|
|
|
Conan71
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2009, 02:49:36 pm » |
|
I revised a key paragraph of that article:
"Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care federal government is placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses..."
The government already spends an astonishing amount on health care. It's not about saving anyone money, it's about control and wealth-shift. They're coming for your stack of cash too, FOTD.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2009, 03:09:58 pm » |
|
I revised a key paragraph of that article:
"Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care federal government is placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses..."
The government already spends an astonishing amount on health care. It's not about saving anyone money, it's about control and wealth-shift. They're coming for your stack of cash too, FOTD.
That's just wrong, Conan. First, the fast-rising cost of our federal government is a direct result of the past 8 years of bad governing. Secondly, the cost to America is far greater than to our government. Keeping Them Honest http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Let me offer Congress two pieces of advice: 1) Don’t trust the insurance industry. 2) Don’t trust the insurance industry. It’s a sign of the way the political winds are blowing that insurers aren’t opposing new regulations. What’s still not settled, however, is whether regulation will be supplemented by competition, in the form of a public plan that Americans can buy into as an alternative to private insurance. The “public option,” if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the purpose of the public option is to make sure that the industry doesn’t waste another 15 years failing to make even the most obvious reforms — by giving Americans an alternative if private insurers fall down on the job. Be warned, however. The insurance industry will do everything it can to avoid being held accountable. Right now the health insurers are promising to deliver major cost savings. But history shows that such promises can’t be trusted. As President Obama [has] said, we need a serious, real public option to keep the insurance companies honest.The devil does not want to start calling POTUS OBAMA the Bait and Switch President. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2009, 11:01:04 pm » |
|
Any system that doesn't eliminate the morass of paperwork caused by having so many different insurers with differing requirements that cover different things for different amounts of money won't cut down on our single biggest waste of money.
This is one area where Medicare is a shining example. Their overhead cost is a third of most insurers. (About 5%, relative to the 15% most insurers have) Between the overhead at the insurance companies and the overhead at the doctor's office to deal with the insurance companies how is anyone surprised that our health care dollar doesn't go as far here as it does elsewhere?
The only good thing about the plan Obama has indicated he's for in the past is that it does help by increasing the size of the risk pool. It doesn't solve the health care expense that's putting US companies at a disadvantage relative to other countries, nor does it solve the paperwork problem. If it turns out to be what they have in Massachusetts, we'll all be required to buy health insurance, which is fine, but the lack of any resolution on the cost front will make it hard for many middle class families to comply with the mandate.
I'd be all for the NHS or Canadian style health care, so long as people continue to be allowed to contract for private supplemental insurance and extra services (private rooms in the hospital or whatever). Who employs the doctors makes no difference to me. Whether they get a government paycheck or they run their own practice and are reimbursed isn't really important. What is important is overhead be controlled.
It doesn't help that insurance companies make risky investments with their reserves and jack up the rates when they don't pan out to make up for it and when they do they take profits rather than lowering rates. Not all do, but most of the big ones follow this model. And given that insurance is bought all up the chain, by doctors, by their suppliers, by their supplier's suppliers, and by patients, when insurance costs go up, everybody's fees increase, eventually trickling down to my health insurance premium increasing twice because the doctor has to charge the insurance company more and because the insurance company lost money on their investments.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2009, 08:46:28 am » |
|
That's just wrong, Conan. First, the fast-rising cost of our federal government is a direct result of the past 8 years of bad governing. Secondly, the cost to America is far greater than to our government.
That's called retaliatory spending. Throwing more money in recklessly after bad money doesn't solve any problems. Nor does blaming the prior administration. The Bush administration has been out of office for almost five months now. The current Congress and administration are spending money like drunken Republicans now. I'll grant that the Bush administration did a slap-dash job trying to cover the last recession that was cropping up toward the end of the Clinton administration with more discretionary spending and simultaneous tax cuts. That lasted for what, seven years? Trying to cover that obvious failure with more hyper-spending and dubious taxes in the forms of "permits" and "regulatory costs" is no solution if you really take a look at what mistakes the Bush admin made in looking for a long-term solution. All they were concerned about was trying to make an upbeat economy (or a close facsimile of) last until the '08 election. All this round of insane spending might do is create another temporary fix to the economy whilst incurring more debt and silently de-valuing the dollar. This is nothing more than the same broken government spending money we don't have at an ever-increasing pace. For some reason, it's not registering with the folks in DC that the reason so many companies and individuals have failed or are on the brink of it is due to spending borrowed money they could not afford to re-pay. Blithely excusing current stupidity by blaming past stupidity is, well, just more stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2009, 12:14:57 pm » |
|
Contact your rep and ask them to cosponsor hr 676. Single Payer. Health Care Reform in the House - Committees & Contacts http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/health-care-reform-house-committees-contactsNever mind. Your rep is in Betty Ford utilizing his government sponsored health plan. some more irony: Health, life insurers invest billions in tobacco stocks Life, health insurers invest big in tobacco "Despite calls upon the insurance industry to get out of the tobacco business by physicians and others, insurers continue to put their profits above people's health," said Boyd, a faculty member of Harvard Medical School. "It's clear their top priority is making money, not safeguarding people's well-being," he wrote. http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=4484 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2009, 12:22:02 pm » |
|
Conan, Is this current stupidity or future stupidity?
We Need Single-Payer Hearings in the House
To: Rep. Henry Waxman CA-30 and Rep. Charlie Rangel NY-15
Started by: HEALTHCARE-NOW
The House will release healthcare legislation very soon, and the draft bill could even come out next week.
From there the bill will go to Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and the Ways and Means committees for debate.
Rep. Miller has already agreed to hold a hearing on single-payer in the Education and Labor Committee.
We need you to contact the two other Chairperson's offices ASAP to make sure that they hold hearings on single-payer healthcare in their committees too.http://www.change.org/healthcarenow/actions/view/we_need_single-payer_hearings_in_the_houseWe rank in the high thirties as far as quality health care. Every nation that ranks above us has a national health insurance plan. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2009, 12:51:26 pm » |
|
All this round of insane spending might do is create another temporary fix to the economy whilst incurring more debt and silently de-valuing the dollar. This is nothing more than the same broken government spending money we don't have at an ever-increasing pace. For some reason, it's not registering with the folks in DC that the reason so many companies and individuals have failed or are on the brink of it is due to spending borrowed money they could not afford to re-pay.
Blithely excusing current stupidity by blaming past stupidity is, well, just more stupidity.
Not a fan of Keynes, I see. As far as I'm concerned, what the Bush administration did wrong on this front was the simultaneous spending increase and tax cut. The tax cut reduced federal receipts significantly but wasn't significant enough to have much effect in propping up demand. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 12:54:22 pm by nathanm »
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
we vs us
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2009, 06:30:46 pm » |
|
What I've yet to see is a competing solution from the right side of the aisle. I'm not sure whether the current Republicans just aren't on their game (highly plausible) or there just isn't a good way to navigate the problem in a conservative way. We already have a system that allows individual choice of insurance and care (conservative touchstone #1) in a free market context (touchstone #2). Government for the most part stays out of the market (touchstone #3) and the profit motive is alive and kicking (touchstone #4).
So if you're a conservative I'm not sure how you fix something that -- ideologically at least -- really ain't broke.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2009, 06:55:29 pm » |
|
What I've yet to see is a competing solution from the right side of the aisle. I'm not sure whether the current Republicans just aren't on their game (highly plausible) or there just isn't a good way to navigate the problem in a conservative way. We already have a system that allows individual choice of insurance and care (conservative touchstone #1) in a free market context (touchstone #2). Government for the most part stays out of the market (touchstone #3) and the profit motive is alive and kicking (touchstone #4).
So if you're a conservative I'm not sure how you fix something that -- ideologically at least -- really ain't broke.
If the Pubs were smart, they'd let POTUS OBAMA hang himself. Instead, they got Tweeter Grasley hard at work on compromise. This is one issue that compromise won't work unless the insurance lobby is neutralized. Just curious, but do you think we will hear about how Sully hates his government run health care? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 07:04:27 pm by FOTD »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2009, 04:28:48 pm » |
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23616.htmlDems vs. Dems on health bill President Barack Obama's plan for a government health insurance program has touched off an increasingly fierce Democratic civil war on Capitol Hill, as liberals fearful about squandering the chance to achieve that goal are taking aggressive steps to keep moderates in line.When Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) called the public plan a deal breaker, a progressive group co-founded by Joe Trippi launched a campaign in Nebraska accusing the senator of being a "sellout" for special interests. After a strategy memo by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way cautioned Democrats on overreaching on a public plan, Daily Kos bloggers went on the attack, and Third Way now faces a coordinated effort to pressure Third Way donors. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is the next target. On Tuesday, she said she opposed the public plan. By Wednesday, the liberal Health Care for America Now was drawing up a plan to change her mind. "It is all about Democrats," said Adam Green, chief executive officer of Change Congress, which launched the Nelson campaign. "We only need 50 votes. We could conceivably have 60 votes on our own if we keep Democrats unified. It is a matter of convincing Democrats whose conventional wisdom is based on the old political order. This is an extremely popular proposal spearheaded by an extremely popular president, and it is OK to support it." Amid the signs of party discord, Obama is stepping up his personal efforts to push a public plan, with his first health-care town hall event Thursday in Green Bay, Wisc. On Monday, he’ll travel to Chicago to address the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, which is not on board with a government insurance program. AMA President Nancy Nielsen has raised concerns that the public option would underpay doctors, and the group will tell the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee at a hearing Thursday that it opposes the proposal, which could deal a serious blow to Obama's effort to convince lawmakers and voters that a government plan is the way to go. Still, the White House appeared to be testing out a new sales-pitch Wednesday, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying of the debate on Capitol Hill, “You're likely to hear two very important words: choice and competition. A public option . . . is nothing more than the ability to provide more choice through competition.”Obama has talked repeatedly about securing Republican votes on health care reform, but he first has to win over the moderate Democrats who have refused to commit. The president could get around them by using the reconciliation process, which allows a bill to win passage on 51 votes instead of a filibuster-proof 60. Yet this voting bloc still appears to matter, given the prolonged absences of Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, the vacant seat in Minnesota and the still-sizable number of undecided Senate moderates. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is undecided but said he is keeping an "open mind." The same goes for Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Interest groups are closely watching Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, and Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Change Congress considers its effort with Nelson a success – and other wavering Democrats can expect the same if they don't back the public plan, Green said. Democrats in Nebraska encouraged the group to "kill him with kindness," but Change Congress decided open pressure was the better route, sending 3,000 direct mail pieces and placing $10,000 in Internet ads.
Nelson is no longer calling the public plan a "deal breaker.""That is the model everyone should use to make sure Democrats follow Barack Obama's lead on the public option," Green said. "When Democratic politicians are siding with special interest contributors over constituents, we have to call them out on it."http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23616.html#ixzz0IAAsk7UO&D
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2009, 07:52:07 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2009, 07:08:31 am » |
|
1. Coburn was on CNN this AM talking about his plan.
2. I haven't studied any plan well enough to support one, but I don't think the system is fine the way it currently is. My fear is the government will make the system worse, more costly, less responsive, and "progressive." Meaning I pay for your bad health choices.
Which opens up another can of worms. Taxes on "evil" products in countries with State run healthcare are very, very high. A case of beer in Canada costs $50 (~$45 American when they rob you in exchange). And since the State is paying for your unhealthy decisions, they can pass laws more easily restricting activities on the basis that the taxpayers will have to pay for your stupidity.
I am leery of anything than can lead to more or easier governmental intrusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2009, 08:42:15 am » |
|
"Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else. It’s time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies." That's an odd conclusion, Swake. "Our healthcare system sucks, our country is un-healthy, let's blame it all on insurance companies and end them." The biggest reason we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality is largely due to unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles. Take a look at other countries on the list of those with higher life expectancy and you likely won't see quite the addiction to fast food, gluttony, tobacco use, alcohol, stressful lifestyles, etc. My belief is that our health problem starts with the individual, not the system as a whole. Many medical breakthroughs happen in this country. Much of the advanced diagnostic and surgical procedures have been developed in this country. We have some of the most advanced and modern healthcare facilities on the planet. As it is now, we do provide healthcare to citizens of all ages who cannot afford to pay for it. We provide healthcare to legal and illegal immigrants who cannot pay for it. Yes, there are even free clinics which do offer preventative healthcare to those who cannot afford it. The 50 million Americans who are shut out of the healthcare system is a total myth. Many of those people absolutely refuse to participate in it. I fail to see how shifting all healthcare coverage (and the expense of it) to the government will modify the unhealthy lifestyle habits of individuals (mortality and infant mortality rates), modify the behavior of ill-trained or apathetic healthcare providers, or lower the cost of healthcare. This will require an increased bureaucracy to replace the insurance administration and claims industry. I really don't see the cost savings in this, for the simple fact that there will be a shift from private-sector to public-sector jobs. The net cost to the consumer is the same, if not higher, due to inefficiencies which seem to be indigenous to bureaucracy. Even if the government takes over all healthcare, there is a segment of Americans who will continue to choose unhealthy lifestyles and who will be elligible for government-sponsored healthcare but simply will not take advantage of it. You cannot force people who refuse to take care of themselves to make better choices and force them to participate in preventative health care. Some people just simply refuse to see a doctor until there's a big growth under their arm or a bone sticking out of their arm. Changing the payment and fee arrangement system simply does not guarantee more people will take advantage of our healthcare system or take better care of themselves. Government seldom runs things as efficiently as private enterprise. The only thing government can do that an insurance company can't is run on a deficit and survive a whole lot longer. I really don't see the government putting the medical insurance industry out of business, since so many members of Congress are on the take from insurance companies. I think what we will see is somewhat of a hybrid between government and private insurance, yet I don't see how it will lower the cost of healthcare if they wind up taxing healthcare benefits. Finally, the last flaw I see in this idea that of government lowering the cost of healthcare, will the most talented and capable healthcare professionals care to continue to work in the industry? Will the most talented of our population still want to become healthcare providers? What are the healthcare professionals saying about this? The AMA does not seem to be too fond of this. I'm open-minded enough to look into any government proposal to try and contain costs. I believe there's an over-simplification of what government healthcare for all of us would look like. I don't believe this is an issue which can effectively be dealt with when there's an arbitrary deadline to get a bill on the President's desk by October. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
