right where I predicted it would be. Higher costs, higher premiums, less options, more government control for you, no government control on the actual cost of care.
And among the laws of unintended consequences we have this great news...
Blue Shield reignites health care insurance rate wars with huge increase
Read more: Blue Shield reignites health care insurance rate wars with huge increase | San Francisco Business Times
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2011/01/blue-shield-reignites-rate-wars.html
Dave Jones, California’s newly installed insurance commissioner, got a stunning chance to strut his stuff Thursday, after Blue Shield of California this week confirmed plans to raise rates for some individual policyholders by as much as 59 percent.
In a move that recalled Anthem Blue Cross’s attempt to raise individual policyholders’ rates by up to 39 percent early last year — which many credited with helping President Barack Obama’s floundering health reform proposal jolt back to life — San Francisco-based Blue Shield started telling some policyholders their rates would jump sky high by March 1
I'm not saying I completely agree with Obama Care or even that It is the right direction for the country. However I believe that Health Care is what gives America it Leading Edge. For instance when I was a kid my mother bought this pc and it had, a tom clancys flight simulator on it and it had a game where you were the doctor and you did operations. While I was good on the flight simulator the operation game was difficult. Being a kid I just went in there and chopped them up, that may seem crool and creepy however I actually diagnosed myself with an appendicitis and had a REAL surgery done on me. So the point I'm getting at is that I am now a diagnosed bipolar/ skitzo and wouldn't it suck to wake up one day and realize you where in the middle of a surgery or even so the meds I'm on now are state of the art.. simple put WE CANNOT AFFORD TO GET IT WRONG with Health Care. And the new legislation that is being rushed through may be just a quick fix it. Tieing a turrnicite to a head injury will kill the patient and I'm afraid that's whats going on in Washington. The don't realize how the wounded in America are being led like sheep to the slaughter. And that may sound a bit far fetched however did anyone really read the new health care laws. Please feel free to correct me.
Obama has a pill for you. Do not question, just open wide and swallow.
will it hurt?
wait. i think i already know the answer to that.
my father was a very respected doctor here in houston. in the state as a matter of fact. was on numerous medical boards. i remember one sunday back in around '78 or so i was in the doctors lounge watching a nascar race back when it was winston cup (yes i advocate smoking hell i roll my own) anyway, i distinctly remember him saying that insurance companies will ruin medicine.
this is what he was talking about and of course it didn't work. and it sure as hell did happen all back asswards. heck my parents wanted me to follow in dad's footsteps but many years later when i was in engineering mom said and i quote "fred? i sure am glad you did not go into medicine." dad agreed. this was some 8 years before dad died. in fact for those of you that know, he died on my first commercial flight. found out while away from home. mom? 8-1-07 while in prison. maybe i should put the cellar down for now. i'm talking way too much.
Ive enjoyed your ramblings tonight, plthijinx...even without the capitalization...;) You are a good story teller.
[YOUTUBEWIDE][/YOUTUBEWIDE]
,just open wide and swallow.
Really Merc? I always figured you for a spit guy.
[YOUTUBEWIDE][/YOUTUBEWIDE]Really Merc? I always figured you for a spit guy.
Obama wants you to swallow. No open wide and take it....
It was never about me. You must have mistaken me for Sheldon....:D
Lol. Healthcare in the USA = oral sex. Rome burns. Sad little snots.
As I stated numerous times before the passage of Obamacare, the only ones who are going to get rich in this scheme are the insurance companies.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1321137&srvc=rssAs I stated numerous times before the passage of Obamacare, the only ones who are going to get rich in this scheme are the insurance companies.
So why is health care working so well in Massachusetts? Oh. Wacko extremist rhetoric must ignore reality. Later we will hear reams of lies from extremists. It is inevitable. They will eventually tell TheMercenary what to think. And then he will tell us.
So where is all that economic prosperity because the rich were given ten years of government welfare? When Limbaugh has an answer, he will post it here. Meanwhile, blame the evil Hilary. Or blame Obama for so many rich Republican executives.
Why do executives, who once earned only 14 times more than their employees, now make well over 300 times? Exactly what the Republicans so wanted. Enrich those who least deserve it but who are Republicans. Then blame it all on Obama. Spinning lies is so much fun when extremists believe what they are told to believe. When extremists ignore obvious facts as ordered.
A responsible post would cite all companies who overpay the least competent. But that means punishing the largest purchasers of Republicans? Not good now that the Supreme Court said buying politicians is legal. When do we blame their obscene salaries on Hilary? Especially when Huckabee – a Republican governor – created MA health care. Oh. Blame Obama because MA health care was created by a *Republican* governor. Existed long before the word Obamacare even existed. How convenient. He forgot to mention that. Brainwashed were ordered to blame Obama – not Huckabee.
He forgot to mention MA health plan was created by Republicans. Nothing in MA was created by Federal laws. Oh. Why did he forget to mention that? Ignorance or convenience? Remembering all facts is routine when a political agenda must be promoted. Say anything so that Obama fails. Hannity said what to believe. To even hate Muslims in lower Manhattan. Wacko extremisms justified by forgetting facts - conveniently.
Now HDTV has so perverted American television, why is he still not blaming Democrats for the mess? Oh. That was the political agenda more than a decade ago. We are supposed to forget those fears were only politically invented lies.
Massachusetts is a complete failure.
Well, now, a statement like that is easy to prove false.
My niece and nephew were both born in Mass within the last 5 years, and their births both went well. They got the care that they needed.
So if the health care system in Mass works at least well enough for successful childbirths. It can't be a complete failure.
I certainly can't dispute the success of your family members experience. That would be like me saying I have never had a problem receiving health care in the US since the day I was born so there must not be any problems with our system. I mean I have never had a problem so why is everyone complaining?
Here is one of numerous facts surrounding there current situation up in Mass.
When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:
Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.
New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician.
With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268
Other sources:
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/pnhp-massachusetts-healthcare-system-failure
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.htmlAhhh - Someone finally caught a provider doing what I've been bitching about.
Blatant disregard for all things moral....
Aetna Inc. is suing six New Jersey doctors over medical bills it calls “unconscionable,” including $56,980 for a bedside consultation and $59,490 for an ultrasound that typically costs $74.
The lawsuits could help determine what pricing limits insurers can impose on ”out-of-network” physicians who don’t have contracts with health plans that spell out how much a service or procedure can cost.
One defendant billed $30,000 for a Caesarean birth, and another raised his fee for seeing a critically ill patient in a hospital to $9,000 in 2008 from $500 the year before, the insurer alleges in the suits. The Caesarean price was more than 10 times the in-network amount Aetna quotes on its website.
“If these charges are accurate, consumers and purchasers should be outraged,” said David Lansky, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, a coalition of health-insurance buyers that includes Chevron Corp., Walt Disney Co. and General Electric Co.
Lawyers for the doctors declined to comment on specific charges in the suits, and said their clients did nothing wrong.
These are extreme cases of what I have personally experienced. It is so easy to blame the insurance companies, no I am not defending them, BUT there is a lot more blame to go around when they are being asked to pay for treatments, services or supplies that are marked up 1000% or much much more.
Addressing the cost component is an integral component where I believe the new law has fallen far short.
The insurance industry is grappling with how to respond to out-of-network hospital physicians who realize they have pricing muscle, according to Arthur Leibowitz, chief medical officer of Health Advocate Inc., a Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, insurance adviser.
“These doctors can charge whatever they want,” Leibowitz said. “The challenge for the carriers is to come up with an agreeable, acceptable, unbiased judgment as to what a reasonable and customary reimbursement rate is.”
link
Does anyone know how this is impacted by the new HCRA? I have read as much as time permits and still cannot understand definitively the answer.
Going forward, what happens if more Docs drop out of networks and start billing whatever they feel is reasonable? That coupled with the infux of millions of new patients could be disastrous for the ever elusive cost-saving part of this law. I don't even want to think of adding those young healthy people who will opt out of coverage, which is certain to happen. In what numbers, no one knows.
If you are out of network you will always pay more. If you are poor you pay nothing and they write it off. But if you have an income they will come after you. The biggest problem we have at one place I work is that the patients keep the huge insurance checks they are suppose to give to the provider. The practice takes everyone of them to court and has never lost a case.
As we close in on the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare, it’s worth asking what has been the worst feature of this 2,000-plus page law. There are lots of unworthy contenders. But a good case can be made for Section 2711 waivers.
Those are the waivers granted to companies, unions, associations and other lucky duckies so that their current health insurance plans do not run afoul of ObamaCare regulations. Last September news broke that McDonald’s (MCD) would drop some of its health plans without a waiver. A few days later the Department of Health and Human Services announced it had granted 29 such waivers to different entities. At the time, one ObamaCare supporter dismissed the problem as a “big nothingburger.”
Well, it has since grown into a Hardee’s Monster Thick Burger, with the waivers now totaling 1,040.
Here are the various ways in which Section 2711 Waiver may be the worst feature of ObamaCare:
* Deceptive: It pretty much gives the lie to President Obama’s claim that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Adding “as long as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says it’s OK” would have made it more accurate.
* Politicizes Health Insurance: Want to keep your health care plan even though it runs afoul of ObamaCare regulations? Better hope that your company hasn’t upset the Obama Administration. The Administration denies that its waivers are political. Uh-huh. Perhaps that’s why close to 40% of the employees exempted via the waivers belong to labor union health plans.
* Rank Hypocrisy: How many unions applied for a waiver after lobbying hard for passage of ObamaCare? Quite a few, apparently. Actually following the laws that you advocate is for suckers anyway.
* Laughable: And we’re not talking about joyous laughter, but rather the absurd, almost “sick joke” kind. The headline announcing the waivers on the government website is Orwellian:“Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency.”
What makes that headline ever more of a joke is that getting to that website, which is at the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, takes about seven clicks from the HHS home page. (Start here and see how long it takes you; IBD wishes you luck). Transparency, indeed.
Whether Section 2711 waivers are the worst feature of ObamaCare is a matter of debate. They are undoubtedly a big sign that the law is unworkable.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2528-waivers-obamacares-worst-featureObama administration delaying some rules for appealing health insurance denials
The Obama administration is delaying until next January its enforcement of some new rules designed to protect patients who appeal insurers' decisions to deny or reduce health care benefits.
In the meantime, the Labor Department said in a posting on its website that it will revise the requirements to deal with objections raised by insurers. These rules were mandated by the health care law, and federal officials had earlier said they would start enforcing them in July.
The delays were defended by the administration and the insurance industry but worry consumer advocates.
Among the rules now on hold are:
-- A reduction in the amount of time an insurance company is allowed to review a denial of coverage in urgent cases, from no more than 72 hours to 24 hours.
-- A requirement that insurers provide information about the denial and how to appeal in appropriate language for non-English speaking beneficiaries.
-- A requirement that insurers must provide consumers with specific details, which would include diagnostic codes used by doctors, hospitals and insurers, about what treatment isn't covered and why.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-health-insurance-appeals-20110330,0,2873291.storyThe American people do not support Obamacare. This much we know. So I’m willing to bet they’re going to be furious when they learn that the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wants to spend as much as $200 million on a propaganda campaign to convince them they’re wrong about the president’s socialist health care overhaul.
http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2011/04/21/incriminating-hhs-records-detail-taxpayer-funded-obamacare-propaganda-campaign/#more-258244Two words, easily written: Tort Reform. Essentially a limit on how much recovery can actually can be made of punitive damages, rather than concentrating on coverage of actual medical expenses, say.
This lowers the stakes for insurers on the actual risk per policy. Their planning becomes simplified.
There's another necessity: not artificially circumscribing the size of the region in which insurers compete, but opening it nationwide and even wider will improve the scope and effect of competition among companies and plans. You know what that means for consumers. The hedging is by government fiat, a most changeable thing.
You could write a bill like this on one sheet of paper.
Two words, easily written: Tort Reform. Essentially a limit on how much recovery can actually can be made of punitive damages, rather than concentrating on coverage of actual medical expenses, say.
This lowers the stakes for insurers on the actual risk per policy. Their planning becomes simplified.
Too many lawyers in Congress. They would never let it happen.
To words, two many lawyers. Also.
;)
Couldn't help it. Please resume your regular posting.
There's another necessity: not artificially circumscribing the size of the region in which insurers compete, but opening it nationwide and even wider will improve the scope and effect of competition among companies and plans. You know what that means for consumers.
While it could be written in a way that would benefit consumers, it would probalby be written in a way that would allow all insurance companies to move to the state that protects consumers the least, and then let the consumers buy their policies "across state lines" from that one state.
It is designed to make insurance companies a boat load of money. That is the deal Obama made to get them to buy in.... In the end they will be rich.
Unless we can get past the cries of "socialism!" to single payer in the end.
In the end they will be richer.
FTFY
Unless we can get past the cries of "socialism!" to single payer in the end.
That will never happen, any move towards single payer is a move towards "socialism", check the UK and ask them how that is working out for them. Or how about Canada?
Better than here, for both.
If they're failing, I like their failure better than ours.
If they're failing, I like their failure better than ours.
Cool! when are you moving! We really could use you to move off the dole over here. You know, make room for someone who really needs it... :)
NHS works fine most of the time for most of the people.
Private care is available to those with the money and desire.
The only thing hurting the NHS right now are the current government's plans to privatise great chunks of it.
If someone is horrifically ill, it isn't going to bankrupt them as well as distress them.
Ditto here.
The flaw in our system is the (moderately right) coalition government we had a few years back made private health insurance tax deductible, to try to keep people off the public system. Not in itself a bad idea, but it costs far more in lost tax revenue than it saves in reduced public hospital costs. We would get more bang for our buck if we just gave the money to the hospitals. But you try cutting middle-class welfare and see what happens at the next election. :right:
HOW is that working out in Mass, right now? Report card anyone????
Why is our health care so expensive?
Lawyers.
Seriously. Lots of tests you probably didn't need, bloated administration, overpriced proprietary drugs, and a metric shitload of malpractice insurance.
Lawyers.
Seriously. Lots of tests you probably didn't need, bloated administration, overpriced proprietary drugs, and a metric shitload of malpractice insurance.
This.
Also your healthcare is run on a for-profit model. At every level. Remove the profit margins from the various different stages of healthcare and you'll see costs drop.
Why is our health care so expensive?
We're at over 2500 posts in this thread. When the thread started, there was a good discussion about defining what was wrong with health care and where the outrageous costs come from.
The best information was in a chart posted, by UT of course, in
post 152.
I'm not going to restate what that chart said, and more importantly the independent study behind UT's link, but lawyers and malpractice costs are responsible for only a small part of the outrageous costs. There are numerous factors, and the biggest was health care administration. This rings true. Go to any doctors office. There are usually like 5 people behind the desk for every doctor in the place. Too much paperwork.
Normally markets provide things cheaper. Any other product you would find better and cheaper in a market system. The problem here is that it's a broken market.
The damn cable market is broken then too. When is the pressure of Netflix and Redbox gonna get them to lower their rates for On Demand movies, by god.
It certainly is, in most locations it's a mandated monopoly.
Normally markets provide things cheaper. Any other product you would find better and cheaper in a market system. The problem here is that it's a broken market.
Is part of the problem the cost of entry or regulation? What is driving the quantity of competition away and leaving just a few to control the market?
I am guessing it's not just one thing but a ton of them.
Yeh its certainly not a partisan issue.
And in mid-December Peter Orszag joined Citi as vice chairman of the investment-banking division
Of all the financial joints in the world, he had to choose the megabank whose unmatched combination of incompetence and recklessness led it to seek some $45 billion in government aid? He had to go to the place that best emphasizes the corrosive relationship between Wall Street and Democratic Party elites? (Citi is where Robert Rubin got paid a ton for hanging his hat after serving as Clinton’s Treasury secretary.) Worse, at the time Orszag was negotiating with Citi, Treasury still owned a huge chunk of the bank’s shares.
That was 4 months after leaving the Obama Administration. <shrug>
I am guessing it's not just one thing but a ton of them.
Agreed.
The administrative costs of an employer-based health insurance system coupled with the anti-competitive nature of that system.
The system is reactionary rather than focusing on prevention.
There is an emphasis on over-testing and over diagnosing
The higher cost of prescriptions that most other countries.
The litigious nature of Americans and the high cost of medical malpractice.
An aging population and living longer lives where costs rise with age.
The high number of uninsured whose costs are borne by emergency rooms, hospitals, etc. thus driving up the costs.
There is a simple explanation for why American health care costs so much more than health care in any other country: because we pay so much more for each unit of care. As Halvorson explained, and academics and consultancies have repeatedly confirmed, if you leave everything else the same -- the volume of procedures, the days we spend in the hospital, the number of surgeries we need -- but plug in the prices Canadians pay, our health-care spending falls by about 50 percent.
Link...you all wanted to know what makes our health care system so expensive. You all want to know where the money is going.
I will be endeavoring this week (and further) to give you better answers. I’m going to draw heavily on the McKinsey & Company paper I have referenced in the past, supplementing that when appropriate. I’m also basing much of this on an important point made by Uwe Reinhardt and colleagues in their paper U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context: Why is U.S. spending so high, and can we afford it?:
Link
Lotta info to read in this link...
50% of the product is bought by the government.
Question: What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.
Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?
More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.
Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.
On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foesAnd what do you conclude from this excerpt, mercy?
do you know what constitutes the waivers in described in the article?
Perhaps you are implying that these largest of obamacare supporters run health care plans that are so efficient, with such narrow profit margins that they cannot afford to offer the plans that were granted waivers without "either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage." It seems clear to me that other plans that do not qualify for waivers are run in such a way that there's plenty of profit margin to dip into to allow for plans that have annual payout limits in excess of $750,000.
I applaud you for pointing out the lean efficiency of these plans. thank you.
wait what?
I thought the vast majority of waivers were for those companies offering the most minimal of coverage ....
They are!
the "mini med" programs, ones that offer basic coverage but not for serious illness, it is these programs that have annual limits that are under the current threshold, $750,000. As such, they are not in compliance with the law at this date. So, what do you do when you're not in compliance? You have to get into compliance. To be able to offer the program with higher limits, at or above the minimum 750k, there are only two ways to do it: raise premiums or restrict costs (read: access). Both of these methods are specifically forbidden by the rules. So, the employer is stuck. The answer is a waiver.
These waivers are for annual limits only, and last for only one year.
In the meantime, the intent is to give the employers that aren't in compliance time to make the transition to plans that ARE in compliance. It would be like.. hm... I drive a little VW Golf. If I needed to carry a much higher load than what it was designed for, I'd either have to increase the power or make more trips with smaller loads (raise power/premium or reduce load/access). My little car wasn't designed for such a purpose. But if I had some time to get my shit together to carry such a load, I could do so, but in the meantime, I'd want a waiver.
The analogy isn't perfect I know. But the plans that got waivers weren't designed in the first place as comprehensive health care plans. They're ok for what they are, but you can't make a Mack truck out of a Matchbox, y'know?
eta:
Here's the link to the facts about the waivers.
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
also, I'm takin a poke at mercy for excerpting and bolding the part about "oooo Obama's supporters are getting special treatment". It's bogus, and I'm calling him on it.
The fact that the statistic is in "employees" rather than "plans" looks cherry-picked to me. Employees don't get waivers, employers do.
right, exactly THREEE MILLLION is OMGEE.. come on.
Here is the paragraph from my employer based health care plan (former employer) on this subject:
Overall Lifetime Limit Removed.
Previously there was a lifetime maximum amount that insurers would pay for medical claims for one person over the course of their lifetime. Due to federal health care reform, Regence will no longer place an overall lifetime dollar limit on benefits for any health care coverage plan. Any individuals whose benefits under the plan had ceased by reason of reaching a lifetime dollar limit, but who remain covered by the plan, are once again eligible for benefits under the plan. Additionally, individuals whose coverage ended by reason of reaching an overall lifetime limit under the plan are eligible to re-enroll in the plan. Individuals have 30 days from the date of this notice to request enrollment.
As you can see, my insurance provider was able to meeth this new legal requirement without causing a large increase in premiums or a large decrease in access to coverage, therefore, they did not need a waiver.
The fact that the statistic is in "employees" rather than "plans" looks cherry-picked to me. Employees don't get waivers, employers do.
Doesn't it make more sense to speak of the number of people affected rather than the number of employees?
And what do you conclude from this excerpt, mercy?
Most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama, and as the article so nicely points out, most of them either exist within the same voting blocks as major Demoncratic political players or are Union oriented.
If Obamacare was so bad for these people how can it be good for the rest of us who don't get waivers? Isn't Obamacare suppose to operate by everyone participating?
If Obamacare is to be supported by the participation of all, why should anyone get a pass and a waiver?
Doesn't it make more sense to speak of the number of people affected rather than the number of employers?
Sometimes, but the accusation seems to be directed at the organizations or the administration for supposedly favoring friendly organizations, and then suddenly switches over to employees when it gets to statistics.
Maybe it's justified, but there's precious little hard info in the article, and the switch from talking about organiztions to employees when justifying their accusations of bias raises a red flag to me.
That makes sense, but I think it is also appropriate to see if the organizations that are getting temporary waivers have a large population which would impact things or whatever. It may be more out of curiosity, but still I think looking at who they are is one aspect and the number of people is another. Both important yet not mutually exclusive either.
Most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama, and as the article so nicely points out, most of them either exist within the same voting blocks as major Demoncratic political players or are Union oriented.
If Obamacare was so bad for these people how can it be good for the rest of us who don't get waivers? Isn't Obamacare suppose to operate by everyone participating?
If Obamacare is to be supported by the participation of all, why should anyone get a pass and a waiver?
That makes sense, but I think it is also appropriate to see if the organizations that are getting temporary waivers have a large population which would impact things or whatever. It may be more out of curiosity, but still I think looking at who they are is one aspect and the number of people is another. Both important yet not mutually exclusive either.
Alright, mercy. I'm calling you out. Let's have your cite to support your claim "most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama". Put up or shut up. I've given everyone the link that lists the 700-odd organizations that have gotten waivers. I'll repeat it here:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Now, which of them are "political supporters of Obama"? And how can you show that? Because it has the words "Local 123" in the name? By the way, let us keep in mind that it is the ORGANIZATION that gets the waiver, not individuals, not actual voters.
Furthermore, the implication of some kind of political favoritism, the illogic of such a claim based on this "evidence" cuts both ways. Why aren't you saying that the other eleventy-zillion businesses that DIDN'T get waivers are McCain/Palin supporters? Ridiculous, right? Or, let's do the math on it. Let's say all of the 733 waiver-receiver are all Obama-bots. He raised about $745 MILLION dollars for his 2008 campaign. Are you saying each of these outfits kicked in over a million dollars for his campaign? No? Then what about me? Where's my political payoff? **I** voted for him! I want my whateverwaiver.
I explained already the reasons for a waiver. There's no political affiliation checkbox that I know of. If you're suggesting there is, you should prove it.
Also--at that same link, you'll see that for each outfit that got a waiver, the number of people covered by the organization's plan is also listed. There are a few of them that have thousands of covered people, but the majority of them have only hundreds, not big outfits. Small plans, small populations, small scale, small dollar, small market. There are four oufits with large populations > 100,000 and two outfits with >= 50,00 and < 100,000 enrollees. All the other 727 waiver recipients have fewer than 50,000 enrollees, most of them far fewer.
[CODE]CIGNA 265,000
United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund 351,000
Aetna 209,423
BCS Insurance 115,000
WageWorks, Inc 50,000
American Heritage Life Insurance Company 69,945
[/CODE]
That's a little over a million enrollees, leaving the rest of the 727 to divvy up the remaining million enrollees.
Honestly? I doubt this post will change any minds. I'm a little too tired to "convert" anybody. But for that group of people who haven't decided, and that value facts over innuendo, this kind of data may prove useful. If that is the case, then I'm satisfied.
Most of those getting waivers are political supporters of Obama
Hmmmm. Are these numbers from investigative reporters or the RNC? Just wondering.
What numbers?!?
The actual list of receivers of waivers is right there in the link. Such a claim as you quoted is the perfect kind of lie. It's subjective, fuzzy, unproveable. And the worst part is the insinuation of some kind of corruption. I suppose you could count the number of waivers, and if you divided them into two piles one would be more than the other. But how are you going to define "political supporters of Obama"? Lots of groups make financial donations to BOTH parties. How does that compute?
and my quote is there because?
So 1/2 of them are from the 6 that that bought Obama?
:stickpoke :runaway:
and my quote is there because?
your quote's there because I answered your question and mercy's question. mercy first, you second.
So 1/2 of them are from the 6 that that bought Obama?
:stickpoke :runaway:
Are you referring to the top six in V's post, including
Cigna and
Aetna, both of which contributed more to Republicans than Democrats?
Many of the large fast food joints (McDonalds, etc) got waivers because they have a signficant number of part time workers, who at best, get a mini-plan that could not meet the new benefit caps and w/o the waiver would have to drop even that little coverage provided....and their association PAC opposed the bill.
The stink over the temporary waivers to "friends of Obama" is just more of the same stink coming from those opposed to the bill from the start, not on merit, but on misrepresentation.
F&B - STFU please - Its a joke - JFC you're an ass.
now, now.
Dont get all defensive because I added a few facts to the discussion.
CIGNA 265,000
United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund 351,000
Aetna 209,423
BCS Insurance 115,000
WageWorks, Inc 50,000
American Heritage Life Insurance Company 69,945
I find it hysterical that 3 of those 6 are actual health insurance companies. They are getting waivers so they don't have to provide for their own employees what the government is making them provide to the rest of the country.
I find it hysterical that 3 of those 6 are actual health insurance companies. They are getting waivers so they don't have to provide for their own employees what the government is making them provide to the rest of the country.
I dont think these companies are getting waivers so that they dont have to provide for their own employees.
The temporary waiver is for many of their small business customers who provide limited benefit plans that cannot meet the first phase of regulatory standards in place and, without the waiver, those small businesses would likely drop the limited insurance for their employees.
Are you saying that when it says "Aetna" got a waiver, it's actually Joe's Mechanic Shop (who uses Aetna for their employees' health plan) that got a waiver? That doesn't sound right, since plenty of other companies in the list are not insurance companies. The list is of companies that received waivers for their own employees.
Are you saying that when it says "Aetna" got a waiver, it's actually Joe's Mechanic Shop (who uses Aetna for their employees' health plan) that got a waiver? That doesn't sound right, since plenty of other companies in the list are not insurance companies. The list is of companies that received waivers for their own employees.
Yep. Thats what I am saying.
It is easier for Aetna to file on behalf of those customers than for each customer to go through the process itself.
Cigna and Aetna Inc. are the top U.S. providers of the (limited benefit) plans, said Lindsay Shearer, a Cigna spokeswoman, in an e-mail. Cigna’s plans cover about 1,700 clients and about 250,000 people, she said.
..
Aetna has already received a waiver for some its customer from the annual benefits cap, said Fred Laberge, a spokesman for the Hartford, Connecticut-based insurer. “We’ve worked with HHS and will continue trying to ensure employers and employees in limited-benefit plans can keep” their benefits, he said in an interview. He couldn’t immediately say how many people Aetna covers under the plans.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-30/cigna-restaurants-seek-low-wage-health-plan-waivers.html
Those limited benefit plans, primarily directed at part-time and low wage employees, are not much of a health plan at all, but better than nothing until more options are available when the full program kicks in in 2014.
Dont get all defensive because I argued with a joke.
Not defensive at all. I'm just stating a fact. You're being an asshole.
I explained already the reasons for a waiver. There's no political affiliation checkbox that I know of. If you're suggesting there is, you should prove it...
.
.
.
Honestly? I doubt this post will change any minds. I'm a little too tired to "convert" anybody. But for that group of people who haven't decided, and that value facts over innuendo, this kind of data may prove useful. If that is the case, then I'm satisfied.
All one can do is post the facts and shrug off the rest.
Some will be receptive and others have their own agenda.
Re-framing the issue:
The waivers, for the most part, apply to plans that cannot meet the new requirement (among the first provisions put in place last year) that plans must now offer a minimum annual benefit limit of $750,000 (and rising for the next 3 years).
As an example, McDonalds received a waiver for its limited benefit plans (not all of its plans) that offers its employees a plan w/ $10,000 annual limit for about $20-25/month. Without the waiver, McDonalds drops this option and low wage employees either have to pay for a higher benefit plan or no plan.
So, the question is:
Is a low benefit plan (getting the waiver) better than no plan for low wage employees? At least until more affordable options are available when the law is put fully in place.
I would say yes, but not enthusiastically. The one additional requirement of the waiver that I think is at least helpful to some degree is it requires McDonalds to notify employees in those plans of the limits of the benefits in[SIZE="4"] BOLD LARGE TYPE[/SIZE] so the employees who didnt read the fine print before at least know that they have very limited coverage.
Hardly a perfect temporary solution, but still better than no coverage at all.
Ugh. This entire system of employer-provided health care plans is bullshit. Individuals should be able to shop for the benefits they want among competing providers, just like auto insurance.
Ugh. This entire system of employer-provided health care plans is bullshit. Individuals should be able to shop for the benefits they want among competing providers, just like auto insurance.
I agree with you completely.
The problem is that the employer based system is so entrenched that it is impractical and nearly impossible to change it all at once, particularly since employers are paying, on average, about 2/3 of premium costs for employees.
It will take more that just increased competition, but some regulation of costs/benefits as well.
Re-framing the issue:
The waivers, for the most part, apply to plans that cannot meet the new requirement (among the first provisions put in place last year) that plans must now offer a minimum annual benefit limit of $750,000 (and rising for the next 3 years).
As an example, McDonalds received a waiver for its limited benefit plans (not all of its plans) that offers its employees a plan w/ $10,000 annual limit for about $20-25/month. Without the waiver, McDonalds drops this option and low wage employees either have to pay for a higher benefit plan or no plan.
What a bunch of propaganda.
Hey mercy, welcome back. I hope you had a great time in the Bahamas. I'd love to visit there someday.
Would you like to continue the conversation from a few posts up where I challenge you to cite your sources for your claim about the waivers? I'd still like to hear the facts behind such a statement. I look forward to hearing from you.
Hey mercy, welcome back. I hope you had a great time in the Bahamas. I'd love to visit there someday.
Would you like to continue the conversation from a few posts up where I challenge you to cite your sources for your claim about the waivers? I'd still like to hear the facts behind such a statement. I look forward to hearing from you.
97% of the waivers went to three groups, one of which is "Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants:".
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/the-effects-of-union-membership-on-democratic-voting/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories
Our attempts at independent confirmation were difficult, because unions do not have to report all of their campaign spending to the Federal Election Commission, according to independent campaign finance experts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/republican-national-committee-republican/rnc-said-unions-raised-400-million-obama-2008/
Politifact stated they cannnot confirm the amounts because unions don't have to disclose what they gave, so they cannot say it is not true. I think most clear thinking people would agree that the majority of Unions overwhelmingly supported Obama. There is an overwhelming number of Unions with huge memberships getting the break.
Now how about those insurance companies. "About 20 percent of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance had a high-deductible plan in 2009, according to the researchers."
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/economics/articles/2011/04/20/high-deductible-health-plans-bring-equal-savings-to-all-study
Bottom line it this. It is more duplicity among Obamy and his cronies. No one should get a break for this to work the way he wants it to. The more people that get relief from paying only transfers the costs to that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation in this country. When nearly 49% of people pay little to no income tax we have a problem, they are Zero Liability Voters.
What a bunch of propaganda.
Please explain how the McDonalds example or the waivers applying to limited benefit plans is propaganda.
Thanks.
Please explain how the McDonalds example or the waivers applying to limited benefit plans is propaganda.
Thanks.
How many people who work for McDonald's do you think are making enough money to be in the High plan? I would bet the majority of people who work there are min wage earners.
How many people who work for McDonald's do you think are making enough money to be in the High plan? I would bet the majority of people who work there are min wage earners.
That doesnt change the fact at all that the waivers apply to limited benefit plans.
That doesnt change the fact at all that the waivers apply to limited benefit plans.
Well I am sure that the majority of those min wage earners are not in the limited benefit plans. :lol:
I guess wont you wont be answering Vs question either. :)
97% of the waivers went to three groups, one of which is "Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants:".
cite, please.
I looked through all four of the articles you linked to, and the word waiver appears exactly zero times across all four articles.
There is an overwhelming number of Unions with huge memberships getting the break.
come on man, where are you getting your information AND I want to talk about what it means "break" "huge". What about it?
Bottom line it this. It is more duplicity among Obamy and his cronies. No one should get a break for this to work the way he wants it to. The more people that get relief from paying only transfers the costs to that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation in this country. When nearly 49% of people pay little to no income tax we have a problem, they are Zero Liability Voters.
I know what the word duplicity means and this doesn't demonstrate duplicity.
How does "he want it to work"? Please tell me what you think is the desired effect of the PPACA? And how does a limited set of waivers for a limited time affect this?
Explain to me how issuing a waiver for an organization "transfers the costs" (what costs?) to (and here you make a serious change of subject)-- "that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation". You are gonna have to draw me a picture for that one please, and use numbers please.
Bottom line is this: You didn't answer my question. Your links all talk about who gave how much to Obama's campaign, and the spending habits of people who have serious health concerns--that they still pay a lot of money on health care irrespective of their deductible. duh. sounds right. if I have cancer heart disease high blood pressure, etc. I'm gonna want to take care of it.
you make a statement, but you don't back it up. I think that's because the people who write the stuff you read are doing the same thing.
cite, please.
I looked through all four of the articles you linked to, and the word waiver appears exactly zero times across all four articles.
come on man, where are you getting your information AND I want to talk about what it means "break" "huge". What about it?
I know what the word duplicity means and this doesn't demonstrate duplicity.
How does "he want it to work"? Please tell me what you think is the desired effect of the PPACA? And how does a limited set of waivers for a limited time affect this?
Explain to me how issuing a waiver for an organization "transfers the costs" (what costs?) to (and here you make a serious change of subject)-- "that majority that already carry the majority of the burden of taxation". You are gonna have to draw me a picture for that one please, and use numbers please.
Bottom line is this: You didn't answer my question. Your links all talk about who gave how much to Obama's campaign, and the spending habits of people who have serious health concerns--that they still pay a lot of money on health care irrespective of their deductible. duh. sounds right. if I have cancer heart disease high blood pressure, etc. I'm gonna want to take care of it.
Trying to figure out why you can't make the connection between overwhelming support for the Obama Admin and those who are getting waivers, all from the list you posted? There should not be a single Union on that list. As a group they have some of the best health care available in our market today.
The huge break are the people getting the waivers vs those who will still have to pay for insurance at ever inflating prices. Do you really think these will be limited breaks? I don't.
Costs are transfered when one group of people have to pay while others do not. Under the mini-med plans who pays for the care when that care exceeded the value of the plan? Vs, people who are forced to get very expensive health plans as mandated by Obamacare? Why do you think costs are skyrocketing, and prior to some states intervening, in what were clearly abuses by insurance companies in anticipation of madated coverage by Obamacare, the rest of insurance companies are doing the same just not at increases of 50% but instead at increases of 25% or 35%, maybe that does not draw the same ire of the regulators. So you see the burden is still borne by those who do not get the waivers when the mini-med plans run out. This is the costs, albeit indirect to those who are not exempted. I do not believe for one minute that they will not be continually granted waivers. It is not the number that matters, it matters that they are giving waivers at all. McDonalds should be forced to pay like everyone else. They are getting the waivers because they have convinced the HHS that they cannot bare the costs. Bullshit. They don't want to bare the costs. Not a single Union should get a break and no company should get a break either.
"... are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums..."
Define "significant". Because my preimums went up 25% last year and 35% more this year. And I am paying for 4 people out of my paycheck each month.
The taxpayer statement was an analogy, if you missed it no big deal, not worth my energy to try to get you to understand.
As you said in the earlier post, I doubt I will change anyones mind and that is really not important to me personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercy
97% of the waivers went to three groups, one of which is "Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants:".
cite, please.
From your link.
Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority – 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers – were granted to health plans that are employment-related.
Three groups are listed.
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.htmlwhat three groups are you talking about, please?
what three groups are you talking about, please?
From your link:
■Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers – 359.
■Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act. These “union plans” are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers.
■Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs.
Group 2 are Unions. Does not describe the number they represent (ie. I know they are not 1/3 of the waivers in this sub category). For me it is not the number, it is that they would be granted a waiver at all for any reason. Let them all pay like the rest of us!
So the Wash Times column
you posted and highlighted claiming that union members got 50.3 percent of all waivers, was (in your words) "utterly false."
Trying to figure out why you can't make the connection between overwhelming support for the Obama Admin and those who are getting waivers, all from the list you posted? There should not be a single Union on that list. As a group they have some of the best health care available in our market today.
I think this is a seriously mistaken oversimplification. Why wouldn't there be a single union-sponsored health insurance plan on that list? Really. why not?
The huge break are the people getting the waivers vs those who will still have to pay for insurance at ever inflating prices. Do you really think these will be limited breaks? I don't.
this is a good one. I do think there will be an end to these breaks, and here's why. All laws we make at the state and federal level have some kind of introductory period, usually in months. The PPACA has a lead in time where different aspects of the law are being phased in over different periods of time. I think this is appropriate. The instant and immediate introduction of such a sweeping would cause a huge amount of disruption, all of which is avoidable, by making the rules applicable in a gradual, but definite and finite manner.
Costs are transfered when one group of people have to pay while others do not. Under the mini-med plans who pays for the care when that care exceeded the value of the plan? Vs, people who are forced to get very expensive health plans as mandated by Obamacare?
there are no costs transferred when there are no costs. Imagine--I have a health plan, one that meets these kinds of requirements that would justify a waiver. "Mini-med" plans, ones that have a $750,000 lifetime cap on benefits. I seriously doubt that there is very much health care delivered to these folks ABOVE the cap that goes unpaid for, and presumably cost transferred to you. Who pays these costs? The patient incurs them, but who pays? the hospital? that then charges more for insured patients? Including the original underinsured patients? Where does that extra cost come out of? Ah, you discuss costs next. Good!
Why do you think costs are skyrocketing, and prior to some states intervening, in what were clearly abuses by insurance companies in anticipation of madated coverage by Obamacare, the rest of insurance companies are doing the same just not at increases of 50% but instead at increases of 25% or 35%, maybe that does not draw the same ire of the regulators. So you see the burden is still borne by those who do not get the waivers when the mini-med plans run out. This is the costs, albeit indirect to those who are not exempted. I do not believe for one minute that they will not be continually granted waivers. It is not the number that matters, it matters that they are giving waivers at all. McDonalds should be forced to pay like everyone else. They are getting the waivers because they have convinced the HHS that they cannot bare the costs. Bullshit. They don't want to bare the costs.
Soon, when the waiver period is over, there won't be any more waivers. The costs will be borne by the insured. I think this latest round of fucking insane increases is the last gasp gouge by the insurance companies. They're not regulated for profit, and tha's unfortunate, because I think most of the difference in the cost for equivalent healthcare in our system compared to equivalent health care in other systems is due to two main factors.
1 -- healthcare as a for profit enterprise is the main driver of making stuff expensive. If my margin is 5%, then I make more money if I make the basis for that 5% markup as huge as possible.
2 -- we have a healthcare payment system that is stupefyingly complex and that complexity adds friction and cost at every point of contact. As these points are reduced in number, the costs will be reduced as well.
Ah you say, so much more for the insurance company! Sure. Until another aspect of PPACA comes into play: the requirement that (don't quote me on this, it's not covered in my own feces, merely my own memory) 80% of a company's cash flow (or some such damn word) be dedicated to patient care.
No more CRANKING up the premiums, unless of course, they're paying more in benefits. This will put a natural cap on increases like the ones you describe. Now I'm a capitalist, yay money. I am. But there's a serious, a FUNDAMENTAL disconnect with insurance, it's like a bet. I bet I will claim, get my money back plus some, and the company bets I won't. this bet times one bazillion subscribers usually generates a profit for the company. the house edge if you will, paid to the people that have the actuarial tables. Limiting profits in this way is NOT unAmerican, not unprecedented. Healthcare is making the transition in peoples' minds today from something we can choose to have or not, to something that is considered more... intrinsic. more fundamental. more "inalienable". And some services we already enjoy being provided by FOR PROFIT companies is being regulated this way. think of Utilities. I think health care insurance providers occupy the same space as an electric company or the gas company or the water utility. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's apt. They can make a profit and still be regulated and still provide the service to a large diverse population. We're already doing it.
Not a single Union should get a break and no company should get a break either.
I think it is fine for you to have that opinion, I appreciate the simplicity of such a "rule". I don't think it is practical though, and in a couple years the point will be moot anyhow.
"... are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums..."
Define "significant". Because my preimums went up 25% last year and 35% more this year. And I am paying for 4 people out of my paycheck each month.
Well, man, those kinds of increases are
definitely significant in my book, no question. Why your plan didn't get a waiver (presuming it did not) may well be because it doesn't have a lifetime limit of under $750,000. Of course, that's just a guess.
Where is that black and white .gif with the whole crowd clapping ...
Insert <here> please
& thanks
What is the purpose of a "wavier" in this situation. Anyone feel free to provide their own response.
Remember, "waiver's" have only been offered because there was no "Government Option" insurance plan for these big and little groups to dump their insured on because they did not want to pay for it..... so they had to give an out to some select groups.
SO..... why have waivers at all?????? Why not say FU Off, everyone plays by the same rules?
What is the purpose of a "wavier" in this situation. Anyone feel free to provide their own response.
What situation?
What situation?
The current "situation", mandated healthcare for every person where everyone is mandated by Federal Law to buy something from commercial enterprises, well except those who can curry favors via the Obamy connections, and the rest of us. Here is the deal.... There is no fall back "Government Option" for the cheap rates to fall back on.... and as I stated NUMEROUS times, what would stop companies, like McDonald's, from dumping their low cost insurance plans onto the "Government Option"? vs, just paying the penalty? Or conversely, just doing the right thing and giving the workers the insurance they should have been giving them all along? Oh, nooooooooo.... fuck that, let the public pic up the tab and pay the fine....
Well guess what, right now there is no public option. This is nothing more than an attempt to set up the stage to push us to that very thing. Not only a public option but a total Government take over of the industry (Read here: my conspiracy theory). I believe it. In 10 years call me a crack pot, or if there is complete control by the government of health care, call me a Visionary. Whatever. I don't care. Eventually, IMHO, if Obama is re-elected, there will be a Gov Option Health Insurance Plan, and that is, IMHO, one step away from a Socialized Medicine design like Canada or the UK. There is no doubt this is exactly what this Administration envisions. If nothing less they are in bed with the insurance companies to force people to buy insurance so they can say everyone is insured. At what cost? So my single dau who can't get a waiver is forced to buy insurance that she cannot afford? While a Public Section Union worker who has lived off the tit of the American Taxpayer for years gets a "Waiver"?!?!? WTF?
This system is domed to fail.
Anyone but Obamy in 2012.
Oh and Pelosi is still a cunt.
A perfect example of what a load of shit Pelosi, et. al. pushed through for Obamacare.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-miller-grants-20110603,0,6596282.storySo says the
Op Ed page of the LA Times, a venue known for its accurate dissemination of scientific information. Honestly, Merc, you of all people should know better.
It is a well known fact that junk food costs less than healthier food items. People from lower economic groups have real difficulty affording to put nutritious meals on the family table.
From the Christian Science Monitor's NON op ed page:
It turns out that the kind of diet that complies with the Department of Agri*cul*ture's official dietary guidelines is un*affordable for many Americans.
A researcher at the University of Washington found that an income level that qualifies a family for food stamp assistance makes it nearly impossible to put healthy and balanced meals on the table. Though food stamp benefits are calculated to allow families to buy the lowest-cost foods that are still nutritious, the USDA's own research shows that food prices vary widely across the country. That means if you live in a region with high prices (such as the Northeast), it may be unaffordable for you to feed your family healthy meals.
So just what part of making healthy food more affordable to low income Americans do you have a problem with? Why are you opposed to measures that could reduce rates of obesity? What's your problem with fresh veggies and fruit appearing on the plate of a growing child?
Afraid that if that if the lower socio-economic groups get healthier, they might have the energy to take a greater part in the American democratic process and make life uncomfortable for the right wing fat cats? :p:
Healthy eating is actually cheaper. Most people are just fat lazy asses who can't be bothered to make wholesome foods for their families. Oh, don't get me wrong, McDonald's doesn't make it any easier with $2 value meals. It is all marketing. And the American, and world public for that matter, have bought it, literally, hook, line, and sinker. No shit.
Really, don't whine about the cost of a raw potato in the store vs a bag of McDonald's fries. But there is a difference between government mandates that force people to do something and free will. Where is the balance. Bigger Government is NOT the answer to idiots who choose not to make the right lifestyle choices.
What is the set up with insurance companies in Gb and/or Canada compared to the US.?
WoW! Imagine this. No one on here predicted this would happen! Not.....
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06Yes, I saw that story too. What is your opinion?
I'll tell you my take on it.
The insurance companies won't want to lose their customers, so they'll offer coverage to the individuals. This is a good thing, letting people be more in control of what they want in an insurance package. When I was working, our insurance choices were just ONE. One company only. I had no choice, despite how well or poorly it fit me. I like the idea of being able to pick from among a few choices.
I read a couple interesting things in the article. Though one study says 30% of companies will drop coverage, another study says they won't. Both are trying to predict the future, we'll just see. Also, I noticed that there is an expectation that employees will see their compensation rise if the benefits are taken away.
I think this story talks about something that probably will happen, though to what degree is impossible to say at this point. I also think that given the individual mandate, there will be a much larger percentage of people covered. This will have two likely benefits. More people will be covered, this is good all by itself. Fewer people will have to rely on emergency care, the kind of care that is expensive and often represents uncompensated care by the provider (the kind that drives up the costs for the other payers, as we've discussed). Also, given the larger pool of payers, it will be easier to offer lower rates/lower marginal rates to maintain their profit margins for the insurance company. I don't have so much interest in how much they make (within reason) but I am interested in the lower rates.
Well a lot of companies are moving to more of an Independent Contractor aka 1099 model of hiring. They don't have to provied benifits, pay the taxes, or anything else and can pretty much fire you at a whim if it suits them. The only way they could drop them is if there is a government option offered or they get some sort of waiver. I think most people and businesses caught in the waiver groups are praying for an eventual government option or something similar where they can dump the people who need insurance. As I stated numerous times over the years, unless the penalty for not providing insurance is high enough most companies will pay the penalty vs paying for the insurance. All the details have not been worked out and and that is the problem with Obamacare, there are still to many unanswered questions.
All the details have not been worked out and and that is the problem with ANY MAJOR CHANGE, there are still to many unanswered questions.
ftfy
Thanks for the reply. Let me unpack what I hear you saying.
The companies that might move to an employment model of independent contractor, they'll have some new "freedoms", like ability to fire you at a whim, and of course no benefits, and no taxes.
Ok, I agree that companies that hire independent contractors can do these things. But so what? These conditions are already in place practically everywhere. Washington is an "at-will" employment state.
Is it legal for a worker to be fired from their job without any notice?
The law does not require a business to give a worker notice before terminating their job. Nor does the law require workers to give notice before quitting. However, the business may make payment of benefits (such as vacation pay) a condition of the worker giving notice.
Is it legal to be fired from a job for no good reason?
Yes. Washington is what's called an "at will" state. Businesses may fire "at will." There are no laws regarding dismissal, so businesses are not required to give warnings or follow any particular steps.
Also in Washington, there's no requirement by law that benefits be offered to the employee. Lots of places hire people in circumstances that don't involve benefits, like scheduling the workers so they don't qualify as "full time" employees and are thus excluded.
I don't know any place that can hire employees, not contractors mind you, and be exempt from paying taxes. Some do, of course, but that's already a crime. Look at the cases of "nanny-gate" you hear from time to time about people who fail to *pay taxes* for their domestic help.
Yes, there are exceptions to this here in Washington and across the country, but mostly these conditions are already in place.
My question is this: what does this have to do with the continuing rollout of PPACA requirements?
As for "dropping them" I think you mean, businesses dropping employees/contractors from the insurance rolls. And that these people will still want insurance. I think that ... I dunno. Might could happen, don't understand this well. But the core of what you're saying, that the law's intention is to get more/all people insured and that the structure for encouraging compliance via penalties for NOT having/buying insurance is flawed, since the offender will make a cost/benefit analysis of the decision to "pay or play", so to speak, and decide to pay instead of play. I agree. I think this kind of analysis happens every day for everybody. The decisions aren't always rational, and they're not always consistent, and they're not always made for the long term, and they're not always in the best interest of the decider. But they're always being made, by all of us.
Maybe getting full enrollment by making the penalty at some level isn't going to succeed. Perhaps we can talk about how to improve the result, but tossing out the law isn't the answer. We have the ultimate penalty--capital punishment--for some actions, and yet people still murder. That doesn't mean we should toss out the law making it illegal.
I agree with you friend that there are many unanswered questions about how the new law will affect businesses and employees, totally agree. It's a big goddamn deal, and we're working it out, as planned.
Someone please show me where the Insurance Exchanges have worked, are currently working, or will work in the future.
According to my knowledge, there are no working Exchanges in existing as described by Obamacare.
So, someone tell me with surety, that this nation has hung it's hat on this notion that everything will work out as described. There are some 27 States that say they are not playing....
The Exchanges are to modeled after the federal employees program (FEHB), which provides insurance for federal workers including members of Congress. Federal employees can choose from 10-15 private insurance plans in FEHB.
I'm not sure what you mean by goverment option in earlier posts, but ithe Exchange is not a government option. It will be a network of private insurance carriers competing to offer a vareity of options at different levels of pricing and services. People will be able to choose a plan with higher deductibles and co-pays but lower premiums, or a higher cost plan with lower per-incident fees or other options. HMOs, PPOs, fee-for-service plans and other options will all be available through private insurance companies.
More than anything else, the program promotes greater competition among private insurance providers. It certainly is not a government takeover as many on the right still like to characterize it.
Where a state opts out, residents/employers of that state will shop on a national exchange.
To discount it completely and suggest it wont work is a bit premature and, IMO, probably motivated by being opposed to the program from the start and having an interest in seeing it fail.
added:
To expect any major program of this size and scope, public or private, to work exactly as envisioned in the planning stages is disingenous. All such programs go through periods of tweeking and fixing.
To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.
Wonder where I have heard this before? :rolleyes:
Doctors representing small physician practices gave Congressional representatives on the House Small Business Committee's Healthcare and Technology subcommittee an earful as they spoke of the significant barriers to the adoption of health information technology (IT) and the potential consequences that this could have on the healthcare sector. These barriers include regulations, financial penalties, an unpredictable marketplace, and concerns over interoperability between different IT systems, and the most prominent barrier of all--costs.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/EMR/230500066To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.
Competiton breeds savings and comes from insurance companies competing for millions of new customers.
As to the run away increases, they have been occuring for the last 10-15 years, not just since the Affordable Care Act was signed. To suggest a direct causation as a result of the new act is stretching the facts quite a bit.
[INDENT]
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=1545
[/INDENT]
IMO, it is a plan that is based on sound economics.
Will it work 100% as planned; probably not.
Is that a reason to write it off before it is fully implemented; definetly not, unless you are so opposed ideologically that you are not willing to at least give it a chance.
To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.
Whose costs are you talking about?
One party's costs is another party's benefit.
To reduce an insurer's costs, you have lots of options, like any business. Competition is not one of them. As a for profit going concern, their reason to exist is to make money, as in profit. Reduced costs, everything else being equal, mean increased profit. Since profit is the primary motivation for the insurer, this is some incentive for them to decrease costs. But there are other ways to decrease costs, one very direct way is to reduce claims payments. This is not in my interest if it means I don't get the care I feel I'm entitled to. The aspect of the PPACA I mentioned earlier that some large base percentage of the insurer's cash flow must be dedicated to patient care will provide a check against such arithemetically easy but unfair "cost reduction" measures.
To reduce the consumer's costs, there are also a lot of options, and chief among them is competition. If two companies are vying for my business, a lower price to me is a strong factor influencing my decision. These exchanges represent a good way to present the products and information about the consumer's "costs". The insurance companies are still going to have customers, but they'll now be able to communicate their offer to the consumer, not just to the employer.
According to F&B's chart, since 2000,
the employee contribution has increased +6%
while the cost of insurance has increased 213%
According to F&B's chart, since 2000,
the employee contribution has increased +6%
while the cost of insurance has increased 213%
Huh?
Employee contributions have more than doubled since 2000.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
From $1,534 in '99 to $3,997 in '10
Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%
Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%
Employee contributions increased by 128% as opposed to the total premium increase of 131%
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
This just addresses premiums.
Many employers have tried to keep employee share of premiums from increasing more dramatically by cutting benefits, making it more costly for employees on the other side-- higher deductables, higher co-pays, etc.
Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%
You know how on old cartoons some character will get hit on the head with a shovel or an anvil or something and its head will be all flat and then it makes that funny noise and shakes its head really really fast and its head reinflates?
I just did that. ;)
Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?
Think of it this way.
On average, employees are paying more than twice as much in premiums today ($3515 in '09) as they were 10 years earlier ($1543 in 99) AND also paying higher deductables, higher co-pays (my Rx co-pay has gone from $2 to $30 in the last 8-10 years), more limits or exclusions.....
Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?
Do not start adding all the rest in - You quoted numbers in your chart - I converted to %'s -
Lets try again - Could you please explain where my math was incorrect?
ETA - for years 1999 to 2009 the % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost
I dont know you want to hear.
Average employee premium contributions have more doubled in the last 10 years.
As a percentate of total contributions, they have not increased as much as overall premium cost as a result of employers limiting increases on the employee side by reducing beneifts instead.
I dont know any other way to say it.
ETA - for years 1999 to 2009 the % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost
I'll try again.
Employee share has been relatively contained by employers finding benefit reductions on the other side...even as employee premiums costs doubled in that 10 years.
Average employees are paying a helluva lot more for their insurance (higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductables,...) than 10 years ago.
Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?
I don't know you want to hear.
for 2000 compared to 2010
Employee contribution as a percentage has only increased 6% in a decade.
or for 1999 compared to 2009
Employee contribution % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost
Compare that to the price of milk, food, gas and a million other things...
Lets see how they stack up.
My point is that the employee contribution as a % is relatively static/moderately increasing.
Your lil chart has no relevance other than to disprove or distract from the actual problem.
The real issue is the[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]
FUCKING OVERALL COST![/SIZE][/COLOR]
I give up.
I see a classic digging in of the heels and a "Syrian Lives Are Worth Less" argument again.
That's never going to change.
I honest dont know if he doesnt get it or is just being obstinate but there certainly is a pattern after the Syrian lives fisasco, in which 4-5 tried to explain it to him.
The average cost that workers pay out of their pocket or paycheck for health insurance premiums has risen by 127% in the last 10 years.
The average cost of those "other things" he mentioned - food, shelter, clothing, household good - as measured by the Consumer Price Index has risen an average about 2--3%/year over the last 10 years -- no where the 127% increase in health care premiums, not even close.
In any case, I would suggest a double helping of
should be on the classic menu tonight, particularly for one who calls others out about
eating crow.
Awe, you said you were done.
The problem is that my is that my figures are accurate.
If you would like to use your nice little chart to refute what I have said, I'd be glad to see it. (I've asked repeatedly and you have not done so)
Just for fun, here are retail gas prices over the last decade
FWIW - Thats about a 300% increase. Although, I'll admit these other commodities aren't really relevant as I have been discussing the employee contribution %.
Percentage increase of employees share of premium costs is meaningless. It is the increase costs coming out of workers pockets and paychecks that matter.
Gas is the only exception to the average CPI index increase of 2.5% annual because it is traded on the international market and subject to external supply and demand factors.
Even then, the value for many consumers has risen as a result of having cars with better gas mileage.
As opposed to health care premiums rising 127% while at the same time, other health care costs have also risen -- deductables, co-pays, etc.
And Syrian lives are still not worth less.
Now be a good boy and eat your pie, ace.
added:
See the last column of the
CPI index, average percent increase.
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%
Huh? Employee contributions have more than doubled since 2000.
Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?
Employee contributions increased by 128%
for 2000 compared to 2010
Employee contribution as a percentage has only increased 6% in a decade.
or for 1999 compared to 2009
Employee contribution % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost
My point is that the employee contribution as a % is relatively static/moderately increasing.
Your lil chart has no relevance other than to disprove or distract from the actual problem.
The real issue is the[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"] FUCKING OVERALL COST![/SIZE][/COLOR]
I give up.
Percentage increase of employees share of premium costs is meaningless. It is the increase costs coming out of workers pockets and paychecks that matter.
You agree that my math is correct. Finally, thank you.
Oh wait - now 20 whatever posts later what you are saying is that it doesn't matter... got it.
Now be a good boy and eat your pie, ace.
Awe - more snark? Really? Hey at least I moved up from simple to ace.
:right:
dude, it doesn't matter nearly as much as how much money is coming out of my pocket.
you can make the statistics say anything anything you want.
Imagine, for example healthcare cost you 1000/yr in 2000 and the employer's share was 100,000. Then each year your cost increased by 10,000 per year, but the employer's share increased by 1,000,000 per year. At the end of ten years insurance would cost 901,000 for you and 9,100,000 for the employer for a total of 10,001,000. Your increase over the period could be characterized a number of ways
1,000/100,000 or 1% in year 2000
901,000/10,001,000 or .9% in year 2010
a decrease *of overall cost*. Do you want that deal?
or
1,000 a year in 2000
changing to
901,000 a year in 2010
for an increase of 9000% increase. do you want that deal?
SAME NUMBERS BOTH TIMES.
percentages rely on comparisons, and depending on what you're comparing it to, you can get very different "percentages".
Now let me ask you this. could you take a 1% increase over the decade? how about a tenth of a percent decrease in costs? you see, just naked percentages like that are actually meaningless. context free == meaning free. I'll tell you what *does* have meaning to me, how many dollars are comign out of my pocket. and if it goes up 10,000 in a year, I'll have to drop it, even though it represents a "decrease" when compared to some whothehellcares value.
I don't agree with your analysis here.
If you're playin games, what the fuck ever. If you're trying to have a serious open discussion, then I respectfully submit that you're wrong.
He clearly just doesnt get it.
Evidently, he must imagine a working couple sitting at the kitchen table saying how lucky they are that their health care costs havent risen that much given that their percentage share of premiums decreased or only increased a few percent in 10 years.
The fact that the [COLOR="Red"]FUCKING OVERALL COST[/COLOR] in dollars out of their pockets and paycheck for their share of the premiums has more than doubled (127%) in those 10 years is no big deal. No big deal either that their percentage share of premiums was kept low by also reducing benefits. :rolleyes:
"What the fuck ever" covers it.
you can make the statistics say anything anything you want.
You could have stopped here. And I will submit that my statistics are correct.
If you're trying to have a serious open discussion
Oh wait - its been a long time since we've done any of that.
Wait - lemme check - yup, this is the politics forum. :yelsick:
You could have stopped here. And I will submit that my statistics are correct.
Oh wait - its been a long time since we've done any of that.
Wait - lemme check - yup, this is the politics forum. :yelsick:
Classic signs of obstinate behavior. Insist you are right, despite the lack of analytical thinking on your part and the more relevant facts presented by others and then dismiss the discussion on other terms. When it is repeated in several discussions (see Libya/Syria), a pattern emerges.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
You succeeded in proving it. :thumb:
Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?
FWIW, your observation was correct. But it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, IMHO. It's like saying "I bought a $14,000 car in 1999 at 6% interest. In 2009, I bought a $25,000 car, but since I'm still paying 6% interest, my cost hasn't gone up."
I could have stopped there, but it would have been incomplete.
Just as you could have stopped when you said the costs decreased over the period.
In both cases, such a statement would have been "true", but misleading. And I don't find that useful when I'm trying to have a serious open discussion.
I have given up having a "serious open discussion" with some people.
Sorry.
I have given up having a "serious open discussion" with some people.
Sorry.
I try to start every discussion off on a serious note until I run into a brick wall and a
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]BOLD DEMAND[/SIZE][/COLOR] that I accept illogical and irrelevant conclusions, at which point it becomes fruitless and the only thing left is to have a little fun with it.
Some people? How about all three people who contributed to this discussion recently trying to explain the fallacy of your position or the five people in the Libya discussion trying to do the same.
Right. Its not you, it those other people. :eyebrow:
Yeh. Even spexx was able to admit that my my figures are accurate.
Irrelevant, but correct. That's more than you could muster.
What you are too ignorant to realize is that I was merely displaying how worthless you lil chart was from the gitgo. Way to play catch up. Good on you - you are the sharp tack.
I must admit that you are good for one thing though. If I ever want to know what the Obama's position is on anything, I'll just ask you. Your head is so far up his ass, you know what he had for lunch by 3:00.
A valued member of the community asked me to “ease up on you” because it is well know how overly sensitive you are to constructive criticism or negative critiques of your posts.
And, I agreed I would. :)
lol - Love that. "Valued member" :right:
Bwahahahaha - That would be a first! It's always been just the opposite.
ETA: you still haven't been abler to admit that my figures are accurate.
You have to HAVE a member to BE a member. :lol:
Overly sensitive was not in reference to anyone's member, but a state of mind. ;)
What the fuck, dude?
And don't worry everyone, dude knows what I'm talking about. :eyebrow:
He was making a little funny...get it...little? :D
Competiton breeds savings and comes from insurance companies competing for millions of new customers.
As I stated, insurance exchanges in the form proposed do not exist and have not been tested. We have bet the whole Goose on an unproven fantasy of how Obama and his cronies want it to work. That is a failure from the beginning.
As I stated, insurance exchanges in the form proposed do not exist and have not been tested. We have bet the whole Goose on an unproven fantasy of how Obama and his cronies want it to work. That is a failure from the beginning.
The FEHB program is a pretty good model. It covers 4-5 million govt employees, with 15-20 private insurance companies offering over 200 different plans, so I certainly wouldnt call a program based on this model a fantasy.
We didnt test the major environmental regulatory programs in the 70s, with new required standards that had never been tried before; there was no guarantee they would work. Hell, many conservative opponents claimed it would lead to the economic downfall of the US. It didnt. The new regulatory programs werent perfect and needed tweeking along the way, but they worked to the country's benefit.
We didnt test the major welfare reform program in the 90s. Liberal opponents of the reform who never forgave Clinton and claimed it would lead to a return to poverty levels from 50 years ago. It didnt.
To call a program a failure because it is untested seems a bit premature. We have a history of trying untested programs that we think are good for the country- "to the moon, alice!"
The FEHB program is a pretty good model. It covers 4-5 million govt employees, with 15-20 private insurance companies offering over 200 different plans, so I certainly wouldnt call a program based on this model a fantasy.
It is a total fantasy. There are no true Insurance Exchanges anywhere in the US. Dream on.... :lol: Fail.
It is a total fantasy. There are no true Insurance Exchanges anywhere in the US. Dream on.... :lol: Fail.
*shrug* Good thing your grading system doesnt really mean anything other than your own bias.
IMO, the FEHB model is a good model of public/private "managed competition."
In any case, the day we stop trying new ideas or new programs because they are untested (or even based to some degree on other programs) is the day we stop innovating and IMO, it will be a bad day for the country.
A critical part of Obamacare and Mayo isn't playing....
The prestigious Rochester clinic is raising questions about accountable care organizations, or ACOs, which are supposed to be updated -- and better -- versions of health maintenance organizations. Approved as part of the 2010 health care law, they are designed to improve care and cuts costs by over half a billion dollars a year.
http://www.startribune.com/business/123668729.htmlACO's fail to deliver....
A key government experiment that set out to lower costs and coordinate care for Medicare patients — now the blueprint for an innovation the Obama administration is trying to move to a national scale — has failed to save a substantial amount of money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/experiment-to-lower-medicare-costs-did-not-save-much-money/2011/05/27/AG9wSnGH_story.htmlIf the healthcare industry as a whole (pharm, drs, nurses, insurance) had done a better job at a lower price, and if Americans weren't obsessed with their health, there would be no need of any kind of reform.
don't forget the medical suppliers. They are a HUGE part of the problem as well.
An interesting little blog piece comparing experiences of American and British healthcare.
http://jontillman.com/2011/02/22/us-v-uk-healthcare-%E2%80%93-an-anecdotal-comparison/don't forget the medical suppliers.
I won't
A critical part of Obamacare and Mayo isn't playing....
http://www.startribune.com/business/123668729.html
...A bigger sticking point could be antitrust rules that are part of the ACO proposal. Mayo already provides most or all of the health care in many of Minnesota's rural counties, and Wood believes it could not operate ACOs in those areas without violating the proposed regulations.
Another issue is the way the government plans to measure effectiveness and its way of assigning patients to ACOs. The effectiveness measures proposed by the government are such things as 30-day mortality statistics and the number of diabetes treatments, Wood said.
"They don't get you close to measuring health," he maintained. "The simplest measure for consumers is: How effectively did the organization keep me functioning. People feel strongly that they want to be able to do what they need to do so that people who depend on them can continue to depend on them."
Mayo is confident enough in its current approach to accountable care that it has asked CMS "to take an entirely different approach to implementation of ACOs in the country." Mayo would like the government to contract directly with groups that are already providing programs.
CMS declined to comment on Mayo's concerns.
"This is a proposed rule," a spokeswoman said. "We will review the comments [provided by all organizations] and issue a final rule. We're confident providers will decide to participate based on the final rule, not the proposed rule."
Wood said Mayo is only interested in working in ways that are proven.
"We're not looking to intentionally give [health care reform] a black eye," Wood said. "We're working to implement accountable care."
Jim Spencer • 202-408-2752 • [email]jim.spencer@startribune.com[/email]
A couple observations here.
It's a proposed rule, not a final rule. This is a perfect example of how and why such an enormous problem like the runaway costs for healthcare needs to be addressed in a sensible way. By sensible, I mean in a thoughtful way. In this case, the government is including the thoughts of the provider, working for the interests of the citizens. I like that configuration. *And*, I think the ideas behind this part of the rules are good ones. I want Accountability. Including input from those outfits that will deliver it is sensible.
An interesting little blog piece comparing experiences of American and British healthcare.
http://jontillman.com/2011/02/22/us-v-uk-healthcare-%E2%80%93-an-anecdotal-comparison/
Food for thought. I especially liked the comments on "rationing." Why people here in the US don't understand that medical care here is rationed is beyond me. If you are out of work or if your employer doesn't offer health insurance, you are screwed. Health care for low income Americans is abysmal and life expectancies in parts of America - especially the South - are actually dropping. When it comes to life expectancy world wide, I believe the US now stands at 17. And our infant mortality rate compared with that of other nations is a national scandal.
As your article points out, the US spends almost twice the percentage of it's GPD on health care than the UK does (15% vs 8%), yet the UK has universal health coverage for its citizens while a large minority of US citizens go without.
I am baffled by the whining here about how wonderful private medical care in the US is when our system is extremely costly and run for the benefit of big pharma and doctors who play the system for kick backs, etc. The patient is steam rolled in the scramble for the dollar.
Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!
It might be sensible, V, but it's sensation that sells.
When it comes to life expectancy world wide, I believe the US now stands at 17. And our infant mortality rate compared with that of other nations is a national scandal.
In this post, which is actually posted in this thread, I explain why increased medical spending leads to higher infant mortality rates.
In this post, which appears directly after the above one, I explain why the US is actually #1 in life expectancy.
Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!
US care is the best in the world for the wealthiest in the world!
Of course, so is anywhere else with modern hospitals, as elite doctors can be flown in from anywhere to anywhere.
Food for thought. I especially liked the comments on "rationing." Why people here in the US don't understand that medical care here is rationed is beyond me. If you are out of work or if your employer doesn't offer health insurance, you are screwed. Health care for low income Americans is abysmal and life expectancies in parts of America - especially the South - are actually dropping. When it comes to life expectancy world wide, I believe the US now stands at 17. And our infant mortality rate compared with that of other nations is a national scandal.
As your article points out, the US spends almost twice the percentage of it's GPD on health care than the UK does (15% vs 8%), yet the UK has universal health coverage for its citizens while a large minority of US citizens go without.
I am baffled by the whining here about how wonderful private medical care in the US is when our system is extremely costly and run for the benefit of big pharma and doctors who play the system for kick backs, etc. The patient is steam rolled in the scramble for the dollar.
Yeah guys, US medical care is just great. NOT!
In the interests of balance, here's another American experience of British healthcare:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/ns/health-health_care/t/tale-sickbeds-health-care-uk-vs-us/
As the article says, quality is variable, and I must say that much of my experience of hospitals is better than this, but not all. Emergency and acute care is probably the most problematic in terms of the difficulties the writer encountered. That tends to be where the worst of the staff shortages, bed/ward/hospital hopping and overworked nurses can be found.
Food for thought. ~ As your article ~
Article? Its just a guys opinion on his own blog.
worth reposting...
One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.
In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out.
Their answer? First place.
so, you're sayin I'm good to go as long as I stay out of cars and away from other people?
The reason Americans have a shorter average lifespan is not because of the medical system, but because they lead bigger, riskier, unhealthier lives.
We are John Wayne motherfuckers and we're gonna smoke right up until the day they cut one of our lungs out. We're gonna drive our SUV to go rock climbing and people will celebrate us for it. Guns hell, my buddy went on an automatic weapon training holiday for a week.
Until we are sick, we don't give a shit about health. It's remarkable that we live to 60. Our best and brightest universities are full of people whose weekly goal is to puke their guts out. Our most popular shows highlight risky behavior and we love it. Our biggest healthcare documentary was made by an obese man.
We said regular drinks aren't good enough, what we need is acidified water, fake coloring and sugar. Then we invented a Big Gulp beverage of it, so large that We cannot even finish it. And when we didn't have enough calories to put in it, we figured out how to make sugar out of corn, and we subsidized the farmers to make even more of it.
We invented meth. We didn't invent cocaine, but when it got here we said it just wasn't good enough, and so we figured out how to concentrate it and smoke it.
The only reason we're competitive in longevity at all is that we keep inventing stuff like portable defibrillators to shock us back to health when we cough up a lung at a craps table. We keep inventing medicated splints to put into people's arteries. Bags to cushion us in our cars when we're in a head-on collision with a drunk at 2am. We invented* AIDS, custom-made to lower the life expectancy... and then it only took a decade to get it to the point where it didn't kill you because we got down inventing cures.
*Patient Zero was actually Canadian, but I was on a roll.
Actually, the portable defibrillator was invented in Northern Ireland.
Look, I will not have you coming around and messing up a perfectly fine rant.
Look, I will not have you coming around and messing up a perfectly fine rant...
... with your stupid facts and stuff
FTFY
Article? Its just a guys opinion on his own blog.
I think the pot is calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
Oh, and a guy's opinion on his own blog meets the definition of "article" as far as I'm concerned. From Merriam Webster online:
Article - a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine).
Might even be in an online publication like a blog.
So basically, I could start my own blog and say whatever I want and cite it?
Uh ... no. I respectfully disagree.
Jesus, it wasn't offered as anything other than an opinion piece by someone who'd experienced healthcare on both sides of the pond.
Of course you can start a blog and say whatever you want and cite it...and it would mean about as much as any other blog. Depends why you're citing it. Citing it as factual evidence? Problem. Citing it as an opinion piece? Just fine.
The article (and it is technically an article) was posted, by me, to show a different perspective. As indeed was the second article I posted which gives a very different experience of healthcare in the UK and US.
My point was that it was a blog, not an article.
I guess my distinction is an opinion that I alone share, apologies all around.
The only reason we're competitive in longevity at all is that we keep inventing stuff like portable defibrillators to shock us back to health when we cough up a lung at a craps table.
...
I was on a roll.
[YOUTUBE]V8lT1o0sDwI[/YOUTUBE]
Portable defibrillators don't help coughed up lungs.;)
I am baffled by the whining here about how wonderful private medical care in the US is when our system is extremely costly and run for the benefit of big pharma and doctors who play the system for kick backs, etc. The patient is steam rolled in the scramble for the dollar.
I agree to a small degree but the idea that medical docs "play the system for kick backs" I think is a bit overblown. I work in a number of medical groups and I don't see this. None of them want to talk to pharm reps at all, they really can't stand them. The system is steam rolled for the dollar but the patients just get caught up in the wheels, the target may be the money, but it is not the patient. At least not in the places I have worked.
Nye Bevan, the father of the NHS, said of the negotiated settlement with consultants, that he had 'stuffed their mouths with gold' as the only way to get them on board. Which is how consultants are able to work both for the NHS and for their own private practices at the same time, unlike GPs (family doctors)who have to choose.
Nowadays most medical professionals in the Uk are supporters of the NHS. But there was a hell of a lot of disquiet from those who felt they might earn less when the system was first devised.
But there was a hell of a lot of disquiet from those who felt they might earn less when the system was first devised.
I have no doubt that that is a huge factor in this country. But in this country Medicine is a business, and it has been that way for a very long time. I don't see it changing to much in the near future.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration says it will end a controversial health care waiver program in September.
Officials announced Friday that all applications for new waivers and renewals of existing ones have to be in by Sept. 22.
That would remove a potential political distraction in the 2012 elections.
The waivers deal with a part of the new health care law that restricts annual dollar limits on coverage. They won't be needed when the law goes into full effect in 2014, because taxpayer-subsidized insurance will be broadly available.( :lol: )
If there is no problem with them why end them for political purposes.
And so far no "taxpayer-subsidized insurance" exists, other than what already exists and has been unable to function efficiently and effectively. No Federal insurance exchanges exist. And everyone must buy insurance from a comercial vendor. Pony up McDonald's, Walmart, and Unions. The gig is up! :)
Rut-row.... More evidence of fudged numbers.
When ObamaCare passed, the Obama administration’s top officials repeatedly assured the public that it was not just fiscally sound but fiscally responsible: a path toward long-term deficit reduction and better health care budgeting. What the White House and its allies neglected to mention was that they’d tacked an unworkable, unsustainable $70 billion long-term care entitlement onto the bill in order to dress up its official budget projections. It’s called the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Service and Supports) Act, and it helped ObamaCare score big on decade-long deficit reduction estimates. Its designers even promised that it would be self-sustaining for at least 75 years.
It’s not. Starting around 2030, the program will spend far more than it takes in, leading to tens of billions in new deficit spending with each successive decade. Whose idea of fiscal responsibility was this?
President Obama signed the health care overhaul into law, but it was former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) who made the push to include CLASS in the package. According to Timothy Carney of The Washington Examiner, Kennedy’s former aide Connie Garner played a key role in crafting the legislation governing the program. Just two months after the law passed, Gardner left Capitol Hill to take a job as the CEO at a new advocacy coalition funded by long-term care industry groups and dedicated to—you guessed it—lobbying Congress on the CLASS Act. CLASS may cost America dearly. But it seems to be paying off for Gardner and her clients.
It also paid off for the Obama administration in the health care fight. When the Congressional Budget Office scored the budgetary effects of the law, it counted the $70 billion in premium payments expected to be collected in the program’s first decade toward the law’s alleged deficit reduction—despite the fact that those premiums were eventually supposed to pay for the program’s benefits.
The White House conveniently failed to notice the program's problems during the health care debate. But last fall, the president’s own fiscal commission officially called for a total repeal of the program.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/27/obamacares-disastrous-new-longBoth parties are going to have to belly up to the bar and figure this one out. So far both have failed.
The Medicare Test for President
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333150097033250.html?mod=googlenews_wsjRut-row.... More evidence of fudged numbers.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/27/obamacares-disastrous-new-long
I disagree with your implication that there was intentional deception involved regarding these numbers.
However, after reading the article, I learned a few things and I have a few questions. I consider the fact that the president's own commission (presumably charged with the task of examining the situation and how to make rules that apply the laws) was the source of this negative conclusion.
the president’s own fiscal commission officially called for a total repeal of the program. At this point, even Obama’s top health care officials won’t stand behind the program’s worthless fiscal design. “While the law outlined a framework for the CLASS Act,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told members of Congress in February, “we determined pretty quickly that it would not meet the requirement that the act be self-sustaining and not rely on taxpayer assistance.” Whoops!
Not bad, but I don't think the inclusion of modifiers like "worthless" and "whoops!" make any helpful contribution. But look, do you really make a mea culpa like this if you "fudged" the numbers in the first place? Or, does this sound more like "we've been paying attention as we progress on this path, and here's something we weren't expecting. Here's our suggestion to improve the situation."
A second point was made later in the argument I wish to discuss.
Why is the Obama administration so keen to get everyone to join? Because the most likely problem the program faces is the specter that haunts all insurance pools: the death spiral. According to researchers at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, it’s a problem to which CLASS is particularly susceptible. Because premiums won’t be based on health status, the program is likely to prove particularly appealing to the sick. The sicker the population, the higher the premiums required to pay for their benefits. But higher premiums will drive away healthy individuals who need benefits less, resulting in an even sicker insurance pool, on average, which in turn will mean even higher premiums. From there, the insurance merry-go-round spins further out of control: higher premiums, reduced enrollment, a sicker and sicker population, and so on and so forth until the program is composed almost entirely of very sick, very expensive individuals. Indeed, in an absurd twist, the program’s broken financing model could hasten the death spiral’s ugly cycle by scaring away healthy individuals who might otherwise have bought in.
This, to me, is a good example of why ONLY having for profit health insurance is not adequate. Imagine public safety as an analogy. What if we only had for profit police protection? What would our crime statistics look like? And, since we don't have that program, how has that impacted the for profit security industry? I don't think there's any negative impact to those folks that want *extra* protection. Our health insurance industry could benefit from the same dual track, but we don't have such an option for health care.
As for the cost, we have a vested public interest in public safety, having secure citizens. We have a similarly compelling interest in public health, having healthy citizens. Both of these interests cost money, but it is money well spent.
WASHINGTON - The American Medical Association maintained its support of a federal health overhaul requirement that Americans obtain insurance coverage or face a tax penalty.
From
hereI'm shocked that those who will profit the most financially from the new law support it. :rolleyes:
At one time or another, four the Republican candidates -- Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Huntsman -- supported the idea of an individual mandate.
At one time or another, four the Republican candidates -- Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Huntsman -- supported the idea of an individual mandate.
Oh well that makes a big difference.
Not.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year.
Who the heck can even eat with only $14,700 in annual income for a 2 person household?
Oh well that makes a big difference.
Not.
It makes a difference only in the sense that the concept was a Republican concept going back to Nixon.
It is much like your "zero liability voters."
It makes a difference only in the sense that the concept was a Republican concept going back to Nixon.
It is much like your "zero liability voters."
Come on dude, are they paying you to be a Shill for the White House and the Demoncrats? Certainly you can think for yourself every now and again.
Zero Liability Voters are a reality. Get use to it.
No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.
No they aren't. There are people who don't pay federal income tax, but there's nobody with zero liability.
Certainly they exist. Anyone who can vote for something that costs them absolutely nothing and places the burden for social and public benefits on others is a zero liability voter.
And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.
I blame Reagan, that damned socialist, who expanded the EITC, after it was initiated by that other left winger, Ford.
And as long as we have just under 50% of the potential taxpaying public not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.
As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.
As long as you specify "federal income tax", you're OK, but if you try to extend that to zero liability altogether, you are incorrect.
I have never used any other term in that description, which is why it is qualified.
When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.
But look, do you really make a mea culpa like this if you "fudged" the numbers in the first place? Or, does this sound more like "we've been paying attention as we progress on this path, and here's something we weren't expecting. Here's our suggestion to improve the situation."
I see that as a symptom of Pelosi and Reid when they Ramhed it through the legislative process with minimal review, little to no bipartisan participation, and a very limited time to review. Like she said, we have to pass it to find out what's in it..... And this is what you get from such behavior when passing major Bills in Congress. So in that case, for me and many others who said, "Be careful what you wish for." this is the result.
This, to me, is a good example of why ONLY having for profit health insurance is not adequate. Imagine public safety as an analogy. What if we only had for profit police protection? What would our crime statistics look like? And, since we don't have that program, how has that impacted the for profit security industry? I don't think there's any negative impact to those folks that want *extra* protection. Our health insurance industry could benefit from the same dual track, but we don't have such an option for health care.
I don't have the answers, I said early on they should have gone all in or nothing at all. The in between is not going to work and many small companies will shed their health coverage and push people to the public option. But insted we got Obama making a huge backdoor deals with the insurance companies by inacting the individual mandate. And much of this was crafted and constructed by a former high-level executive of the nation's largest private health insurer, Liz Fowler.
You can read more about how corrupt the process was here:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/15/fowler
What we have here is nothing short of Kabuki Theater and a bunch of applogists on here trying to make excuses as to why we should swallow this poison pill. The numbers were fudged and manipulated from the beginning. I said it before, I will say it again, Be careful what you wish for......
When left unqualified, "Zero Liability" is false.
Which is why it is qualified. There is nothing false about it. When some 47% of the population has no risk in voting for the empty promises and lies of the current administration, esp as the 2012 election nears, they have no risk in voting.
The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.
There is something at risk for every voter in every election and certainly not just based on whether one pays federal income taxes or not.
There is something at risk for every voter in every election.
Agreed. :eek:
Unfortunately, that may not really be a good thing. :gray:
The third sentence is only valid for an unqualified "zero liability voter", and they don't exist.
They exist in every election, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. :)
You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.
OK
You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.
OK
I haven't changed anything. Those are your words. Anytime I use the term it has to do with who does not have to pay federal income tax. Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax. There is no doubt they exist. The term is valid whether you want it to be valid or not.
In my country we call this 'moving the goal posts'
In my country we call this 'moving the goal posts'
Scuse me ya commie tart - We have goalposts here as well ya know...
and you can take your expressions to the correct thread
if'in ya don't mind, thank ya kindly :p:
Another possible stumble on the way to the SCOTUS.
ATLANTA (AP) — Three federal appeals judges expressed unease with a requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties, as they repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
At a Wednesday hearing, the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Atlanta questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The judges did not immediately rule on the lawsuit brought by 26 states, a coalition of small businesses and private individuals who urged the three to side with a federal judge in Florida who struck down the law.
But the pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate during almost three hours of oral arguments suggest the panel is considering whether to rule against at least part of the federal law to expand health coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
Federal appeals courts in Cincinnati and Richmond have heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law within the last month, and lawyers on both sides agree the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idmYeeaamfLZQviBcTWvENV0PWBg?docId=0fc253ce0021424c9918a5836ef76f6aEveryone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax.
THerefore there are no zero liability voters.
Medicare Trustees Confirm Democrats' Medicare Plan Would Result in 'Actual' 17% Medicare Cut
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/medicare_trustees_confirm_democrats_medicare_plan_would_result_in_actual_17_medicare_cut.html
mercy!
come on. that's really unfair, you totally misrepresented that article. Not what you said, but what you left out. you know, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. right?
your quote *was* from the article, but you just cut it off, right there. you missed this:
[SIZE="5"]
They also confirmed that Medicare would end itself by 2024[/SIZE]
no fair cherry picking, right?
mercy!
come on. that's really unfair, you totally misrepresented that article. Not what you said, but what you left out. you know, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.. right?
your quote *was* from the article, but you just cut it off, right there. you missed this:
no fair cherry picking, right?
I wasn't cherry picking, I posted the headlines AND the link.
Dr. Blahous: Well its 17 percent on average over 75 years, now it varies according to year. I think in 2024 specifically it's about 10 percent and that increases, then it becomes 25 percent by the 2040s.
Dr. Reischauer: What I think my colleague was describing is when the trust fund became insolvent, money would still be flowing in from tax receipts and Medicare would delay paying bills, and so a hospital would send this bill in and rather than being paid in 24 days, it might have to wait five months. The CMS and intermediaries and other payers would be writing out the checks and transferring the resources to the hospital, hospice, whatever, on a much delayed basis.
Roskam: So that cut just so I'm clear, is not a hypothetical cut, it's not a hypothetical delay, it's an actual delay in payment to the point of reaching this 17-percent number based on your own projection. Is that right?
Dr. Blahous: That's right. The Social Security Act which deals with these trust fund issues is very explicit that payments can only be made from the trust funds.
Do you really think anyone is going to let Medicare end in 2024? I don't. It may look different but it will most likely not go away. The way I understand it is that the amount of money coming in will not cover the bills and the shortfall will be a 17% decrease from the baseline of equal in and equal out.
THerefore there are no zero liability voters.
Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.
[YOUTUBE]hV-05TLiiLU[/YOUTUBE]
Scuse me ya commie tart - We have goalposts here as well ya know...
and you can take your expressions to the correct thread
if'in ya don't mind, thank ya kindly :p:
*grins*
Ya, but like, your goalposts are different (inferior) to our goalposts :P
Just wasn't sure you had the expression.
I wasn't cherry picking, I posted the headlines AND the link.
Hello? You most certainly were cherry picking. From Wickipedia:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.
I can post the headline and the link to practically any ideological site that catches my fancy, but that doesn't make it true. Your link is for an online publication that is unabashedly right wing and filters its information through tea colored glasses.
I am not impressed. Plus, what's up with the logo of the "patriot" sitting on the throne? Makes me want to send the editors a box of fiber.
Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.
You do seem to make that assumption a lot.
Hello? You most certainly were cherry picking. From Wickipedia:
I can post the headline and the link to practically any ideological site that catches my fancy, but that doesn't make it true. Your link is for an online publication that is unabashedly right wing and filters its information through tea colored glasses.
I am not impressed. Plus, what's up with the logo of the "patriot" sitting on the throne? Makes me want to send the editors a box of fiber.
Did you click on the link? It says what I posted. I stated my understanding of it to V.
*grins*
Ya, but like, your goalposts are different (inferior) to our goalposts :P
scuse me? Our goalposts are larger than your goalposts. :3eye:
Did you click on the link? It says what I posted. I stated my understanding of it to V.
I did click on the link. It was quite entertaining. Please stop being so disingenuous. You are far to clever to not understand the term "cherry picking." :rolleyes:
hahahaha "tea coloured glasses"
I fucking love that.
Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.
EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what?
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.
In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.
There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.
"The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
[INDENT]~ Comrade Ronald Reagan[/INDENT]
EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what? Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.
In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.
There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.
As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind. So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?
As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind.
The ranks of those whose federal income tax burden nets out to zero -- or less -- have grown in recent years for two reasons.
The first is the times we currently live in
The downturn in the economy has hurt household incomes which means that fewer taxes are being collected now than there were a few years back before the financial institutions decided to rip off the American public for an obscene amount of ill gotten gains. Congress furthered reduced tax bills by stimulus legislation which offered Americans
temporary tax breaks to lessen the economic pain.
The second reason is that the tax code is filled with hundreds of tax breaks to encourage economic activities the government favors. For example, the law offers credits to supplement the wages of low-income workers, help families pay for college and encourage them to buy homes and have children.
Temporary tax policies, such as the Bush-era tax cuts and the tax breaks passed under President Obama, have also increased the ranks of the non-payers.
But lower income Americans are not alone in receiving tax breaks. Statistics from the IRS show that the tax bite on the very highest income taxpayers has fallen as their incomes have risen. For example, in 2007, the top 400 individual tax returns had an average adjusted gross income of $345 million, up from $47 million in 1992. But their average tax rate was just 17%, down from 26% in 1992. So, by your reasoning this group should now have 9% less say on government spending than they did in 1992.
In 1980 the average tax rate for the upper 50% in income was 17.29%. In 2000 it was 16.43% or a drop of .89% over 20 years - while the percentage reduction for the top 1% in income went from 34.1% to 27.45% over the same time period - a drop of 4.65% which is about 5 times more than the entire upper 50%.
Going by your reasoning, the wealthiest 1% should be able to vote on only one in 5 government spending bills, since they have irresponsibly refused to pay their fair share of taxes.
So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?
Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes. And more importantly, if you will recall the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, every US citizen has the EQUAL RIGHT to vote in Federal and State elections and petition the government for the redress of wrongs.
What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do. So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously? :eyebrow:
If those who are in a position to hire people and pay them well would do just that, they'd be taxpayers. Instead, the wealth keep their money clench inside them like it's a turd made of gold.
The wealthy can keep more, and pay more in taxes, or they can pay their employees more, it's their decision.
I get the sense that Mercenary doesnt really care about the adverse economic impact of his position or that it would probably cost him as a taxpayer more in the long run as result.
Which is the case with most ideologues. The practical application of their extremists positions just doesnt come into the equation.
If those who are in a position to hire people and pay them well would do just that, they'd be taxpayers. Instead, the wealth keep their money clench inside them like it's a turd made of gold.
The wealthy can keep more, and pay more in taxes, or they can pay their employees more, it's their decision.
CEO's could also cease the practice of sending American jobs and manufacturing to the third world. I'm not holding my breath.
Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes.
I didn't mean to imply such, I meant it more as a general statement about how much we all pay into the system, esp for the 47% that pay none. As for things like SS, which I think is a small part of our total. I support raising the ceiling amount that is currently taxed for SS and then preventing Congress from using it for anything BUT for what it was intended.
What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do.
No, what I always supported is a flatter tax where everyone pays a percent of their income while we close most loopholes for deductions. Where is the evidence that the " wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do."
So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?
Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised". All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.
I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it. I am speaking of the current broken system of Federal taxation and have not really changed my views in years. But of course all of this will be mute if they don't come to some consensus and raise the Debit Ceiling.
All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.
No, this is what you said:
So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?
Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.
You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some
temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.
I am active on other forums - one quite huge - and believe me, people in that lower 47% are from the far right to the far left and have all sorts of suggestions on government spending. They are scarcely like Oliver Twist holding out his bowl and begging, "More please."
I realized that you are deeply entrenched in your position, and I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to get you to look at other points of view.
I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it...
Well, thank you. And no one, even you, is going to find out about my personal situation until I get my book contract signed. ;)
Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised".
Well, I can't resist pulling your tail. And from what you post here, it sounds as though you are doing quite well and are resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.
But I could be wrong. Maybe you live in a cardboard box and connect to the Internet via a public library terminal. I don't know and really don't want to, either. :noevil:
Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.
Anybody who has enough disposable income to afford a boat is a fat cat, IMHO.
No, this is what you said:
Yes, and as I said I was generalizing..... :rolleyes:
Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.
You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.
No what I have said and always said is the everyone should pay something and no one should pay nothing because they are not invested.
...resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.
Yes resentful; no I don't own oil shares; no not a cat.
Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.
"disenfranchising"... your words, not mine. All I want is everyone to pay something to be invested. I could care less if you make $20,000 a year or $20,000,000 a year, everyone should pay something equal in percent of their income and close all the loop holes.
CEO's could also cease the practice of sending American jobs and manufacturing to the third world. I'm not holding my breath.
Waiting for Boeing to say Fuck off to the NLRB and move it's HQ to Mexico.....
No what I have said and always said is the everyone should pay something and no one should pay nothing because they are not invested.
Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.
Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.
HM, you and I and several others have reiterated this to Merc over and over, but for him, it simply does not compute.
Here's my theory as to why he refuses to accept the obvious:
(Note: FootFootFoot's Theorem that everything found on the Wikipedia site is a pack of lies has been temporarily suspended in order to bring you the following explanation.)
Merc is not interested in the Social Security component of the FICA tax because it’s regressive. That is, the effective tax rate declines as income rises. The Social Security component of taxes is actually a flat tax for wage levels less than the Social Security Wage Base. In other words, for wage levels above the wage base limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
Now it would seem that Merc is a pleasingly plump cat. Thus, for the above reasons, he is not “invested” in FICA taxes because in his case, they have leveled off and do not go up with any rise in his income, and in the second place, all his stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. are not subject to tax under FICA.
However, if you are an American in or above a certain income bracket, the Federal Income Tax will take increasingly larger chunks of change out of your bank account. This means Merc is invested in income tax rates, but he can’t imagine anybody caring about FICA. Thus, his continued insistence that the majority of Americans are happy to see Congress fling away tax money because if that FICA payment doesn’t pinch Merc why should it pinch anyone else?
I'd say you're on target. The right wing talking heads avoid that idea because it doesn't fit their convenient narrative about what should offend "productive" people. There are a lot of hard-working people who don't make enough money to pay income tax and never will, but they continue to pay FICA. Part of the problem could be the way some Democrats talk about an imaginary Social Security lock box, which gives the nutters cover, pretending it is an insurance vehicle not a government program.
I'll probably regret poking my nose into this thread, but...
However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you’re exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes
.
Factcheck.orgI'll probably regret poking my nose into this thread, but...
Heh! Just wait until Merc and Classic read your post! Your ass will be grass. I suggest you hide out in Nothingland for a while. ;)
No doubt. And that's the reason I don't bother coming here usually.
But as long as I'm hanging my ass out here, I might as well post another one - an opinion piece:
RJ Eskow-Huffington Post
The top 25 hedge fund managers in the United States collectively earned $22 billion last year, and yet they have their own cushy set of tax rules. If they operated under the same rules that apply to other people -- police officers, for example, or teachers -- the country could cut its national deficit by as much as $44 billion in the next ten years.
Yeah, why do we have different rules for different people?
I pay my taxes. I'm in the middle tax bracket and work 65-70 hours per week to earn it. I don't mind paying my taxes. I'm not resentful that I have to do so. What I am resentful of are the people and the corporations who don't "need" every last dime, who pay very little or nothing.
I know the very wealthy have no sympathy for those who earn very little, but I've been there, at the bottom. When you earn $200 dollars a week, you can't pay for child care (so you can work), or groceries, never mind a rent payment or car payment. To suggest that they need to pay another 10-20% of gross pay towards taxes is absurd. Snotting about how they should get better jobs is also stupid since the people at the top are the ones paying the $200 dollar a week wages. Who wants to pay the restaurant dishwasher $75k a year? Or pay clerks in your stores $60k? And what would we do if no one washed the dishes, dug the ditches or cleaned the motel rooms? People with wealth take for granted the services provided by those with low incomes.
I don't see anyone thinking beyond the end of their noses here. What happens to families who lose their jobs and homes and become homeless? We just ignore them and thank God it's not US? Let em get sick and die from malnutrition and exposure. No health care for them either. Fuck 'em. There are hundreds of people applying for grocery bagger position, many with degrees and 5 kids. Just praying for a few dollars so their children can eat. They were successful and on track, just a year or three ago. How is the average high school graduate supposed to compete? There is a local elementary school here, where 1 in 4 children are homeless. They live in cars and motels and tents. They have no food, no clothes and no school supplies. Most of their parents aren't homeless due to drugs or laziness or mental illness. They're there because a job poofed and unemployment ended, they lost their home and they had no where to go. But America doesn't give a shit anymore. Who the fuck cares, it's not my problem, is what we say. My money is MY money, those fuckers can work just like me to earn their own money. Every unemployed person I know (and I know quite a few) would LOVE to be out there earning their own money. And no, the very rich are NOT making more jobs with all these tax breaks they get. They're investing that extra money in fucking hedge funds and making even more money. That they can't possibly use and don't need.
You're rich. Get over it.
Hidden social programs for the wealthy ie: tax loopholes.
What really needs to be addressed is government waste and pork projects. Before we take the easy road and cut funding to poor people, we need to address the financial bleeding that goes on in every government in every state and city across the country.
Waste
24% increase in pork over 2010!!! <---just one agency!!
Alright...back to work. I won't be back to this thread, so save your breath.
Heh! Just wait until Merc and Classic read your post! Your ass will be grass. ;)
Excuse me? This is the second time you have lumped me in with another poster. Please don't include me in your petty little hatefest.
Personally I enjoy reading Stormie's posts and have nothing against her or her opinions whatsoever.
I suggest
you hide out in Nothingland.
Hidden social programs for the wealthy ie: tax loopholes.
What really needs to be addressed is government waste and pork projects. Before we take the easy road and cut funding to poor people, we need to address the financial bleeding that goes on in every government in every state and city across the country.
Waste
24% increase in pork over 2010!!! <---just one agency!!
I couldn't agree more!
Excuse me? This is the second time you have lumped me in with another poster. Please don't include me in your petty little hatefest.
Personally I enjoy reading Stormie's posts and have nothing against her or her opinions whatsoever.
I suggest you hide out in Nothingland.
Hey! You have been known to give the occasional scathing reply around here, and you know it.
However, I do realize that you and Merc don't always agree on everything, so I apologize for painting you with the same brush.
And I am not indulging in a "hatefest." I disagree with Merc and have no problem telling him so, but I don't hate him. I called him a "pleasingly plump cat" which is nothing compared to some of the perjoratives that are let fly in this forum.
I don't hate you either even though we disagree on many things.
See you in Nothingland. :p:
I have replied to a couple people at times with a "scathing reply" I do not deny that, but they are few and very specific.
I'll probably regret poking my nose into this thread, but...
Only people who buy gas pay essentially pay a gas tax. Many people do not drive or own cars. It really is a hidden tax because all forms of petrol are taxed, albeit at different rates, and on top of that states tax it again, on top of the Federal Excise Tax. It is a perfect example of how screwed up our system is because it does not go to support the production or purchase of oil, it goes into the general system. Sure everyone pays to Medicare and SS. I admitted that early on. That is not the portion of Federal Tax that I have been discussing.
No doubt. And that's the reason I don't bother coming here usually.
But as long as I'm hanging my ass out here, I might as well post another one - an opinion piece:
RJ Eskow-Huffington Post
Yeah, why do we have different rules for different people?
Great question, really. So tell Obama and his other apologists to shut the fuck up and stop putting people who make 150k or 250k in the same group of people who are making
billions, ok? Because that is part of this game the President and his minions are playing with people like you. He is starting a class war and you are falling for it.
I pay my taxes. I'm in the middle tax bracket and work 65-70 hours per week to earn it. I don't mind paying my taxes. I'm not resentful that I have to do so.
Yea me too. Only I work more hours than that.
What I am resentful of are the people and the corporations who don't "need" every last dime, who pay very little or nothing.
And I resent people how take about small business owners or others who make money through hard work, carry the bulk of the burden of paying taxes and try to lump them in the group that pays no taxes and makes a hell of a lot more than someone in the groups where Obama wants to start taxing the shit out of them.
I know the very wealthy have no sympathy for those who earn very little, but I've been there, at the bottom.
Yea me too. But I also think if that flat tax gave people the social programs they wanted they would pay it.
You're rich. Get over it.
Sorry Newsweek is totally got it screwed up. If I used the statistical measure of median on any comparison I can pretty much make my arguments where I want them to go. It has little validity when you use it to compare standards and costs of living in San Francisco to other parts of the nation. A very weak article.
Hidden social programs for the wealthy ie: tax loopholes.
Great article about how [b]everybody[/] currently benefits from taxes collected and tax breaks available.
What really needs to be addressed is government waste and pork projects. Before we take the easy road and cut funding to poor people, we need to address the financial bleeding that goes on in every government in every state and city across the country.
I agree which is why I am all over the "Stimulus Bill" that made us Hundreds of Thousands of "Shovel Ready Jobs".
Merc is not interested in the Social Security component of the FICA tax because it’s regressive. That is, the effective tax rate declines as income rises. The Social Security component of taxes is actually a flat tax for wage levels less than the Social Security Wage Base. In other words, for wage levels above the wage base limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant.
How do you know what I am or am not interested in? I am very interested in these programs because I have been paying into them since I was 15 years old.
Now it would seem that Merc is a pleasingly plump cat.
Ok, define that. What is the ceiling income that places one in this group of cats? Where does it start, where does it end?
...and in the second place, all his stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. are not subject to tax under FICA.
What investments do I have and where are they invested?
However, if you are an American in or above a certain income bracket, the Federal Income Tax will take increasingly larger chunks of change out of your bank account. This means Merc is invested in income tax rates, but he can’t imagine anybody caring about FICA. Thus, his continued insistence that the majority of Americans are happy to see Congress fling away tax money because if that FICA payment doesn’t pinch Merc why should it pinch anyone else?
Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.
So the truth comes out. This is not about taxes at all, it is about wealth envy. Make it a clash of classes. Rich versus Poor. Us versus Them. This is the Obama re-election strategy. In one of his latest speeches he mentioned corporate jet company owners 4 times in comparison to poor children. If you took all of the money every one of them earned this year it would not compare to the spending by this Administration in a single week.
Something is going to give and it will be painful for everybody at the current rate of spending by this Administration.
Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.
Fail. If I pay $1 and you pay $100 and we get the same benefit, you are invested $99 more than I am.
Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.
.
There we have it. the crux of the matter. How can you not see that a pinch from someone with little is more impactful than a pinch from someone who has much?
There we have it. the crux of the matter. How can you not see that a pinch from someone with little is more impactful than a pinch from someone who has much?
Not saying it is. But why should one person pay 50% or more of their income and another pay nothing? As I stated, I don't support wealth redistribution.
But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based taxes.
But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based taxes.
What does that have to do with the fact that it is wealth redistribution?
Not saying it is. But why should one person pay 50% or more of their income and another pay nothing? As I stated, I don't support wealth redistribution.
No one pays anywhere near 50% of their income in federal income tax. The top taxpayers have an effective rate of about 20%.
As to class warfare...
Ending the 01 and 03 temporary tax cuts as intended by Bush and the Republican Congress that enacted it is class warfare, but characterizing low income working families as zero liability voters is not?
But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based on taxes.
SO, If I start off as very poor. Worked really hard. Went to school, studied hard, and eventually made a better living. Raised a family, and started to make good money, why can't I put that money where I want to put it to make my life better, give money to my kids, support them, give to charities or causes that I believe in? Why should I let a government take a larger and larger bite of my income to give it to people or causes that it thinks are worthy? When governments are inefficient and wasteful or give to causes or groups I don't support? If you don't contribute I don't think you are invested.
No one pays anywhere near 50% of their income in federal income tax. The top taxpayers have an effective rate of about 20%.
I didn't say anyone paid near 50% of there income in federal income tax.
Under your scenario.
If you start off poor and work really hard....and are taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers, will you ever make a better living or will you be stuck at a level where your limited resources are going to taxes to the point that you are living from paycheck to paycheck or worse.
I didn't say anyone paid near 50% of there income in federal income tax.
When you say one person pays near 50% and another pays nothing, what else could you be talking about? Particularly given that the wealthy pay a much lower rate for FICA taxes than those making under $100k.
Under your scenario.
If you start off poor and work really hard....and are taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers, will you ever make a better living or will you be stuck at a level where your limited resources are going to taxes to the point that you are living from paycheck to paycheck or worse.
How is that different from now? Most people live paycheck to paycheck. And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate?
How is that different from now? Most people live paycheck to paycheck. And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate?
It would be different from now because they dont have the added burden that you want to place on them to pay federal income tax.
And you have said on more than one occasion that you think all taxpayers should pay the same rate (maybe in one of those posts your deleted).
It would be different from now because they dont have the added burden that you want to place on them to pay federal income tax.
And you have said on more than one occasion that you think all taxpayers should pay the same rate (maybe in one of those posts your deleted).
You are right, and I want them to pay something into federal income tax as a percent of their income.
And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate? On more than one occasion I said they should all pay the same rate in a flat or Fair Tax.
IMO, class warfare is characterizing those working men and women who live from paycheck to paycheck as zero liability voters.
To classify a system of progressive taxation as class warfare or redistributing wealth is a bit of stretch to say the least.
I still havent seen a flat or flatter tax proposal that works w/o the middle class and working poor seeing a significant increase in their taxes which hardly contributes to personal or national economic growth by any measure.
IMO, class warfare is characterizing those working men and women who live from paycheck to paycheck as zero liability voters.
I made no such association. Those are your words.
To classify a system of progressive taxation as class warfare or redistributing wealth is a bit of stretch to say the least.
False. Anytime you take money from one group of earners and give it to another group without giving those who made the money a say in where it goes and how it is spent to the dollar it is wealth redistribution.
I still havent seen a flat or flatter tax proposal that works w/o the middle class and working poor seeing a significant increase in their taxes which by hardly contributes to personal or national economic growth.
That is not important to me.
...
That is not important to me.
So its not important if your tax policy actually helps working people and the economy?
Its just ideological extremism that cant be justified when applied. No surprise. :)
So its not important if your tax policy actually helps working people and the economy?
No, it's just no important to me if you think you have seen one that works in any way shape or form that you think it should work, or in your attempts to shill for the Obama Administration and the Demoncratic Party. :lol:
No, it's just no important to me if you think you have seen one that works in any way shape or form that you think it should work, or in your attempts to shill for the Obama Administration and the Demoncratic Party. :lol:
Oh for goodness sake. That is such a pathetic line to keep throwing out just because someone holds views that are on the left. Seriously Merc, change the record.
Oh for goodness sake. That is such a pathetic line to keep throwing out just because someone holds views that are on the left. Seriously Merc, change the record.
Responding to Redux's Echo. Pretty fair response. Do you think I am going to change his position or he his going to change my position? Fuck woman, I hold what can be considered "Leftist" views!
Ahahahahahaha. I'm sorry. In what strange bizarro world are your views leftist?
Ahahahahahaha. I'm sorry. In what strange bizarro world are your views leftist?
You mean my generalized support for legalization of drugs or gay marriage? The right of a woman to choose to do with her body as she wishes without interference from the government? Or how about my opposition to Eminent Domain Laws? Shit, you don't know a fucking thing about me....:p:
Putting aside the silly diversions about shilling for Obama when you cant support your own position, the US system of progressive taxation is hardly a leftist program of wealth redistribution, given that it has been implemented by law by presidents and Congresses of both parties since the 1920s.
Putting aside the silly diversions about shilling for Obama when you cant support your own position, the US system of progressive taxation is hardly a leftist program of wealth redistribution, given that it has been implemented by law by presidents and Congresses of both parties since the 1920s.
Still not important to me what you think about it. Plenty of people support the idea of a Flatter or a Fair Tax, and don't support the wealth re-distribution policies of the Obama Administration.
Ahahahahahaha. I'm sorry. In what strange bizarro world are your views leftist?
Merc is the right's token leftie.
:), hell, most of the right clubs would never let me in their write clubs. I can't conform.
Me neither. I have views that go against my liberalism too. Nothing is black or white, I guess.
Me neither. I have views that go against my liberalism too. Nothing is black or white, I guess.
Unless you view things through your toilet paper roll cardboard tube.:rolleyes:
I am certainly guilty of it.:p:
You mean my generalized support for legalization of drugs or gay marriage? The right of a woman to choose to do with her body as she wishes without interference from the government? Or how about my opposition to Eminent Domain Laws? Shit, you don't know a fucking thing about me....:p:
Ok, fair enough. I can see you hold some socially progressive views. Though, aside from legalisation of drugs, most of that is centre politics (in the UK, don't know about the US). It's only the raving rightwingers and devoutly religious that don't support the woman's right to choose, in my experience.
How do you know what I am or am not interested in? I am very interested in these programs because I have been paying into them since I was 15 years old.
You are certainly interested in the Federal Income Tax enough to make quite a few posts concerning it. I don't notice you displaying the same amount of concern over FICA. Income Tax rates are what seems to tie your knickers into a knot.
Ok, define that. What is the ceiling income that places one in this group of cats? Where does it start, where does it end?
According to the most recent edition of Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats which reflects the latest statistics from the 2010 census:
A Pleasingly Plump Cat has an income well over the amount where Cats are required to start paying the Federal Income Tax. They often prefer imported catnip and may own a boat or a yacht. The Pleasingly Plump Cat can be differentiated from the Fat Cat because Fat Cats, unlike Pleasingly Plump ones, own Leer Jets and tend to stash their financial holdings in offshore accounts in places like the Caymen Islands. The Pleasingly Plump Cat does not like to be waxed.
What investments do I have and where are they invested?
That is absolutely none of my business. However, I think we can safely assume that you don't keep your savings in a sock under your matress.
Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.
First of all, let us keep in mind that the percentage of those who do NOT pay income tax is 47%. So 53% of Americans do pay the tax. Plus, this situation is a TEMPORARY one brought about by the recession and the measures enacted to stimulate economic recovery. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households do not pay federal income tax. And as I and others have already reminded you, income tax is simply one of a number of taxes that people pay. It is disingenuous to state that of all taxes, only the federal income tax matters.
86% percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income tax. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to just 1.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution. I am including a fun chart for you to look at.
The above info comes from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Oh, and 20% of all taxes go to the military. So you are transferring a portion of your wealth (if you want to look at it that way, to the men and women who serve our country, giving their lives at the whim of some politician. Supporting our troops seems like the very least we can do, and I am surprised that you make no mention of this when discussing where OUR tax dollars go.
I was going to address the rest of your post, but I’m at work and lots of tourists are coming in wanting rooms, so I need to get off the computer.
You are certainly interested in the Federal Income Tax enough to make quite a few posts concerning it. I don't notice you displaying the same amount of concern over FICA. Income Tax rates are what seems to tie your knickers into a knot.
True, entitlement programs as big as these will have to be dealt with separately. Their time will come.
A Pleasingly Plump Cat has an income well over the amount where Cats are required to start paying the Federal Income Tax. They often prefer imported catnip and may own a boat or a yacht. The Pleasingly Plump Cat can be differentiated from the Fat Cat because Fat Cats, unlike Pleasingly Plump ones, own Leer Jets and tend to stash their financial holdings in offshore accounts in places like the Caymen Islands. The Pleasingly Plump Cat does not like to be waxed.
Entertaining, but none of it applies to me.... sorry to disappoint.:D
That is absolutely none of my business. However, I think we can safely assume that you don't keep your savings in a sock under your matress.
True, but it is in other places. Not in Stock, bonds, and the other BS you projected. Thanks.
Y
First of all, let us keep in mind that the percentage of those who do NOT pay income tax is 47%. So 53% of Americans do pay the tax. Plus, this situation is a TEMPORARY one brought about by the recession and the measures enacted to stimulate economic recovery. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households do not pay federal income tax. And as I and others have already reminded you, income tax is simply one of a number of taxes that people pay. It is disingenuous to state that of all taxes, only the federal income tax matters.
It matters to me because it is the only one currently under attack by Obamy and his Marxist Fucks at the Fed.
86% percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income tax. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to just 1.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.
What is important is that we all pay the same percent of our income for it to not be a wealth redistribution plan where 53% of the population is invested and 47% are not. I am sure that will change when Obama and his minions give amnesty to 35 million Demoncratic illegal aliens.
Oh, and 20% of all taxes go to the military. So you are transferring a portion of your wealth (if you want to look at it that way, to the men and women who serve our country, giving their lives at the whim of some politician. Supporting our troops seems like the very least we can do, and I am surprised that you make no mention of this when discussing where OUR tax dollars go.
Duh... I am a retired military person....
...
What is important is that we all pay the same percent of our income for it to not be a wealth redistribution plan where 53% of the population is invested and 47% are not. I am sure that will change when Obama and his minions give amnesty to 35 million Demoncratic illegal aliens.
....
You made it clear that you dont really care if paying the same percentage is good public policy or would most likely have a adverse impact on most families and probably on the economy as well. IMO, that's the problem with putting ideology above all else.
Oh, and 35 million illegal immigrants?
True, but it is in other places. Not in Stock, bonds, and the other BS you projected. Thanks.
Well, there you have it. FICA is also not collected on unearned income, but the federal income tax is. That's why you are so riled up about income tax. You have become so fixated on this that you are unable to hear anything else about our TOTAL system of taxation, and who really pays and how much they pay.
Oh, PS: the BS I projected was "stocks, bonds, real estate, etc." So it's BS to think you are buying (or have bought) your own home (real estate)? Whatever. And I don't know what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome.
*chuckles* I just love the notion that any of the people involved in this are 'Marxist'.
I'm into Trotskyism, myself.
Merc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses? :eyebrow:
Also, I Googled the amnesty thing, and I have no idea where Merc gets his 35 million figure. Everything I read said 12 million. Obama said, "So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years."
That seems reasonable to me, since the alternative would be to hire more law personnel, go on manhunts for these people, tear them away from their families in many cases, and transport them across the border. What a circus that would be.
CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/hospital-ceo-pay-has-997155.htmlMerc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses?
Quite the contrary, actually. Generally speaking, both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants are Christian, and tend to vote Republican over social issues like abortion and gay marriage. While many obviously disagree with the anti-immigrant rhetoric, they know that it is, in fact, mostly rhetoric, and meanwhile a lot of the legal Mexican immigrants actually resent the illegals even more than the white folks do.
You made it clear that you dont really care if paying the same percentage is good public policy or would most likely have a adverse impact on most families and probably on the economy as well. IMO, that's the problem with putting ideology above all else.
Hard choices will have to be made to close all the loopholes. "Good public policy" = "Can I get my guy re-elected". It is about raising revenue, not what is going to be the least painful for all involved.
CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?
So, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid? Rather than just tax that employee at the level deemed appropriate, the way the government has always restrained CEOs' salaries?
Oh, and 35 million illegal immigrants?
I stand corrected, 20million is more correct. As long as you don't include children naturalized from illegal parents.
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/04/10/number-of-illigral-immigrants-in-u-s-may-be-closer-to-20-million.aspxSo, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid?
Absolutely not. I just thought it was interesting that when all these people rail against big Corps and the cost of healthcare you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries. That was all. I don't think the government has any business telling companies how to run their operations, but as we move closer to a socialize medicine model this is bound to come up.
...you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries.
WHAT???????????????????????
WHAT???????????????????????
I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.
In my mind, "CEO salaries" are inherently implied in the discussions about "letting the tax cuts expire."
But if you want to restrict it entirely to healthcare... then yes, the only way for hospital CEO salaries to be kept in check is, in fact, a single-payer system.
I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.
I don't think hospital CEO's actually make that much. There are some that barely make the 250k bracket.
Well, I did a quick and dirty Google search and here are 3 random results for Hospital CEO compensation:
In Atlanta:
...But the six- to seven-digit compensation packages for the chief executives who lead metro Atlanta’s taxpayer-subsidized hospitals remain untouched and in most cases are growing.
Five of these CEOs made more than $1 million in the fiscal year ending in 2009, the last tax records available.
In Baltimore:
Baltimore-area hospital CEOs and presidents boast seven-figure salaries, club and gym memberships, and paid financial planning and tax services as part of compensation packages from their nonprofit employers.
Nearly a dozen hospitals cover country club dues for top executives. Carroll Hospital, in reporting the compensation to the IRS, disclosed that it requires its chief executive officer to be a member of the exclusive local clubs "to facilitate hospital interaction with the community" and because of the "potential for donors."
At the Greater Baltimore Medical Center, top executives were given thousands of dollars to spend on health equipment, tuition and other personal expenditures.
And in California (Oxnard)
T. Michael Murray reaped $330,545 in 2008 as chief executive officer of St. John’s hospitals in Oxnard and Camarillo. He drew an additional $187,071 in bonuses with $73,113 more in benefits and other compensation.
His total package, according to IRS records, reached $590,729.
And he may have been underpaid, according to a statewide survey of 118 nonprofit hospitals. The report by the Payers & Providers healthcare business publication suggests the base salary for CEOs averaged $514,237.
Kick in bonuses, retirement money, reimbursement for education costs, expense accounts and the average total compensation hit $732,004.
:eyebrow:
It will depend on the area of course but I know for a fact that some barely make the 250k limit. Though $1 million isn't that much compared to other CEOs.
the fact (is) that according to the Committee on Joint Taxation,
51 percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada. …
Actually, to show how out of whack things have gotten,
30 percent of American households actually made money from the tax system
by way of refundable tax credits -- the Earned Income Tax Credit, among others.
So 51 percent of American households paid no income tax in 2009,
but 30 percent actually made money under the current system."
Cornyn took care to refer to households that pay no "income tax," rather than suggesting that they paid no taxes at all. Many Americans who pay no income tax pay other federal taxes, most notably the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare and is deducted from every working American’s paycheck.
Some families who pay no federal income tax may be liable for state income taxes (and local property taxes, sales taxes and the like).
In addition, the richest 10 percent, 5 percent and 1 percent of taxpayers each paid significantly higher effective tax rates than Americans lower on the income spectrum.
There are enough different ways to look at the tax burden to allow all sides to pick and choose tax statistics that favor their positions.
LinkImagine that.... :rolleyes:
Pretty much like all these issues - hence very little gets done and inefficiency ...
fuggit.
Wow, the God Damm President of the United States lied to the public and Bull Shitted us to get a bill passed....
Imagine that.
Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It’s high past time to call their bluffs.
The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama’s story. In a recently published biography of Obama’s mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.
Channeling document forger Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still “speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs” — even though Dunham’s primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.
No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you’re sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama’s federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president’s Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/15/the-expanding-catalogue-of-obamacare-fables/Yet another unbiased and accurate contribution from a blog dedicated to the dissemination of truth and the American Way. :rolleyes: Cigna did not exactly "do everything it was supposed to do." I don't know why right wingers make so light of the importance of a separate disability insurance policy. Without an income from employment, it becomes a nightmare to pay the medical bills not covered by a medical insurance policy and/or just plain cover the bills to exist. Of course, such hair splitting on the part of Tea Party sympathizers should come as no surprise, since the TP'ers are avid to balance the budget at the expense of low income disabled and elderly. The kindest thing that one can say about the conservative insistence that all safety net programs for the most vulnerable members of our society be dismantled in the name of balancing the budget, is that the Tea Party is sadly lacking in members with the ability to perform arithmetic at the 5th grade level. As I have stated elsewhere, dismantling programs which assist the low income disabled and elderly to survive in the name of balancing the budget is akin to picking up 3 grains of sand on the beach and announcing that all the sand has been swept away. This hypocrisy that the right is so persistent indulging in has to be one of the most grievous policies proposed in the current budgetary/health care debate - that all entities, both governmental and private, should consign the elderly and the disabled to perdition.
I await the day when the Tea Party canonizes Adolf Hitler for making the disabled his first target for Germany's grand plan of world-wide eugenics. Long before the Jews were rounded up, long before the gypsies and the Poles and other undesirables were sent off to the camps, the disabled people of Germany and Austria were taken from hospitals and institutions and sent to the very first camps whose purpose was genocide. The Nazi's refined their techniques on the disabled long before the first Jew was subjected to the first whiff of poison gas. It's time people started calling a spade a spade. God knows, society will need quite a few of them if the Tea Party attitude toward the most desperate members of our society becomes the law of the land.
Our government over here has brought in a load of changes to the benefits system, particularly affecting those with long term illness and disability and also particularly affecting housing benefit.
They've done this in the name of cutting costs. But a couple of weeks ago a leaked letter from one of their own advisors suggested that the cost involved in an upswing in homlessness and deep deprivation would make this 'saving' into a net loss.
Yet another unbiased and accurate contribution from a blog dedicated to the dissemination of truth and the American Way.
I am at the point where I, and a number of other voters, will vote for anyone who runs against Obama. That really is the most important task at hand, make sure Obama is a one term president. How much longer do you think the Demoncrats can repeat verbatim the talking bullshit lines about millionaires and billionaires and owners of airplane companies, it is becoming laughable. :p:
I am at the point where I, and a number of other voters, will vote for anyone who runs against Obama.
You say that as if you were ever
not at that point.
I am at the point where I, and a number of other voters, will vote for anyone who runs against Obama. That really is the most important task at hand, make sure Obama is a one term president. How much longer do you think the Demoncrats can repeat verbatim the talking bullshit lines about millionaires and billionaires and owners of airplane companies, it is becoming laughable. :p:
Really? You'd vote for Palin or Michele Bachmann or some other one of those Pee Bag clowns? :eek:
It doesn't really matter, I guess. I visualize the lot of them all running as Independents and hopelessly splintering the Conservative ticket.
I'm disappointed in Obama, myself, and I don't see anyone even on the distant horizon that I'd want to vote for. Well, I take that back. I may write in Charlie Sheen. "Winning..." At least he's got a bizarre attitude that fits in with the times, and I bet he'd legalize drugs which would balance the budget right there. No more zillions poured into a lost cause which we'll never win. Plus, the gov could tax all that crap and rake in a nice profit.
Can you imagine Charlie giving a State of the Union Address or meeting with foreign dignatories like Queen Elizabeth? What a hoot!
Yeah, the more I think about it, Charlie is dah man! Palin is too predictable and Bachmann needs to get back on her meds sooner rather than later. :p: yourself
I think Obama is the king shit and I will VOTE VOTE VOTE for him again. I never expected a savior. I expected a human being who will try to get some things done, and stay strong against adversity (by adversity, I mean pasty old crybaby republicans.)
There. I said it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)
And I expect that he'll get re-elected, btw.
Seriously?
As I said sometime back: He's a mediocre man of mediocre intellect with mediocre ideas (pretty much like every one else in the political sphere).
"I expect that he'll get re-elected"
Probably ('left', 'right', 'middle': all the same to me).
Seriously.
You think he's mediocre? OK, fine. Was Bush also mediocre? No...bush was evil incarnate.
I don't see any viable candidates, I see a bunch of half-crazed megalomaniacs. If you know of any decent viable candidates feel free to post them here.
*tapping toes*
Yep...and Clinton and Reagan and any one (on any level of government) else you care to name.
Politics is the game of the schmooze and finagle...this requires 'cleverness' and 'charisma', not intelligence or insight.
Politicians (of any stripe, on any level) are nuthin' but used car salesmen (and women).
"If you know of any decent viable candidates feel free to post them here."
To me, there are only two 'viable' choices for 'governor' (one who 'governs'): nemo and mu.
:)
Actually, I'd vote for the hippy turtle Crush. When we had to watch Finding Nemo at a team building thing at my old job, a girl said I was Crush.
No way!
Nemo's such a dickwad.
:lol:
Well, between him and MU, who would you pick?
I'd spoil my ballot of course *grins*
I'd vote for Mu.... twice
Nemo is da bomb!
Wow! The end of the world must be near! For once I am in complete agreement with you, Merc. Nemo is my role model! He is way cool! He'd be a great politician too, because he'd forget all the stupid arguments and go off on a tangent and vote to pass something completely irrelevant to whatever was going on. What a politician doesn't know he can't hurt the country with.
Another example of my long term argument that employers will dump their insurance onto the backs of the government. The only downside may be that people will not be able to retire early and will work well into their 60's, 70's, or until death.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Employers are getting out of the retirement insurance business. This could be worrisome for American workers who want to retire, before hitting the Medicare-eligible age of 65.
A majority of large employers today offer some form of retiree insurance -- both to early retirees and to retired workers who are Medicare eligible.
But a new survey of 250 large companies by Towers Watson shows that many of them have pared back on their retiree insurance plans and others are planning to discontinue them permanently.
Stuart Alden, Towers Watson's senior health care consultant, said these changes are "significant"
47% of employers polled for the Towers Watson's annual retiree benefits survey said they've already made changes to retiree insurance plan designs.
These include reducing coverage and shifting more of the cost-sharing to early retirees.
When asked what alternatives to early retiree plans employers were considering, 42% said they're considering terminating early retiree plans and will encourage workers to consider buying health insurance through "health exchanges" instead.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/pf/early_retirement_healthcare/Well, I figure I'll be working either to the day I die or else until the alzheimer's starts to become too irritating.
Tango on, my fellow boomers! Just keep following Nemo and all will be well. :fish:
Well, I figure I'll be working either to the day I die or else until the alzheimer's starts to become too irritating.
:D
The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, verse-penning cowboys to have festivals funded by government, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself. In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves. (“We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say that we should,” quips the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg.) But in fact, everyone thinks that we “should” do this; the problem, in the face of the debt crisis, is finding a way that we can. It is about the “can” part that the left is now in denial: daintily picking its way through canaries six deep on the floor of the coal mine, and conflating a “good” with a “right.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/fling-welfare-state_576909.html The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, verse-penning cowboys to have festivals funded by government, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself. In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves. (“We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say that we should,” quips the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg.) But in fact, everyone thinks that we “should” do this; the problem, in the face of the debt crisis, is finding a way that we can. It is about the “can” part that the left is now in denial: daintily picking its way through canaries six deep on the floor of the coal mine, and conflating a “good” with a “right.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/fling-welfare-state_576909.html
Canaries, my ass. Those are the bodies of your fellow Americans. Soaring unemployment? Food? Medical care? And the Republican response is to stop assistance to Americans impacted by the worst economic crisis since the Depression? And your commentator would have us believe that it's all about "can"?
No. It's all about greed. God forbid that those in the highest percentiles of income go back to paying the same amount of taxes that they were before W. came along. I noticed all those rich people on street corners with signs that read, "Will actually do some work (as long as my hands don't get dirty) to pay my taxes." Yeah, right.
Oh, and God forbid that anything resembling a "transfer of wealth" occur in the good old USA. Well, I take that back. It's OK to transfer wealth to continuous wars, defense contractors like Halliburton, and the Generals at the Pentagon. No one mentions that almost half the US budget goes to the military (and thus half of everyone's taxes). Dick Chaney can bloat himself with the tax payer's dollar, but a family hit with unemployment better not get a few food stamps.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- One in six Americans is receiving help from the government, just as fiscal austerity threatens to reduce some of that aid.
Soaring unemployment during The Great Recession has driven tens of millions of people to the dole. Enrollment in Medicaid and food stamp programs are at record highs, while unemployment insurance rolls remain at elevated levels. Many people depend on more than one program.
But as President Obama and lawmakers fiercely debate budget cuts to reduce the country's $14 trillion-plus debt, some of those lifelines could be at risk. House Republicans are looking to revamp and slash funding for many programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.
But what about the Job Creators? Won't somebody think of the Job Creators!
But what about the Job Creators? Won't somebody think of the Job Creators!
They're busy creating jobs for 12 year olds in factory sweatshops in Rwanda. :eyebrow:
They're busy creating jobs for 12 year olds in factory sweatshops in Rwanda. :eyebrow:
Blame Clinton, he signed that bill.
Blame Clinton, he signed that bill.
Ah well. As long as we can ascribe blame then that's alright.
Ah well. As long as we can ascribe blame then that's alright.
Well if you don't think we can assign blame for the movement of jobs overseas to a Free Trade Agreement, then that's cool. There are certainly enough people around here blaming everything else on other people and groups they perceive as the souce of our problems, so, as you say, "then that's alright".
There are certainly enough people around here blaming everything else on other people and groups they perceive as the souce of our problems...
No shit. That was my point.
Federal payments required by President Barack Obama’s health care law are being understated by as much as $50 billion per year because official budget forecasts ignore the cost of insuring many employees’ spouses and children, according to a new analysis. The result could cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars during the first ten years of the new health care law’s implementation.
“The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this [because] they were expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage,” said Richard Burkhauser in a telephone interview Monday. Burkhauser is an economist who teaches in Cornell University’s department of policy analysis and management. On Monday the National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper on the subject that Burkhauser co-authored with colleagues from Cornell and Indiana University.
Employees and employers can use the rules to their own advantage, he said. “A very large number of workers” will be able to apply for federal subsidies, “dramatically increasing the cost” of the law, he said.
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/researchers-obamacare-cost-estimates-hide-up-to-50-billion-per-year/#ixzz1UZeO5xD0
The Importance of the Meaning and Measurement of “Affordable” in the Affordable Care Act
Richard V. Burkhauser, Sean Lyons, Kosali I. Simon
This working paper highlights the practical importance of two critical but under-explored assumptions behind existing estimates of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s potential impact on the mix of employees and families who may have employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) in the future or may receive subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges. The first assumption is whether ACA’s affordable coverage rule will be interpreted to mean that employers must provide affordable single coverage or that they must provide affordable family coverage policies to workers with families to avoid paying a fine. The second assumption is how much employers and employees will cooperatively agree in the future to designing new compensation contracts to take advantage of the way “affordability” is determined. We show that depending on these assumptions, the ACA could lead to far more lower to moderate income families gaining access to affordable coverage through exchanges or, conversely, to far fewer of these families being covered by ESI, even if no employers drop their health insurance plans as a result of the new law. Using our stylized models, we find at one extreme that the share of private sector workers covered by ESI would fall by as much as 12.7 percentage points, relative to a case of full compliance with the law, if the ACA affordability coverage rule is interpreted to apply to family coverage and employees directly pay 100 percent of the cost of the ESI in premiums, with compensating higher wages making them no worse off. At the other extreme, we find no changes in the share of private sector workers covered by ESI along this margin if employee contribution shares do not change in the future and affordability is interpreted to refer to single coverage. What constitutes a realistic point between these two extremes depends on exactly how the affordability coverage rule will be interpreted and the degree that employers and employees will actually be able to make these adjustments because of labor market rigidities. This working paper’s contribution is to point out the importance of these hitherto unexplored factors for future consideration in research that uses more sophisticated micro simulation models. In our stylized model, most of the effect of the movement onto the subsidized exchanges occurs when employees directly pay less than 50 percent of the ESI family premium. We conclude by discussing the limitations of stylized calculations relative to full simulation models, and directions for future research.
“The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this [because] they were expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage,”
I thought they were an independent agency. How is it they were "told" to do anything?
I thought they were an independent agency. How is it they were "told" to do anything?
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. :eyebrow: Of course, the rag Merc did his cut and paste from seemed biased and has its own agenda. What a surprise! :rolleyes:
I never heard of the man, so I goggled him.
Looking through the news feeds that carried his name were all suspect.
So I dug a lil deeper ...
I figured that I'd get a bunch of right wing extremist crap. I was shocked when I read his
Biography
Then again there is
thisIt was a 9-11 conspiracy.
I never heard of the man, so I goggled him.
Looking through the news feeds that carried his name were all suspect.
So I dug a lil deeper ...
I figured that I'd get a bunch of right wing extremist crap. I was shocked when I read his Biography
Well given his educational credentials I would say he has something to back up his opinions, like them or not, agree with them or not.... But rather than attack the person maybe you can attack the opinion directly?
How is that unemployment rate since the advent of "millions of Shovel Ready jobs"? Anyone?
I didn't comment on it as I was unsure if it was as Sam said
a rag that seemed biased with its own agenda.
It doesn't appear to be that way, so I have nothing to say about it.
All I did was lend some credibility to the quote - you're welcome, Mr. Pissy.
I didn't comment on it as I was unsure if it was as Sam said
a rag that seemed biased with its own agenda.
It doesn't appear to be that way, so I have nothing to say about it.
All I did was lend some credibility to the quote - you're welcome, Mr. Pissy.
Not pissy, just commenting on your comment. Stand by it. Don't shy away and pretend to be unbiased about it. No matter to me....
The dude has the credentials to make the comments he makes about the subjects. That was my only point. Better than the majority of opinions around here.
You never made any point about his credibility. I did.
You've got to admit you copy and paste a lot of stuff that turns out to be partisan opinionated crap.
This one is different and I pointed that out. Again, you're welcome.
By the way, I couldn't find any well known news source that picked this up. not on CNN, BSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP ... heck it isn't even on Faux snooze.
You never made any point about his credibility. I did.
You've got to admit you copy and paste a lot of stuff that turns out to be partisan opinionated crap.
This one is different and I pointed that out. Again, you're welcome.
None of that invalidates the points made.... It only attacks the individual and attempts to gain favor with the liberal detractors, it does not address the subject at hand.
OMFG - Who (or is that whom?) did I attack? I gave your post some credibility.
oh, and yet again - you're welcome.
Healthcare law could leave families with high insurance costs
A major provision of the healthcare reform law designed to prevent businesses from dropping coverage for their workers could inadvertently leave families without access to subsidized health insurance.
The problem is a huge headache for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, because it could leave families unable to buy affordable health insurance when the healthcare law requires that everyone be insured starting in 2014.
Some of the administration’s closest allies on healthcare reform warn this situation could dramatically undercut support for the law, which already is unpopular with many voters and contributed to Democrats losing the House in the 2010 midterm elections.
“It’s going to be a massive problem if it comes out that families have to buy really expensive employer-based coverage,” said Jocelyn Guyer, deputy executive director at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.
“If they don’t fix this — and by 'they' I mean either the administration or Congress — we’re going to have middle-class families extremely unhappy with [healthcare] reform in 2014, because they’ll basically be facing financial penalties for not buying coverage when they don’t have access to any affordable options.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/172765-healthcare-law-may-leave-families-with-high-insurance-costsThe other shoe to drop is that if they change the subsidy eligibility so that coverage is affordable, the cost estimates already done change dramatically. This is not good. I guess Nancy was right that we'll have to pass it to see whats in it. Well???
The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.
http://www.truth-out.org91 charged in Medicare fraud crackdown
A nationwide law enforcement crackdown has charged 91 people — including doctors and other medical professionals — with participating in Medicare fraud schemes involving $295 million in false billing.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that 70 people were charged in indictments unsealed Tuesday and Wednesday and 21 others were charged earlier, beginning Aug. 24. Charges were filed in Baton Rouge, La.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston; Los Angeles and Miami.
At a news conference, the attorney general said that those arrested are "jeopardizing the integrity of our health care system." Sebelius called the law enforcement initiative "a powerful warning to those who would try to defraud taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries.
Eleven of the people charged were doctors, three were nurses and 10 were licensed health professionals.
Over half the defendants — 46 — and $160 million of the total in phony claims announced Wednesday came from South Florida, still leading the nation in Medicare fraud.
In Miami, U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer said investigators noticed a new twist in which people who already were receiving Medicare disability checks were recruited with promises they could live in a halfway house in South Florida — as long as they agreed to receive mental health services they did not need. Many were addicted to drugs or alcohol, and some were homeless, and Ferrer said they would be threatened with eviction if they did not participate in the fraud scheme.
"They were already in the system. They were lured in by the promise of having housing. It was, 'Come and have a fresh start in Miami,'" Ferrer said.
Every one of them should immediately lose their licenses and have to pay back every penny PLUS.
91 charged in Medicare fraud crackdown
Every one of them should immediately lose their licenses and have to pay back every penny PLUS.
Agreed, plus time in prison. Hard Time.
Imagine that....
The Washington Post reports that about a third of states have not made much progress in setting up ObamaCare's state-based health exchanges, but doesn't note that several, including Florida, Louisiana, and Kansas, have already made it clear that they won't set up exchanges at all. That's not an insignificant consideration, because, as The Post explains, the health insurance exchanges are kind of a big deal:
State-based exchanges are crucial to achieving the law’s goal of vastly expanding access to health insurance. They will be open to an estimated 24 million Americans for whom health plans have been particularly expensive — those who buy coverage on their own or as employees of a small business. The exchanges are intended to control costs by creating a larger pool of customers and allowing them to comparison shop. Many customers will also qualify for federal subsidies.
If a state is unwilling or unable to run an exchange, the federal government can step in. But the prospect of taking over exchanges in multiple states could prove logistically and politically unpalatable for the Obama administration.
It's a political challenge because if a state decides it doesn't want to participate in ObamaCare, it will be hard to avoid the (accurate) appearance that the federal government will be effectively taking over the state's individual health insurance market (the health exchanges are expected to become the hub for essentially all individual health insurance policy purchases). Indeed, the Post report accepts this notion when it says that "technically, states have until Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate enough progress to avoid a federal takeover."
Logistically, setting up the health insurance exchanges is going to be a pain in the neck for anyone, especially when it comes to making determinations about which individuals qualify for new health insurance subsidies. But the Department of Health and Human Services faces a slew of potential difficulties that are specific to the federal exchances. For example, there's the minor problem that there isn't any money set aside to set up the federal exchanges. Also, the way the law is written, it only allows its insurance subsidies to go to people who purchase insurance through state-run exchanges. Needless to say, that would only compound the political problems: The states that opposed ObamaCare the most would not only end up with federally run exchanges, they'd end up stuck with a mandate to purchase health insurance—health insurance that's projected to rise in cost following ObamaCare—but none of the subsidies designed to ease the pain of the mandate.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/12/trouble-continues-for-obamacar?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+ReaderOne of my Senators announced a new reform for Medicare.
The headline and short text astounded me because he (Dem) has
partnered with Paul Ryan (Rep) to make changes in Medicare.
Wyden started his political career in Oregon working with seniors,
so he has been
trusted by them... so far.
My reaction was WTF ??? :eek: :eyebrow: :mad:
In any case, the following article describes the Wyden-Ryan proposal in some detail.
It is long... and Forbes is highly biased towards business, etc., but this is the meat.
Forbes
Avik Roy
12/15/11
Ron Wyden and Paul Ryan's Bipartisan Plan for Health Care and Medicare Reform
This morning, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.)
have shaken up Capitol Hill with an intriguing, bipartisan plan for reforming Medicare,
and also the private-sector employer-sponsored insurance system<snip>
The basic idea behind competitive bidding is that, say, on a county-by-county basis,
you let private plans and traditional Medicare offer plans with the same actuarial value compete,
to see who can offer the same package of benefits the most efficiently.
Each plan in a given county will name a price for which they are willing to offer these services,
and seniors are free to pick whichever plan they want.
However, the government will only subsidize an amount equal
to the bid proposed by the second-cheapest plan.
If you want a more expensive plan, you have to pay the difference yourself.<snip>
The plan would only go into effect for people aged 55 or younger today.
These future seniors would buy insurance on a “Medicare Exchange,” which
would require plans to guarantee coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions,
and require plans to charge similar premiums to those who are healthier or sicker.<snip>
Wyden-Ryan would expand means-testing throughout the Medicare system.
Currently, higher-income individuals pay more for Medicare under the program’s
traditional benefit for outpatient physician services (Part B),
and also for the newer prescription-drug benefit (Part D).
Under Wyden-Ryan, means-testing would also apply to the
premium support payments offered through the Medicare Exchange.<snip>
One of the most intriguing aspects of the Wyden-Ryan plan is its drive
to gradually migrate our inefficient, employer-sponsored private insurance system
to a true individual market where people buy health insurance on their own.<snip>
.
Right away I see [COLOR="DarkRed"]negatives[/COLOR].
* health care costs do not vary by county... ZIP codes are better delineators
* reimbursement to 2nd-lowest bid leads to 2nd-lowest quality of care
* freedom to chose more expensive plan assumes one can afford it
* Two- or multi-tiered systems pit the younger against the older
* It appeals to those whose goals are to eliminate Medicare
* It entices employers to eliminate existing health plans
Right away I see [COLOR="DarkRed"]positives[/COLOR].
* means-test in Medicare system is logical
* prohibits exclusion for pre-existing or more serious conditions
.
plans with the same actuarial value
There are so many factors that go into each plan's coverage I'm not sure how they could possibly equate one with another. We are in the midst of a non-voluntary health insurance change right now, as a matter of fact. And while Mr. Clod's employer did everything in their power to make sure the new plan was completely equivalent to the old plan, just through a different insurer, we've already come across differences that will impact us significantly, first and foremost being the list of in-network providers. Both lists may be of roughly equal length, but it is not the
same list, and we are quite invested in choosing precisely which doctors we see.
But I've always said the employer-based system is stupid, so I do like the potential for open competition among plans. But I'm also in favor of eliminating the idea of pre-existing conditions, and requiring everyone to carry a plan of some sort. The whole thing ought to look like the auto insurance industry, IMHO.
<snip>But I'm also in favor of eliminating the idea of pre-existing conditions,
and requiring everyone to carry a plan of some sort.
The whole thing ought to look like the auto insurance industry, IMHO.
My experience with families of kids with developmental disabilities made
the "pre-existing conditions" the best feature of "ObamaCare" and
that requirement for all other health care plans was the best aspect of it all.
My concern for non-Medicare plans is, in fact, sort of like the auto policy situation.
In shopping around you can go for the lowest premiums, but when it's time
to get the car repaired the real world of private insurance raises it's ugly head,
and this is particularly so when there are high cost injuries (medical) involved.
The means testing aspect makes sense, but we know people will game the system by hiding assets. There will have to be a lot of over-site which will cost money and increase complexity.
Well it sort of is starting to look like that with the individual mandate. Only that comes from the STATE, not the Feds. Is it a tax or is it not? Is it a requirement for individuals to take money earned and require them to give it to private enterprise? They would have avoided the mess by providing a Government Option, but that would have opened up a whole nother mess. Either way it is not a done deal, yet.
Why we need a Single Payer health care system.
[YOUTUBE]Jng4TnKqy6A[/YOUTUBE]
I wish those who oppose single-payer insurance would set forth their
arguments against it, take a stand and defend their complaining.
Lamp, if by 'single payer insurance' you mean, "...one entity -- a government run organization -- collects all health care fees, and pays out all health care costs.", then I stand opposed for the same reason I stand opposed to any and all collected efforts that don't allow me to bow out and go it alone, that being (redundantly): the fuckers won't let me.
Not your job (or any one's) to care for me, pay for me, or provide a safety net for me. That's MY job.
Not my job (or any one's) to care for you, pay for you, or provide a safety net for you. That's YOUR job.
I wish all the busy-bodies would just butt out and leave me be.
You want I should sign a piece of paper absolving you and yours of any responsibility for me? Fork it over...I'll sign (as long as it's understood it's a two-way street...that is: you leave me be to sink or swim; I leave you be to sink or swim).
How folks come together voluntarily and organize themselves and care for each other is none of my concern...go as 'collectivist' as you like...just: leave me alone.
Stay out of my life, my business, my health, etc.
When and if I need a doctor (or any product or service, for that matter): that's my problem, not yours (and vice versa).
HQ - Just asking here...
Do you drive?
Use public transportation, roads, highways and/or bridges?
Do you go to public beaches, libraries or parks?
"Do you drive? Use public transportation, roads, highways and/or bridges? Do you go to public beaches, libraries or parks?"
I do all these things.
Please, don't be coy: make the point we both know you're going to make so I can *dismantle it.
*and I will dismantle your point...not in any way you'll agree with or like, of course... :|
One part of the reform that has had a positive effect on my family: When my oldest graduated high school, she couldn't take a gap year, because she couldn't stay on our health insurance policy. My second kid will graduate this year, and can take a gap year, because President Obama enacted the law allowing us to keep kids on our health insurance policy until they are 25 years old.
Thank you, Mr. President.
My friend with a diabetic daughter and a self-employed husband now have health coverage for their family, due to the new laws. Previously, all 6 of them were uninsured because of the one daughter's pre-existing condition.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I like to see these real world accounts of people who have gotten some relief.
Thank you Mr. President.
(Yes!)
Well then HQ, apparently you do not wish to contribute to our society in any way.
How are all those thing going to exist without contributions?
My friend with a diabetic daughter and a self-employed husband now have health coverage for their family, due to the new laws. Previously, all 6 of them were uninsured because of the one daughter's pre-existing condition.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Wait til they get the bill for their premium.... or wait, will all the rest of be paying that?
"Do you drive? Use public transportation, roads, highways and/or bridges? Do you go to public beaches, libraries or parks?"
I do all these things.
Can you still pay to use private roads, use private transportation, go to private beaches, bookstores, and country clubs, if you want to and can afford it?
or wait, will all the rest of [us] be paying that?
That's the whole point of insurance. The healthy pay for the sick. And what they get in return is the promise that they will be taken care of if they get sick.
or wait, will all the rest of [us] be paying that?
What glatt said.
Are you aware that you are also already paying for that other guy's house fire with your homeowner's insurance, and that other guy's car wreck with your auto insurance? It's insurance.
That's how it works.What glatt said.
Are you aware that you are also already paying for that other guy's house fire
with your homeowner's insurance, and that other guy's car wreck
with your auto insurance? It's insurance. That's how it works.
Does anyone find it paradoxical that the salaries of patient-care staff
and the continued existence most hospitals' now depend upon
the US government's funding of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA, etc.
Conservatives blame Obama for rising health care costs,
but then try to scare seniors by saying Obama is cutting
Medicare reimbursements to hospitals by 27%.
Maybe just a bit of self-interest here ?
Little mention is made of GWB's clause in Medicare Part D prohibiting
Medicare from "negotiating" drug costs with pharmaceutical companies.
e.g., CDC contracts with Merck for Shingles vaccine (Zostavax) at $105/dose
for use by county health departments, but it is $161 for Medicare.
Patients of private physicians can expect fees of ~ $400.
What glatt said.
Are you aware that you are also already paying for that other guy's house fire with your homeowner's insurance, and that other guy's car wreck with your auto insurance? It's insurance. That's how it works.
what clodfobble said
not to mention that other uninsured indigent guy's emergency room visit to take care of a problem later and for vastly higher costs than an earlier and vastly cheaper, but not emergency room justifiable condition... You, and I, are already paying for that now too.
It's charity care.
That's how it works.what clodfobble said
yes
It's charity care. That's how it works.
noMy point is that the care isn't free. Those costs are incurred, and they get paid for by everyone else, not just the hospital eating the whole cost. If you pay money into the health care system, some of the money you pay goes to cover the cost of the UNCOMPENSATED care provided by the hospital but not paid for by the recipient of that care.
I understand that, I was simply pointing out that the phrase you use actually exists and has meaning.
Little mention is made of GWB's clause in Medicare Part D prohibiting Medicare from "negotiating" drug costs with pharmaceutical companies.
Some people with a hell of a lot of power, wayyyy up there in the world of big pharm, got this passed to make them a fuckton of money.
Talk about corruption!!
free inpatient care and free emergency room care are both charity care.
@ Stormie - Absolutely. Why can't that part alone get changed?
It would sure as heck save a boatload.
@ Stormie - Absolutely. Why can't that part alone get changed?
It would sure as heck save a boatload.
that part alone ?
What about the "pre-existing conditions"... kept or trash ?
I don't see where she said anything about that. Do you?
Classic, I read the "Absolutely. Why can't that part alone get changed? " as your comment.
So, I'm asking if you feel the "pre-existing condition" aspect should be kept or deleted from Obamacare ?
I guess my post was poorly written, but I was curious as to whether that particular piece,
or any for that matter could be changed. The point was regarding medicare, not Obamacare.
However with respect to you pre-existing question, no I don't think it should be changed.
May I ask why you brought that up. It seemed to come out of nowhere.
Does anyone find it paradoxical that the salaries of patient-care staff
and the continued existence most hospitals' now depend upon
the US government's funding of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA, etc.
Not really - I find it right in line with what this administration feels is the correct way to go.
What glatt said.
Are you aware that you are also already paying for that other guy's house fire with your homeowner's insurance, and that other guy's car wreck with your auto insurance? It's insurance. That's how it works.
The systems may seem similar but that is not how it works in health care. The auto body shops don't charge me $900 for a $2 thermostat because lots of people wreck their cars.
That's not how it works.Right, currently the hospital has to charge you $900 for a $2 thermometer, because they aren't getting paid by all the people with no insurance.
Under the new--and dare I suggest, better--plan, the hospital can now charge everyone normal prices, because the insurance company is paying them for every patient. And the health insurance company will be charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get sick,) just like your auto insurance company is currently charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get in a wreck.)
Right, currently the hospital has to charge you $900 for a $2 thermometer, because they aren't getting paid by all the people with no insurance.
Under the new--and dare I suggest, better--plan, the hospital can now charge everyone normal prices, because the insurance company is paying them for every patient. And the health insurance company will be charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get sick,) just like your auto insurance company is currently charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get in a wreck.)
My auto insurance has not risen 30% a year all the while increasing my deductible and covering less. Obamacare will do nothing to control what insurance companies are going to charge you.
I guess my post was poorly written, but I was curious as to whether that particular piece,
or any for that matter could be changed. The point was regarding medicare, not Obamacare.
However with respect to you pre-existing question, no I don't think it should be changed.
May I ask why you brought that up. [COLOR="DarkRed"]It seemed to come out of nowhere.[/COLOR]
My bad ... a senior moment... I lumped the two programs together,
mainly because I don't really see Medicare and Obamacare as having separate or different goals.
My auto insurance has not risen 30% a year all the while increasing my deductible and covering less. Obamacare will do nothing to control what insurance companies are going to charge you.
Well, if it has no effect on the cost of insurance, then I'm even more in favor of it! People I personally know are now allowed to buy coverage that they couldn't get before. This is a good thing.
If you're so worried about what your insurance company is going to charge you, why didn't you just opt out of the whole thing? Even now, no one is forcing you to be insured for a few more years. Yet you choose to be.
"No effect on the cost of Insurance" means they can continue to charge you more and more and provide you less.
Because right now I can afford it.
"No effect on the cost of Insurance" means they can continue to charge you more and more and provide you less.
Right. And they were going to do that anyway. So why shouldn't my friend's family also be allowed to get charged more and more, if they want to join the party?
Right. And they were going to do that anyway. So why shouldn't my friend's family also be allowed to get charged more and more, if they want to join the party?
To what end? Obamacare and the insurance companies are in bed on the costs to the end user. They made a deal with the devil. As I have said many times, if they were really serious about it they should have just gone ahead and offered a Public Option to control costs for the insured. But they didn't.
You mean the Republicans prevented them from offering the Public option. And as I recall, you were very much against it as well.
I agree that a single-payer system would be better than what we have now, but what we have now is also better than what we used to have. Baby steps are still steps.
You mean the Republicans prevented them from offering the Public option. And as I recall, you were very much against it as well.
I agree that a single-payer system would be better than what we have now, but what we have now is also better than what we used to have. Baby steps are still steps.
Repubes may have been against it, but in the end they had neither any say or any vote to repeal it. It was completely a onesided bill. I am against socialized medicine on a mass scale for this country. In the end I said many times that they should have just gone all in and offered the public option.
[QUOTE=classicman;786911... Why can't that part alone get changed?
...[/QUOTE]
R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S
But the R's are all for capitalism and firing people. One could conclude that they would be in favor of that now.
But the R's are all for capitalism and firing people. One could conclude that they would be in favor of that now.
The out of context quote by Romny was talking about people in government that were advancing programs he disagreed with.
We all, I hope, know that. You're off on a tangent though.
Do you think it would be beneficial to end the part of medicare D that prevents the Gov't from negotiating prices?
We all, I hope, know that. You're off on a tangent though.
What eva...
Do you think it would be beneficial to end the part of medicare D that prevents the Gov't from negotiating prices?
Yes. I thought that was stupid. The whole donut hole thing was completely idiotic, cover them or don't, but don't leave a frigging hole in the middle.
"Well then HQ, apparently you do not wish to contribute to our society in any way."
There's so much wrong with this statement: let me count (some of) the ways...
1-I'm hard-pressed how you arrived at this above conclusion...care to explain your reasoning?
2-In the context of 'mandatory', 'law', and 'single payer', there is no such animal as 'contribute' (normally a voluntary event), there is only 'take'.
3-What is 'society'? Define it.
4-If a body pays for the services and products he or she needs and wants directly (instead of shuffling cap in hand to big daddy government) is this not 'contributing'?
#
"How are all those thing going to exist without contributions?"
Again with 'contributions'.
Each of these -- public transportation, public beaches, libraries, parks, etc. -- is a separate item on the list...some (because of the way municipal, regional, state, national, living is currently organized) require some communal funding, while others don't.
If you wanna dicker about what should be funded by 'all', start a new thread (or revitalize an old one if such already exists).
No thanks. You win. I'm out.
My auto insurance has not risen 30% a year all the while increasing my deductible and covering less.
Right. So let's examine that. Why are healthcare costs (and health insurance costs) in America rising faster than in almost any other field, whether it's inflation costs or taxes or wages or iPhones? And why does healthcare, insured or uninsured, still cost more in America for the same level of care than in any other wealthy, industrial nation? I think most people would agree it's not just a matter of getting what you're paying for.
Obamacare will do nothing to control what insurance companies are going to charge you.
So the question becomes, HOW do we lower healthcare and insurance costs? Well, I guess the first question is SHOULD there be 'control', or at least an attempt to mitigate or lower healthcare costs? I unhesitatingly say, yes, there should be - i reject the notion that healthcare should be HARDER for the destitute to access, the notion that being poor means your only option is to just, well, be unproductive, suffer, and die if you get sick. So given that we're all paying too much for it, compared to other countries and to what we can afford (or what percentage of our incomes goes to paying for health insurance, compared to the past), how do we reduce costs without reducing quality of care?
I have been convinced both by living in a single-payer country and by the reams of economic and statistical evidence that a free-market system of health care, where your means and your means alone determine your health care, aside from any emotional or moral argument for universal coverage, introduces huge costs to the system when the uninsured require care, huge costs to the public when people get sick, languish, malinger, spread contagion, and otherwise suffer for lack of health care, and huge costs to healthy people as health care providers need more money from patients (thus from insurance companies (who then accordingly raise their rates)), to pay for the ones who aren't insured.
On top of the drawbacks to public health and to those WITH insurance or wealth, it is in the best interest of insurance companies to deny coverage in as many cases as possible - since profit is king, finding (legal if not legitimate) reasons not to pay policyholders is an advantage. With a single-payer system, where the government underwrites your insurance policy (which can be supplemented by private policies, but not replaced by, like a public option), we again get a collective risk/responsibility equation - but one where the scale and power of the government, coupled with the fact that the program would need to at best only break even, means that the delivery, to you, of quality, fast, efficient, cheap health care would be the #1 priority of both your insurer AND your doctor. Costs for the uninsured would also fall dramatically - I was not covered under Taiwan's single-payer system, as a foreigner, but for even relatively major things like root canals or ER visits, we would often pay out of pocket and find that it would literally not be worth submitting the claim to our insurance, once deductibles and processing and international mail were dealt with.
of course, obamacare isn't single-payer, or even public-option - it's only an individual mandate, the conservative (well, conservative until obama went for it and the right jumped ship) alternative to single-payer. I personally think that an individual mandate is a good thing for public health, but a better thing - too much so - for insurance companies, and leaves itself open to abuse. It might be better than things were, but it's just a teeny baby step, and one that leaves us more at the mercy of corporate health-care.
...and there is nothing else in obamacare to hate. Is there? Because the death panels are a lie. the end of "preexisting condition" denial is almost universally liked - if you have an argument against it please, by all means, out with it, but I can't possibly think of one. I agree with you that it's flawed and doesn't do enough to reign in costs, but is the solution just to dissolve it entirely? If you think it doesn't do enough, wouldn't you support MORE regulation, a STRONGER obamacare?
A very good discussion, Ibram.
...and there is nothing else in obamacare to hate. Is there?
Sure there is, plenty.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf
Because the death panels are a lie.
In name only, insurance companies already do that for you.
the end of "preexisting condition" denial is almost universally liked -
Oh I agree with that as well. But you don't need obamacare to do that.
I agree with you that it's flawed and doesn't do enough to reign in costs, but is the solution just to dissolve it entirely?
Yes. I would get rid of it entirely and start over.
If you think it doesn't do enough, wouldn't you support MORE regulation, a STRONGER obamacare?
No.
Ibs, just to be the devil's advocate:
When you are no longer covered by your parents, and the hardware store doesn't cover you, what will happen?
A) You'll be covered under Medicare and while you won't get routine maintenance, the govt plan will pay the expenses if you get hit by a bus
B) You'll personally buy the lowest possible level of insurance out of your own pocket; if you don't or can't, you'll pay penalties and fines, and you'll remain uninsured
C) You'll be put into a pool of uncovered individuals and your "premiums" will be paid by taxpayers
Well, in VERMONT, the health care exchanges that Vermont was embracing before obamacare and the planned single-payer system already signed into law here put me in a pretty good position health-care wise. It'll be a few years before the exchanges are running but it'll be a few years before my Tricare coverage lapses.
In name only, insurance companies already do that for you.
Except that wasn't even what the 'death panels' supposedly were. The bullshit started with the provision that the elderly be given access to end-of-life counselling to help them plan for their future care.
Oh I agree with that as well. But you don't need obamacare to do that.
Then what do we need? What is a practical credible alternative that's been proposed that would help like this provision did?
Yes. I would get rid of it entirely and start over.
Start over with WHAT? what goals would your program have, merc?
No.
Honestly, i've seen you railing against both the insurance industry and against obamacare. I assume that to indicate that you think something about the system needs to change. Do you think Obamacare too weak to stop the broken insurance companies and fix our broken health care system, or too strong and heavy-handed to do so? if it's too strong, what provisions go too far? if it's too weak, what would you add to it?
put me in a pretty good position health-care wise
Because there was a political battle to have Obamacare not apply to you.
...and there is nothing else in obamacare to hate. Is there?
TheMercenary;788095]Sure there is, plenty.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf
Generally, as a liberal, I discount most everything that comes out of the Cato Institute
because it is almost completely business- and tax-reduction oriented.
But I'd like to thank you for this link because there is some information there.
So far I've read only the first 30 or so of the 60 pages, and want to finish it before
getting into the details.
My impression of the Tanner's coverage of The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
is broad and factual when citing information from the law, itself.
But, of course, he obviously inserts a very conservative view
when it comes to interpretation, implications, and politics.
Again, thanks for the link...
Ibs, just to be the devil's advocate:
When you are no longer covered by your parents, and the hardware store doesn't cover you, what will happen?
A) You'll be covered under Medicare and while you won't get routine maintenance, the govt plan will pay the expenses if you get hit by a bus
B) You'll personally buy the lowest possible level of insurance out of your own pocket; if you don't or can't, you'll pay penalties and fines, and you'll remain uninsured
C) You'll be put into a pool of uncovered individuals and your "premiums" will be paid by taxpayers
Here is a clip from Merc's link to the Cato Institute
Up to the age of 26, children can be added to their parents insurance.
After 26, they would be considered adults for health insurance purposes.
Essentially, a single male would be paying (only) $695 per year, but even that amount would be offset if the person's income were less than 133% of the poverty rate (~$14,000)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf
Bad Medicine
A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law
(Updated and Revised for 2011)
Michael D Tanner
CATO Institute
2011
Page 3
Under the law, beginning in 2014, those
who failed to obtain insurance would be
subject to a tax penalty. That penalty would
be quite mild at first, either $95 or one per-
cent of annual income in 2014, whichever is
greater.23 But it ramps up quickly after that,
the greater of $325 or 2 percent of annual
income in 2015, and the greater of $695 or
2.5 percent of annual income after that. In
calculating the total penalty for an unin-
sured family, children count as half an adult,
which means that in 2016 an uninsured
family of four would face a minimum penal-
ty of $2,085 ($695+$695+$347.50+$347.50),
pro-rated on the basis of the number of
months that the person was uninsured over
the course of the year.24 Individuals will be
exempt from the penalties if they earn less
than an income threshold to be determined
by the secretary of Health and Human Ser-
vices (but presumed to be roughly the pov-
erty level), or if they are unable to obtain
insurance that costs less than 8 percent of
their gross incomes.25
According to the CBO, roughly four mil-
lion Americans will be hit by penalties in
2016, with the penalties averaging slightly
more than $1,000.26 In fact, the federal gov-
ernment expects to raise $17 billion from
penalties by 2019.27
Yes, it was multiple choice, not essay, and the answer was "B".
Unless, of course, it turns out next year that Ibram has lupus. Shitty lottery to win, but you can be sure after that that he will spend virtually anything on a good policy, because it will still be cheaper than his medical costs would be. Good thing he has that option now.
And he will be a walking, talking recommendation to his friends for buying good health coverage, not the cheapest they can get away with. He will say, "Hey, friend with a wife and baby. You see this shitty thing that happened to me out of nowhere? If it happens to you, your wife and baby will be living in a box on the street." And his friend might be smart enough to learn the lesson, and it might change his understanding of what he can and can't afford.
Remember Ibram used to live in Taiwan.
In Taiwan they have universal health coverage - all in one system so none of this "pre-existing condition" nonsense.
It is government run, thus eliminating the drive for profit.
Governments are inefficient, right? Not this time. The administration costs have been whittled down to ONE PERCENT of the total bill. For comparison, in the USA, admin is 28% of the helath care budget.
That's before we get to the malpractise insurance costs and the highly unlikely tests that docs have to do to cover themsleves.
Because there was a political battle to have Obamacare not apply to you.
Well, yes. A waiver has to be given to Vermont to let it opt out of Obamacare - a wavier the current administration has said they're going to give Vermont based on current information, as the VT healthcare bill would do more than Obamacare would. Obama has said, at least, that he doesn't plan to give waivers to states to implement less rather than more protection for its citizens. I'm all for having waivers to Obamacare for states that think it doesn't do enough - it's waiving it in states that want to do nothing instead that I have a problem with.
Ibica? Isn't that where the Spanish go for their holidays?
No idea :)
Ibram + Erica (I get that right?) = Ibica.
or Eram.
Ibica sounds nicer.
it's waiving it in states that want to do nothing instead that I have a problem with.
Choice "B" it is. Penalties to be collected by the IRS.
i don't understand your point, UT. Of course i'm going to have to pay for insurance or a penalty for not having it. That's the whole point. I'd just rather be paying for government insurance than private insurance under a single-payer system. I don't favor the mandate, as opposed to single-payer or to a lesser degree socialized medicine (sorry brits, i think single-payer works better than your commie shit (<3)), but a mandate is still better than nothing at all. Just because I'm a reckless young'un who WOULDN'T buy insurance if there WASN'T a mandate, doesn't mean I have a problem paying for it or paying the fee as i should.
No idea :)
Ibram + Erica (I get that right?) = Ibica.
or Eram.
Ibica sounds nicer.
Ibiza .. pronunced with the z as that lispy c/th/s sound they use, sounded a bit like Ibica.
The nun
did faint, but not from the joke.
Hey man like I said devil's advocate.
My guess is that you won't pay, and will take the fine instead, saving yourself between $700 and $1400 per year depending on what kind of money you make.
We won't really know what to hate about the system until we are knee-deep in it and people are hustling it.
We won't really know what to hate about the system until we are knee-deep in it and people are hustling it.
Very well put.
Ibica? hm. I kinda like it actually.
...and there is nothing else in obamacare to hate. Is there?
<snip>
We won't really know what to hate about the system until we are knee-deep in it and people are hustling it.
I found the following Timeline to be a relatively easy way to follow
what is in the PPACA (Obamacare) and, of course, when it is to be implemented.
Maybe this will be a way to identify those aspects that people
feel are so onerous they should be eliminated.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf"]Cato Institute[/URL]
Updated & Revised for 2011
Michael D Tanner
2011
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Timeline for Implementation
2010 (already in place)
Five percent tax imposed on tanning salons.
Seniors with prescription drug costs of at least $2,700 receive a check for $250.
If seniors reach the $2,700 ceiling later in the year, they will receive the check at the
end of the quarter in which they reach the ceiling.
$5 billion for temporary reinsurance program for employers who provide health
insurance coverage for retirees over age 55 who are not yet eligible for Medicare.
The program ends in 2014.
Insurers required to provide coverage for children regardless of preexisting condi-
tions. The prohibition on excluding preexisting conditions does not apply to adults
until 2014.
High-risk pools established to cover adults with preexisting conditions. Pools will
be eliminated after the ban on excluding preexisting conditions goes into effect in
2014.
Parents may keep children on their insurance plan until the child reaches age 26.
Lifetime caps on insurance benefits prohibited.
2011 ============
Medicare payroll tax increases from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for individuals
earning more than $200,000 and married filing jointly above $250,000.
A three-year phase-out of subsidies to Medicare Advantage begins. Some seniors
may be forced back into traditional Medicare.
States must expand Medicaid eligibility to all individuals with incomes below
133 percent of the poverty line. The federal government will cover the cost of this
expansion until 2017.
Businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages below $50,000 be-
come eligible for a tax credit to help offset the cost of providing insurance to their
workers. The credit applies to 2010 taxes filed in 2011.
Maximum contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs) reduced from
$5,000 to $2,500. FSAs and health savings accounts (HSAs) cannot be used to
purchase over-the-counter medications.
Workers begin contributing to the CLASS Act long-term care program, or may
opt out of the program.
$2.5 billion in new taxes are imposed on the pharmaceutical industry. The tax,
or assessment, rises to $4.2 billion by 2018, and is imposed on manufacturers
according to a formula based on the company’s aggregate revenue from branded
prescription drugs.
2012 ============
Businesses required to complete 1099 forms for every business-to-business trans-
action of $600 or more.
2013 ============
2.3 percent excise tax imposed on sale of medical devices.
Floor for deducting medical expenses from income taxes rises from 7.5 percent of
income to 10 percent.
The Employer Medicare Part D subsidy deduction for employers eliminated. Em-
ployers will lose the tax deduction for subsidizing prescription drug plans for
Medicare Part D–eligible retirees.
The 3.8 percent Medicare tax is applied to capital gains and interest and dividend
income if an individual’s total gross income exceeded $200,000 or a couple’s
income exceeds $250,000.
An $8 billion tax is imposed on insurers, based on market share. The tax rises to
$14.3 billion by 2018.
2014 Individual mandate imposed. With few exceptions, every American is required to
have a government-designed minimum insurance package. Failure to comply will
result in a fine equal to 1 percent of income. The penalty increases to 2 percent in
2015, and finally to 2.5 percent in 2016.
Employer mandate imposed. Companies with 50 or more employees must offer
coverage to employees or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee after their first 30
if at least one of their employees receives a tax credit. Employers who offer cov-
erage but whose employees receive tax credits will pay $3,000 for each worker
receiving a tax credit.
All insurance must meet federal minimum benefit requirements.
Prohibition on preexisting condition exclusions applies to adults.
Health plans prohibited from imposing annual limits on coverage.
Subsidies begin for individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of
the poverty line. Refundable tax credits limit the percent of income that must be
paid for either insurance premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.
Insurance exchanges become operational.
2015 ============
Independent Medical Advisory Commission (IMAC) established.
2016 ============
Individuals may begin collecting benefits from CLASS Act long-term care pro-
gram.
2017 ============
States have option to allow large employers to participate in exchanges.
States must begin covering part of the cost of Medicaid expansion.
2018 ============
“Cadillac” insurance tax imposed on high-cost, employer-provided health plans
with an actuarial value exceeding $27,500 for family coverage and $10,200 for individual coverage.
Roll a double six to start.
Collect MRSA each time you pass "go".
Ibica? hm. I kinda like it actually.
*smiles* good!
It keeps you as as the Ibs we know and love, but gives it a feminine tweak. And I think it suits you.
So this is where ObamaCare is headed ?
Years ago, the Maternity Wing of Buffalo Children's Hospital served lobster every Friday.
This was well known through out the city, and generated a lot of business for the hospital.
NY Times
1/22/12
Chefs, Butlers, Marble Baths: Hospitals Vie for the Affluent
<snip>
[ATTACH]36912[/ATTACH]
It was Greenberg 14 South, the elite wing on the new penthouse floor
of NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital.
Pampering and décor to rival a grand hotel, if not a Downton Abbey,
have long been the hallmark of such “amenities units,”
often hidden behind closed doors at New York’s premier hospitals.
But the phenomenon is escalating here and around the country, health care design specialists say,
part of an international competition for wealthy patients willing to pay extra,
even as the federal government cuts back hospital reimbursement
in pursuit of a more universal and affordable American medical system.
“It’s not just competing on medical grounds and specialties,
but competing for customers who can go just about anywhere,” said Helen K. Cohen,
a specialist in health facilities at the international architectural firm HOK,
which recently designed luxury hospital floors in Singapore and London
and renovated NewYork-Presbyterian’s elite offerings in the McKeen Pavilion in Washington Heights.
“These kinds of patients, they’re paying cash
— they’re the best kind of patient to have,” she added. “Theoretically, it trickles down.”
<snip>
At Mount Sinai Medical Center, where the aesthetic of the Eleven West wing
is antique mahogany rather than contemporary sleek, and the best room costs $1,600,
William Duffy, the hospital’s director of hospitality, said his favorite entree was Colorado rack of lamb,
adding, “We pride ourselves on getting anything the patient wants.
If they have a craving for lobster tails and we don’t have them on the menu, we’ll go out and get them.”
Oh, wait a minute. Don't the Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare ?
I'm confused what it is you think this article has to do with Obamacare, one way or the other.
Primarily just being facetious...
There are comments in the article about Medicare patients not being served,
and the coming standards for reimbursements, and physicians' practice
of accepting only private-pay (or private insurance) patients.
I do think that unless something is done to ultimately require physicians and hospitals
to accept Medicare reimbursements, this direction of seeking the wealthy patients
will only increase, so more and more patients will be turned away.
The smaller hospitals will probably see this as their way to go,
and so those ER's will only stabilize the patients and transport them
to larger "teaching" and "county" facilities that do accept Medicare.
.
The smaller hospitals will probably see this as their way to go,
and so those ER's will only stabilize the patients and transport them
to larger "teaching" and "county" facilities that do accept Medicare.
What on earth makes you think this isn't already happening?
I can tell you for a fact that it sure as hell is here.
What on earth makes you think this isn't already happening?
I can tell you for a fact that it sure as hell is here.
Yes, and in the past it was based primarily on technical capability of the hospital and it's staff.
When it's the credit rating of the patients it takes on a completely [=MBAnoise][COLOR="Black"]different motivation[/COLOR][/MBAnoise]
Yes, and in the past it was based primarily on technical capability of the hospital and it's staff.
Not here. Not even close.
Primarily just being facetious...
There are comments in the article about Medicare patients not being served,
and the coming standards for reimbursements, and physicians' practice
of accepting only private-pay (or private insurance) patients.
I do think that unless something is done to ultimately require physicians and hospitals
to accept Medicare reimbursements, this direction of seeking the wealthy patients
will only increase, so more and more patients will be turned away.
The smaller hospitals will probably see this as their way to go,
and so those ER's will only stabilize the patients and transport them
to larger "teaching" and "county" facilities that do accept Medicare.
.
All of that has happened and is increasing. More people do not see Medicare anymore. The rural hospitals are passing on the sicker patients because they cost to much and sending them on to the larger hospitals further delaying much needed critical care. It has nothing to do with the capability of the hospital or the skills of the staff, it is now and always be about money. Medicine is a business, like it or not.
I agree that medicine is a business, but disagree about the reason rural hospitals send patients to larger facilities. It IS about the skills of the staff and having access to the most up to date diagnostics and newer, more sophisticated treatments. A hospital in a town of 10,000 just can't afford the latest and greatest, and really good physicians do not gravitate to rural backwaters for obvious reasons.
If'n I won the lottery, I would still be suspicious of a hospital tricked out as a hotel.
I want the money to go to research, pioneering treatments and the best medical care in the world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for them to employ plenty of non-medical staff as Hospitality - making sure I have a cold drink, checking in on me, helping me to the toilet, picking up the book I've dropped. But lobster tails? I can do without those for a few days, thanks.
And no, I wouldn't use the NHS if I was mega-rich. At my salary level it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Ditto the majority of the country. But it's overstretched, and if I was on the Times Rich List I'd see it as a moral obligation not to stretch it further. That and seeing how well Grandad was "cared" for when he was there.
Another aspect of "ObamaCare" is coming on board...
Health Care Finance News
Kelsey Brimmer, Associate Editor
February 20, 2012 |
HHS ensures consumers get better value for their health insurance dollar
WASHINGTON – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Thursday
that consumers will soon begin receiving unprecedented information on the value
of their health insurance coverage, and some will receive rebates from insurance companies
that spend less than 80 percent of their premium dollars on healthcare.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance companies begin notifying customers this year
about how much of their premiums they have spent on medical care and quality improvement.
Beginning in 2011, insurers were required to spend at least 80 percent
of total premium dollars they collect on medical care and quality improvement. [/COLOR]<snip>
"Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could spend your premium dollars
on administrative red tape and marketing," said Sebelius in a press release.
"With today's notice, we're taking a big step toward making insurers accountable to consumers.
Some of these insurance companies have already changed their behavior
by lowering premiums or spending more on medical care and quality improvement,
while the remainder will need to refund this money to their customers this year."<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Consumers will receive these notifications after Aug. 1, 2012.
The regulation requires that insurance companies send these rebates by this date,
though consumers may receive them at different times.[/COLOR]<snip>
HHS has concluded its review of 18 state requests for adjustments to the medical loss ratio rule.
As a result of HHS’ decision to deny insurance companies the ability to spend
more premium dollars on administrative overhead costs rather than on medical claims,
consumers will receive up to $323 million in rebates this year compared to
what would have been owed if all state adjustment requests were fully granted,
according to data from state regulators and issuer reports.
.
HHS ensures consumers get better value for their health insurance dollar
Believe it, because that is how they are selling it to you and you want to believe it is true. In reality there is no truth that is or will work.
Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France
As it’s difficult to get good data on prices, that paper blamed prices largely by eliminating the other possible culprits. They authors considered, for instance, the idea that Americans were simply using more health-care services, but on close inspection, found that Americans don’t see the doctor more often or stay longer in the hospital than residents of other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. We spend less time in the hospital than Germans and see the doctor less often than the Canadians.
“The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do,” they concluded. “This suggests that the difference in spending is mostly attributable to higher prices of goods and services.”
The 2010 health-reform law does little to directly address prices. It includes provisions forcing hospitals to publish their prices, which would bring more transparency to this issue, and it gives lawmakers more tools and more information they could use to address prices at some future date. The hope is that by gathering more data to find out which treatments truly work, the federal government will eventually be able to set prices based on the value of treatments, which would be easier than simply setting lower prices across-the-board. But this is, for the most part, a fight the bill ducked, which is part of the reason that even its most committed defenders don’t think we’ll be paying anything like what they’re paying in other countries anytime soon.
“There is so much inefficiency in our system, that there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit we can deal with before we get into regulating people’s prices.” says Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University. “Maybe, after we’ve cut waste for 10 years, we’ll be ready to have a discussion over prices.”
And some economists warn that though high prices help explain why America spends so much more on health care than other countries, cutting prices is no cure-all if it doesn’t also cut the rate of growth. After all, if you drop prices by 20 percent, but health-care spending still grows by seven percent a year, you’ve wiped out the savings in three years.
Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA.
Link Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France
Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA.
Why do you think Healthcare did not address healthcare costs?
Ezra does a better job ( than most republicans) of describing some of the issues with the HCRA
Is there anyone Better Than Ezra? ;)
Why do you think Healthcare did not address healthcare costs?
:eyebrow:
If you are asking that question, then you didn't read the article.
:eyebrow:
If you are asking that question, then you didn't read the article.
Allow me to rephrase.
Why do
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"] you[/SIZE][/COLOR], Classicman, personally think the healthcare reform act did not address healthcare costs?
ETA: I didn't go to the link.
Who? What? Where?
--Vinnie Barbarino
I even quoted it for you in my original post. I've been saying this since virtually day 1.
"this is, for the most part, a fight the bill ducked, which is part of the reason that even its most committed defenders don’t think we’ll be paying anything like what they’re paying in other countries anytime soon."
This bill was basically written BY the health insurance lobbyists. There is little to address actual costs. Go back a hundred pages or whatever if you want the long answer.
Four inconvenient truths about the HCRA
[COLOR="Red"]1) Some people won’t get to keep the coverage they like.[/COLOR]
Obama promised over and over during the health care debate that
“if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
It turns out that, for a lot of people, between 3-5,000,000 and 15-20,000,000, that isn’t true.
[COLOR="Red"]
2) Costs aren’t going to go down.[/COLOR]
The Obama campaign released a graph that shows health insurance premiums climbing and climbing
way above general inflation.
[Strike]The lie [/strike]giving families and businesses relief was a big part of Obama’s sales pitch for health care reform.
[COLOR="Red"]
3) It was just a guess that the law can pay for itself.[/COLOR]
The Obama administration insists that the health care law will actually reduce the deficit.
That sounds like a fantasy to many people, since
the law will clearly increase spending through insurance subsidies and an expansion of Medicaid.
And the CBO believes the law will only pay for itself through cuts in Medicare payments and various new taxes,
including fees that health insurers and medical device makers will pay.
[COLOR="Red"]4) “The more you know, the more you'll like it”.[/COLOR]
When the bill passed, Democrats were convinced that Americans would like the health care reform law
more once they were able to see its benefits. When then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said
Congress had to “pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”
Except the controversy has never died down, and people don’t like the law any more now than they did then.
CBO data and asst news sites.
Anything in particular you are referring to? Maybe I can find that specific one for you.
Four inconvenient truths about the HCRA
[COLOR="Red"]1) Some people won’t get to keep the coverage they like.[/COLOR]
Obama promised over and over during the health care debate that
“if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
It turns out that, for a lot of people, between 3-5,000,000 and 15-20,000,000, that isn’t true.
[COLOR="Red"]4) “The more you know, the more you'll like it”.[/COLOR]
When the bill passed, Democrats were convinced that Americans would like the health care reform law
more once they were able to see its benefits. When then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said
Congress had to “pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”
Except the controversy has never died down, and people don’t like the law any more now than they did then.
I'd really like to see numbers and data on that. What sorts of policies those 3-20 million people have that will not be grandfathered in, and why. What percentage of people who identify themselves as being more favorable to it as they learn more - i've heard quite a lot of polls quoted that claim just the opposite of what you claim.
[COLOR="Red"]
2) Costs aren’t going to go down.[/COLOR]
The Obama campaign released a graph that shows health insurance premiums climbing and climbing
way above general inflation.
[Strike]The lie [/strike]giving families and businesses relief was a big part of Obama’s sales pitch for health care reform.
Ah, but will costs climb
more slowly than they were climbing before, and ensure that coverage will not be denied or removed from policies while prices rise? THAT was the objective.
A) CBO
B) Its in his 17 minute video, but they left out that comparison.
"CBO" isn't numbers and data and why...
and I dont understand what you mean about the video, sorry, rephrase that for me?
Look at the latest CBO data on the HCRA. They revised (shock) the costs.
Its in the campaign video that Obama just released last Thursday. There is no way for me to post it.
Look at the latest CBO data on the HCRA. They revised (shock) the costs.
Its in the campaign video that Obama just released last Thursday. There is no way for me to post it.
Oh hell.... really?!?!?:eek:
It's going to COST WAY THE FUCK MORE THAN THEY SAID IT WOULD???!?!!! HOLY CRAP! Who is going to pay for it again?
Hopefully you are. I certainly can't afford it.
As a senior on Medicare I've been waiting for news on the ACO's
that are a significant change initiated within Obamacare.
Here is an article that is beginning to describe the direction of Medicare,
...and where the head goes the tail will follow...
Reuters
Bruce Japsen
4/12/12
New Model Of Health Care Taking Root, Whether Or Not Obamacare Survives
No matter what happens to President Obama’s health care law sitting before the Supreme Court,
fee-for-service medicine may still morph into a new model of health care delivery his administration
is pushing that rewards doctors and hospitals for working together to improve quality.
A key part of the Affordable Care Act launched this spring with the first groups of
medical-care providers forming Accountable Care Organizations across the country.
These so-called ACOs began contracting this month with the Medicare program
to be paid for caring for a population of seniors.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]If the ACOs can improve quality and reduce the cost of care to the group
of seniors they are caring for, medical providers get to share money saved.[/COLOR]
Earlier this week, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
said more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries are now served by ACOs
and participation from doctors and hospitals is off to a “phenomenal start.”<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Our nation’s traditional fee-for-service delivery system is not sustainable,” Turkal added.[/COLOR]
“At Aurora we are exploring ways to redesign health care delivery,
including an accountable care organization. I am convinced that integrated systems like Aurora
are key to creating a successful approach that improves quality and lowers costs
by coordinating care between the hospital, the physician and outpatient services.”
.
Soon, we will be hearing a lot about Medicaid and Obamacare.
This, in large part, will be referencing the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
which is dependent on income AND family size.
Usually, a certain percentage of FPL will be identified, such as 133% FPL
Here are 2 tables, one of annual income and one of monthly income
each associated with the size of the family...
Quizzie wizzie on the ACA
"You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans."
I thought it was ridiculously easy - try it out.
I got 9/10 because I inadvertently skipped one. the one I skipped I would have gotten correct.
good quiz!
see? IF THE LIMEYS CAN DO IT WHY CAN'T FUCKIN' AMERICA
I got 10/10 too.
I be brilliant.
10 out of 10. I have to admit I only knew the answers to about half of them, but the way the test was written, the correct answers were obvious. This tests how well you test.
Most of what i know I only know from the Cellar. And the Daily Show, natch.
see? IF THE LIMEYS CAN DO IT WHY CAN'T FUCKIN' AMERICA
Because half of Americans don't want to know, or won't accept the truth/facts.
10 out of 10. I have to admit I only knew the answers to about half of them, but the way the test was written, the correct answers were obvious. This tests how well you test.
I don't agree glatt. Some of the "wrong" answers sounded a lot like the negative hype I hear from the naysayers. The frothing over death panels, for example. Clearly wrong, but there are folks who listen to such feeds might equally conclude that the answer is "obvious"; they'd be wrong, but they'd be confident.
Still, not a hard test, not a rigorous test. It reveals a lot about the free-floating bullshit out there.
10 out of 10. It's depressing how uniformed Americans in general are. If they are going to apply the various voter restriction laws, then I think they should add a test on current events to the list. 90% of would be voters would fail that one.
9/10 - I missed the one about whether the law would create gov't run insurance programs. But still better than 97% of Americans, according to them.
I am... the 3%.
I missed the first one because I knew NOT EVERYONE would be forced to get insurance PAY A FINE. The answer even said there will be exceptions....:mad2:
yeah my problem with it is that the questions were just badly worded and not-strictly-accurate
I missed the first one because I knew NOT EVERYONE would be forced to get insurance PAY A FINE. The answer even said there will be exceptions....:mad2:
Will the health reform law require nearly all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 or else pay a fine?
Did they change the wording?
Saw this on FB. My original assumption was that it was more BS from Heritage, but then I saw the reference to the CBO...
Thoughts?
Would you like to interpret this table for us...
Actually, I was kinda hoping for your help with that. :blush:
Did they change the wording?
Huh, its like that one quiz where you count the f's.
Wow.
It's 346 pages long.
I'll have to get back to you in a little while.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 13 million and 14 million of the uninsured in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions.
Of the remaining 7 million to 8 million uninsured, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs. Among the uninsured who do not obtain an exemption, many will voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid making payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty. [SIZE="4"]After accounting for all of those factors, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016[/SIZE] (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf).
That's what this is about.
Heritage is touting in [COLOR="Red"]red[/COLOR] the [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Yellow"]estimated[/COLOR][/SIZE] number of people that won't comply with the individual "mandate" and will therefore be subject to the penalty, nee "tax" (thank you SCOTUS and Heritage--the CBO calls it penalty. The law is written "penalty" But call it whatever you like, free speech and all).
See? Obama's raising your taxes, you middle americans (despite the fact that about half these people are for very low income households, eh?) That's ok. We all selective quote from time to time.
:D
Oh, OK ... but where is the squirrel now that we've all seen the double rainbow ?
I won't accept "treadmill" as the answer.
So far, I'm digging Obamacare. But I reserve the right to change my mind as more becomes clear.
But a couple days ago I got a letter from CIGNA, my health insurance company through my employer. Apparently Obamacare requires that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the money they collect from premiums on actual health care. In 2011, CIGNA spent 75.8% of their premium money on healthcare. Under Obamacare, they MUST refund the difference (9.2%) to my employer by 8/1/12, and my employer must follow certain rules to distribute the rebate to me.
So the next day, HR sent out an email to the employees saying that they had no idea this was coming, and that they needed a little time to figure out how to distribute the funds back to the employees.
But the thing is, I spent a few thousand dollars on health care premiums on 2011 for my family of four, so to get around 9.2% of that back is going to be a beautiful windfall and really help, either as a check or maybe it will be used to reduce premiums next year.
Thank you, Obama!
Yes, I'm glad for you...
By regulation, insurance companies are supposed to send out such rebates by 8/1/12
So far we got the letter from our old insurance (2011 and earlier,) but not our new insurance (as of January 1, 2012.) I don't know if this means we'll get two checks, or if our new insurance still has half a year to spend their money before they have to give it back.
Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance. Historically most insurance companies ratio was right around the 85% number. Cigna was the lone company far out of whack.
I have BCBS. I'm not getting a rebate. However my premiums will decrease starting in Sept! A whole $2.00 a month.
I guess that is better than another 20+% increase though. :/
I stand corrected - at least up to 2009. Cannot find the info for years 2010-2012
I notice there is a dip each year around August/September.
Is that because health expenses are lower then, or is that when premiums get jacked up for the next year?
Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance.
Yeah, that's fine. If they take 9.2% of the money they paid in, and I get 9.2% of the money I paid in, that seems fair, and I'll be happy with that.
@Classic
There's an innate consequence with laws such as this.
First, once the minimum (or maximum) has been set, all the companies
will make the legal target into their accounting outcome, one way or another.
In this instance, we will soon see every company spending exactly 15% on non-health care expenses.
It's almost like saying to them: "Here take this 15% and go have a party"
The second problem is that the target is never changed (improved upon). Congress will not be able
to raise the % actually spent on health care to 86 or 87, let alone 90%, or higher.
We've seen this happen with things like pollutants in water quality.
Setting the upper limit of a toxin/pollutant comes to mean that
the same amount of toxin is (forever) OK.
I would like to see laws that set such targets include progressive targets,
that would be reviewed periodically until there is a somewhat objective limit could be determined.
I think this is how the "mutual" insurance companies end up
with lower premiums than the "for profit" companies.
Here in the west Kaiser-Permanente has been at 85% for years,
but even within that "target", KP has been engaged in actual research
on preventative and efficacious medicine, as well as cost accounting.
So handing 15% to companies that only push paper may be a big waste for years to come.
ETA:
Sorry, I was writing from memory and it wasn't so good.
Each of my 15/85 %'s above should have been 20/80 %'s
I notice there is a dip each year around August/September.
Is that because health expenses are lower then, or is that when premiums get jacked up for the next year?
All the companies I've ever worked for have done their open enrollment and insurance plan changes at the start of the new year.
But it's a weird data set, now that you mention it. The cruxes of each line seem to happen definitively at months 3, 6, and 9, as if this chart is based on quarterly earnings reports but for some reason doesn't get to include the fourth quarter report in December each year. Missing data aside, this would mean that the September number is probably the amount spent in the months of June, July, and August combined.
I can see a few possible contributing factors for why summer would have lower costs. One, people don't want to screw up their vacation time with anything elective. Two, road accidents are down since all the ice and snow are gone. Three, people are holding off to see how the annual deductible/out-of-pocket numbers are looking towards the end of the year. Late Fall is the time to hurry up and squeeze in any elective procedures they've been waffling on, before everything rolls back to zero in January.
Two, road accidents are down since all the ice and snow are gone.
Aren't MVA's (including medical) managed by the car insurance,
not via the personal health care insurance ?
Only for the other guy, not for you unless you have optional coverage.
But it's a weird data set, now that you mention it. The cruxes of each line seem to happen definitively at months 3, 6, and 9, as if this chart is based on quarterly earnings reports but for some reason doesn't get to include the fourth quarter report in December each year. Missing data aside, this would mean that the September number is probably the amount spent in the months of June, July, and August combined.
Indeed it is.
Well, it does say "Nine most recently reported quarters"
1st, 2nd and 3rd of 2007, 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 2008 and 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 2009.
Exactly what happened to the fourth quarter of each year remains a mystery.
That is quite weird.
Aren't MVA's (including medical) managed by the car insurance,
not via the personal health care insurance ?
In most cases medical damages incurred via a MVA are paid in this order:
1)Auto PIP (Personal Injury coverage). Most people, in fact the VAST MAJORITY of people only have $5,000 of PIP coverage.
Personal injury protection is coverage for medical and other expenses, such as wage loss and funeral expenses, which result from an auto accident.
2)Once that is used up (typically the transport TO the hospital is in the several thousand dollar range) it goes to the individuals personal health insurance coverage.
3) After that it goes to the individual them self.
For example, lets say a young man is driving a car and swerves off the road hitting a tree. He suffers traumatic injuries at the scene and is transported to the hospital where he stays for a month. After which he is transferred to a rehabilitation facility and stays for another four months.
Total Bill: $2,000,000
Auto insurance paid ......................$5,000
Personal medical insurance paid.....$1,800,000
Father is responsible for ...............$195,000
Yup. :(
Jesus Christ. That's obscene.
Jesus Christ. That's obscene.
Yeah, but we don't want to change things...:rolleyes:
What has been done changes none of that. NONE.
ZERO cost controls on suppliers, providers, pharma, nor hospitals. The only cost control is on those evil insurance companies who have an average profit margin of just over 3%. :eyebrow:
What has been done changes none of that. NONE.
ZERO cost controls on suppliers, providers, pharma, nor hospitals. The only cost control is on those evil insurance companies who have an average profit margin of just over 3%. :eyebrow:
No kidding. It's the first step. It was difficult enough getting this passed (and repubicans want to repeal it). Do you think an act that went further would have been passed or accepted by Americans?
So you are admitting that the ACA doesn't have the cost controls it was sold to us with?
Depends upon the plan.
So you are admitting that the ACA doesn't have the cost controls it was sold to us with?
Depends upon the plan.
To what cost controls are you referring, specifically?
To what cost controls are you referring, specifically?
ZERO cost controls on suppliers, providers, pharma, nor hospitals. The only cost control is on those evil insurance companies who have an average profit margin of just over 3%. :eyebrow:
Classic, is the word "control" the right word.
There have been many changes that affect the patient's costs,
such as the requirements for free preventative care, free vaccines, mammagrams, etc.
along with the soon-to-be-in-effect reductions in medicare costs.
That is, the ACA doesn't specifiy a maximum price on things
(which soon would become the minimum price), but instead
pushes management to implement changes that reduce costs.
Do such as these meet the definition of cost controls ?
I've mentioned this about a gazillion posts back, but ...
The US system spends around 25% of the "health care" budget on administration. In other OECD countries that is around 10%, in Taiwan, a tad over 1%.
The US system has the most extreme liability/compensation arrangements, adding huge liability insurance costs, and forcing doctors to do exhaustive and expensive testing to rule out those one-in-a-million diseases, to cover their asses.
AFAIK, the current changes address neither of these things.
AFAIK, the current changes address neither of these things
FWIW, there are various "outcome assessments" to determine,
for example, which lab tests and procedures are most/more effective and efficient.
Part of the justification for looking at such outcomes is the idea
that physicians can/should stop ordering lab tests when their
reason is just to document or avoid malpractice.
Some recommendations get a lot of (negative) publicity,
while other changes are implemented without fanfare.
Blood test of men for prostate cancer and women's mammograms
are examples of recommendations that became highly public.
But as such, these don't fit my concept of a cost control, because
they are based more on the science than on the fiscal, even though
the financial costs are brought into the considerations.
Classic, is the word "control" the right word.
Dunno. The ACA went after the Ins Co's and their 3% profit margin while it didn't address the underlying costs. Call it what you want.
So far, I'm digging Obamacare. But I reserve the right to change my mind as more becomes clear.
But a couple days ago I got a letter from CIGNA, my health insurance company through my employer. Apparently Obamacare requires that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the money they collect from premiums on actual health care. In 2011, CIGNA spent 75.8% of their premium money on healthcare. Under Obamacare, they MUST refund the difference (9.2%) to my employer by 8/1/12, and my employer must follow certain rules to distribute the rebate to me.
So the next day, HR sent out an email to the employees saying that they had no idea this was coming, and that they needed a little time to figure out how to distribute the funds back to the employees.
But the thing is, I spent a few thousand dollars on health care premiums on 2011 for my family of four, so to get around 9.2% of that back is going to be a beautiful windfall and really help, either as a check or maybe it will be used to reduce premiums next year.
Thank you, Obama!
It took a couple months to show up in my paycheck, but I just got my Obamacare rebate. My portion of the rebate was $390 after taxes. That's real money. Thank you, Obama!
And I should note that it's open enrollment time for insurance for next year, and the costs have gone up again, but by the same amount as they did last year, and less than the year before. So Obamacare doesn't seem to be driving up premium prices. My personal anecdotal evidence says that so far, it is working better than the old way.
I still reserve the right to judge it differently as more data comes in, but so far, so good.
My Rxs appear to have come down in price. I don't know if it's directly or even indirectly due to Obamacare, but I likey!
My mom's best buddy, a repub, admitted how much she and her husband were saving on their medications thanks to Obamacare. Seniors on a fixed income...who do they think they are catching a break? They should pull themselves up by their orthopedic shoes.
It took a couple months to show up in my paycheck, but I just got my Obamacare rebate.
My portion of the rebate was $390 after taxes. That's real money.
Thank you, Obama!
... it's time for a Mental Health Day party
:celebrat:
It took a couple months to show up in my paycheck, but I just got my Obamacare rebate. My portion of the rebate was $390 after taxes. That's real money. Thank you, Obama!
And I should note that it's open enrollment time for insurance for next year, and the costs have gone up again, but by the same amount as they did last year, and less than the year before. So Obamacare doesn't seem to be driving up premium prices. My personal anecdotal evidence says that so far, it is working better than the old way.
I still reserve the right to judge it differently as more data comes in, but so far, so good.
Obama giving rebates right before the election?? Typical Chicago politics...
I think it's a "wake the fuck up and here's some hard evidence for you..."
Instead of listening to Romney say nothing has changed, nothing is better. Like the radio ads that make it seem like Romney has shot China right in the face then stomped all over them 'cause he's SO against outsourcing.
Fudging liar extraordinaire.
The timing has nothing to do with Obama. The Republican controlled Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional, and the insurance companies immediately started to comply by announcing these rebates. It took my firm a couple months to figure out how to fairly distribute the rebate sent by the insurance company.
I credit Obama because it's Obamacare, but the timing was due to the ineptness of my firm in processing the payment that it received in August.
Super asshole right here.
While some business owners threaten to cut workers' hours to avoid paying for their health care, a West Palm Beach, Fla., restaurant owner is going even further. John Metz said he will add a 5 percent surcharge to customers' bills to offset what he said are the increased costs of Obamacare, along with reducing his employees' hours.
"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."
Charge more, if your costs go up? Fine. If your margin is low, you've got no choice.
Defend your decision by saying "hey, no problem! You can tip less to punish your waiter for getting health insurance!"? Asshole award.
Not to mention that he likely cut the hours of that employee you're going to tip less, in order to avoid paying for their healthcare anyway.
How about if customers skip tipping completely at this douchebag's restaurants? Then he will be forced to pay his waitstaff the federal minimum wage, which would be over $5 more than their 'tipped' hourly wage. Tips at Denny's are probably pretty low to begin with.
According to the link, Metz owns about 40 Denny's, never mind his other franchise operations, etc. The man is obviously not struggling to get by, but he wants to make sure his employees get plunged into poverty just so he can make a self serving political statement.
A meal at Denny's seldom costs more than $20.00/person. 5% of that comes to ONE DOLLAR. Well, that's sure going to wreck havoc with everyone's ability to eat at Denny's. Metz could just raise his prices by a buck, and hardly anyone would notice.
But no. Instead he has to cause his employees financial hardship by cutting their hours and making customers wonder if they should tip at all. I hope every last person who works for Metz finds another job and quits. What a loser!
If people like Metz paid their workers a decent wage in the first place then Obamacare may not have been needed at all. If employers weren't expecting their employees to work for a pittance that doesn't accomodate health insurance, then there would have been no need to insist they pay towards their employees' healthcare.
If you cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage (enough to pay for insurance, or incoporating healthcare as part of the package) then you cannot afford those staff. Too many employers treat wages and employee benefits as a variable and contingent cost, which can be moulded around their profit margin. If a business can only be profitable by paying less than a living wage then it is not a good business.
The cost of doing business must include decent and fair remuneration for staff.
But people eat at Denny's because it is cheap, not because the food is good. If you pay the workers better, the price of the food will have to go up, and people will tend to stop eating there. They will go to a better restaurant for the same high price, or more likely, stay home and heat up a frozen dinner. Then the owner will have to lay off workers.
You have to strike a balance for sure, but at the Denny's end of the spectrum, there isn't a lot of money to play around with. It's not some five star restaurant where you pay $150 for a meal for two.
If people like Metz paid their workers a decent wage in the first place then Obamacare may not have been needed at all.
But talking about the staff at Denny's or any food-serving business is another cocoon.
The US has this tradition for food-servicing staff of $1/hr + tips, or some such formula.
For some, this leads to decent or even very high incomes; but for others
it's a last-ditch job to have any income at all, or for others it is something in between.
I hate bartering for goods or services (think: car salesmen and tipping waiters or waitresses :eyebrow:)
but in the US it is futile to try to find a way around this tradition.
It's this rigid tradition that keeps the Metz's of the food-service world in business.
I found
this article about the choices doctors make in their own healthcare at the end of their lives to be a very fascinating read.
In a nutshell, doctors understand the treatment options available and realize when treatment is futile, so they tend not to opt for anything aggressive or heroic, even though they can afford it. They tend to only get treatments that will work.
The result for them is that they have a better quality of life at the end and live about as long as others do. And there is a lot less cost associated with their deaths. Interesting read.
Really interesting read. Thanks, glatt.
3 oldster, at this moment, are saying that Obama is a dictator, that he put in trillions of dollars of debt through his Obamacare, and ask why does the government want to get into healthcare, anyway? Yes, they are all on Medicare. Whoa, one just said that he KNOWS that if he wants to go to Dr. Burger, Obamacare won't let him.
I found this article about the choices doctors make in their own healthcare at the end of their lives to be a very fascinating read.
<snip> Interesting read.
@Glatt: That is a good read... for everyone.
I once taught a university class on medical ethics for laymen,
which had a very broad range of people attending -
from physicians to ranchers to mechanics to business exec's and parents.
The end-of-life time came up frequently, and the range of preferences was very wide.
I do remember the physicians in the class were much in line
with your article, as were several of those involved in ranching.
Death was not unfamiliar, and quality of life decisions were very important for them.
I got a kick out of one person's response at the other end of that spectrum.
Her response was an emphatic: "Keep me going no matter what! "
She was an executive in a company that made kidney dialysis equipment.
By the end of the class, there had been many intimate discussions, and we felt we knew a lot about one another.
Some of the debates were quite vigorous... religion, money, legal liabilities, suffering...
But I felt there was always respect for each person's thoughts and feelings.
At the last class meeting, I provided copies of (Oregon's) Living Will and Advance Directive.
I think everyone took copies for themselves and their families.
So even the lady above could have made her wishes known confidentially to her family,
which is one of the most important things about end of life decisions.
Children, in particular, need to know the wishes of their parents.
I think it is quite interesting that many of the state officials and politicians
that originally fought Obamacare are now changing their tunes.
Maybe they explain it on the basis of political pressure, or lowering state budget costs,
it probably doesn't matter how they rationalize their actions.
The business community, especially "small business" has been pretty quiet til recently.
But it looks as tho even they are changing over too.
Fredericksburg.com
Jim Hall
2/9/13
Health care plans being assessed
Some local business leaders seem hesitant to say it,
as if the federal government could issue a ruling at any moment
that puts them back in the soup.
But they’ve studied the Affordable Care Act.
They’ve heard presentations by insurance experts, viewed Web seminars
and been briefed by their human resources people.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]After all of that, they’re thinking that maybe, just maybe,
the new law won’t hurt them so badly after all.
[/COLOR]
As Matthew Simmons, president of the Capital Ale House restaurant chain, put it,
“We’re in a really good position for this changeover. We’re pretty much compliant.”
Of course, the law is complicated, and much is still unknown.
Individuals and some local business owners have not been spared.
They face penalties if they don’t meet its requirements.
“It’s going to have a major effect on our business,” said Karl Karch, owner of Home Instead Senior Care.
Yet two groups of employers—the small ones that employ fewer than 50 people,
and the big ones that already offer comprehensive health plans
—have escaped the initial fines that are a feature of the act.
<snip>
Today was the day ... Now to see what happens by 2014
Washington Post
Sarah Kliff
2/18/13
It’s official: The feds will run most Obamacare exchanges
Friday was a very important day for health policy days.
It was the last day for states to tell the federal government whether
they wanted any part in running the Affordable Care Act health exchanges come 2014.<snip>
[ATTACH]42900[/ATTACH]
All told, the federal government will run 26 of the state health exchanges.
It also will partner with seven states, where state and federal officials
take joint responsibility for the marketplace.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia will take on the task themselves.
<snip>
The big question moving forward is: Does this split matter?
Is it better or worse for the federal government to be running
the majority of the state health exchanges?<snip>
[ATTACH]42901[/ATTACH]
In a way, all these states turning over their exchanges to the federal government
brings Obamacare a little closer to the more liberal House bill,
which had the federal government running one big marketplace.
It allows the White House to have more control over setting up its signature legislative accomplishment.
It also creates some economies of scale, as HHS can develop one
template exchange that all 26 states it handles will use.
That could be especially important in states where opposition
to the Affordable Care Act still runs very deep.
When I’ve talked to Democratic state legislators, in states where a Republican governor
has declined to build an exchange, they sometimes express a sense of relief.
If they put an Obamacare opponent at the helm of a crucial health law program,
it would be akin to foxes running the hen house.
What better way to sabotage health reform, after all, than doing a shoddy job
setting up the main vehicle for Americans to access health insurance?
Now the Republicans can concentrate on preventing the Federal exchanges from working.
What? You mean sacrifice the health and welfare of constituents for political gain. :eek:
Again.
