|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
did you click the link and read the Specter story?
Also, let's not pretend we don't know what was going on...OK?...read the Spector story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read it. The question is, did YOU read it?
You cite a guy that changes party affiliation simply so he can get re-elected - and then you assume that now he speaks the truth?
I have a hunch that if specter thought being a member of the party of martians would help him get re-elected, he'd be wearing green.
arch...come on now...you knew it and so did I, long before Specter confirmed it...the GOP had no intention of passing any healthcare legislation.
Specter, who was in the GOP at the beginning of the process simply confirms what most politically educated Americans already realized...the GOP was and is only playing politics while hoping to gain more power in the mid-term elections.
I did?
No, what I do know is specter feels he's riding high now - so he wants his voters to see that he's "only doing this for them". That's what I know. Specter is a politician - if he can get sound bytes in to make it look like he's really working for the people - he will - no matter what he has to say.
But, question for you - getting insurance for 31 million people - many of which could buy it if they wanted - is it worth tearing down what's left of our bankrupt nation? Is it better to drag more people down - people who will end up paying the taxes?
Should we all agree to just meet at the bottom?
Health care reform? No - this is "more power to gov't......let's find a way to take more money from people."
You don't need to like it - but you know it - this isn't about taking care of people - it's about putting gov't. in charge of even more money.
Getting "health care" to those that can't afford it? Right. I'll believe that as soon as you vote for me for president.
Tell me again how we're going to pay for this if it passes? The est. is $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years - so we need to assume it will be closer to $2 to $2.5 trillion. Tell me again how taxes won't go up to pay for it.
Oh, and if health insurance is a "right" in this country - shouldn't we also be paying for everyone to have a home or apartment? I mean, after all - people can go 30-40-even 60 years without ever needing to see a doctor - but people need a place to sleep every night. Shouldn't we work on homes or apartments for everyone first? Paid for by those that have a home or apartment?
Hey, mac - if you give someone something for free - that's how they value it. If they have to work for it, they actually understand the costs involved.
Then, throw in the fact that it won't take effect for years, and even when it does take effect, it won't cover everyone.
Let me ask you - and I want an answer: if this reform is so great - why couldn't this administration get it passed when they had the super majority? Why did they literally have to bribe a few senators - with hundreds of millions of dollars - to get their vote?
Please answer those 2 questions. Thanks in advance. I'll be waiting for you answer to the questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The GOP has one goal...protect the profits of the big healthcare companies such as WelPoint, CIGNA that pay for their re-election campaigns.
The GOP does not give a damn about the average blue collar working/middle class American (or the families of) who is faced with the reality of today's healthcare issues...affordable healthcare.
Health Sector Has Donated Millions to Lawmakers
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th Congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping health-care legislation, according to a study to be released tomorrow.
Health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the House and Senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group.
The biggest beneficiaries in the Senate included John McCain (R-Ariz.), with $546,000; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), with $425,000; and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), with $413,000, who as head of the Finance Committee will play a leading role in the debate over health-care reform.
In the House, the two groups gave $257,000 to Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and $249,000 to Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). On the Democratic side, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) received contributions from the insurance sector ($104,000), while Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.) took in $180,000 from drug companies.
web page
So of the people listed.. they add up to $1.4 million to those of the R persuasion and about $700K to those of the D persuasion.... it's ok though, I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of dollars that insurance companies gave to democrats all came from the insurance companies who were raised with better values.
Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.
At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms.
"Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it," said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. "Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."
web page
"The other side"... I believe who he is referring to as "the other side" is the middle class Americans protesting in the street while the Democratic senator wines and dines with insurance execs willing to donate to the DNC...
Pelosi bites hand that feeds her?
Jul 31, 2009 16:14 EDT
Over the past few days, with the healthcare reform debate raging in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has lit into the U.S. insurance industry.
“Immoral” and “villains” are among the words she has used to describe the companies for their opposition to a publicly run health plan. And she has castigated their policies of refusing to take care of pre-existing medical conditions and capping benefits of cancer patients.
“The glory days are coming to an end,” Pelosi warned those companies, vowing to build support for the bill she’s pushing.
But will the tough talk bring to an end insurance industry campaign contributions to Pelosi?
For the current 2009-2010 election cycle, insurance industry contributions to Pelosi total $41,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Only health professionals have given her more money, $113,000, according to the group, which tracks campaign contributions to lawmakers and lobbying activities. In the 2007-2008, of the top 20 industries contributing to her, insurance contributions ranked fifth, totaling $177,000 out of a total $3.78 million raised.
“As the Speaker’s opposition to the health insurance companies being in charge of America’s health care shows, there is no link between political contributions and positions on policy,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.
web page
Oh, so there is NO LINK between political contributions and positions on policy.. that's Nancy Pelosi's spokespersons own words mac.. doesn't that apply? Or does it just apply to democrats?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
nolog...if you don't read, you will not understand.
considering I summarized the article in my post, one would think that you could figure out that I did in fact read the article.
i guess not...so, let me 'answer the question' here as it be.....
Yes, I did in fact read the article. No, I would not be surprised if what Spectre mentioned was happening to some degree. However, as I mentioned, if the Republicans refuse to pass true bi-partisan legislature, then that will be used against them in the next election. And, they are smart enough to understand this as the first piece that seemed bipartisan to me just passed through the Senate.
I tried to use small words to make for an easier read...please now continue to twist what I post.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
by stating that you didn't read it, what he meant was, you didn't arrive at the same conclusion he did... so maybe you read it, but you didn't read it RIGHT. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
The thing that jumps out at me is this... it looks like all (or darn near all) of those are budget issues.... which the reconciliation rule is in place to handle... budget issues. THIS IS NOT A "BUDGET ISSUE"... this is, as was stated, a total restructuring of 1/6th of our economy...
Reconciliation was introduced in 1974. The language which it was introduced with is broad and says that it reconciliation is to be used for "changes in revenue and spending limits" so while originally it was used for budget purposes, it's been expanded now and in the case of health-care it would be used because the restructuring of the economy to accommodate the health-care plan is considered "change in revenue". So since are laws are "living documents" that change with time, people use broad language as justification for things that originally weren't' intended(for example equal protection of the 14th amendment has been expanded to protect rights of gay people, even though originally it was meant to help African Americans).
As for reconciliation, it still has to follow what are known as Byrd Rules(named after Robert Byrd) which says things are ineligible for reconciliation if:
Quote:
- if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
- if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
- if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
- if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
- if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
- if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Byrd Rule
so while Dems might want to use it, it doesn't mean they'll necessarily be able to if it's deemed ineligible for reconciliation.
President Bush attempted (and failed) to use reconciliation for Alaska drilling so it's not just a straight-forward "budget procedure" maneuver any longer as it was when it was first used.
Sorry to ramble, but it doesn't seem many people are familiar with reconciliation so I just wanted to share what I know about it since it seems very likely that it's going have to be used if the Dems want to pass the health-care bill barring some major breakthrough.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Quote:
We have a car racing towards the edge of a cliff. The Dems have their foot pressed so hard on the gas that they are about to shove it through the floor.
You sure it's not a Toyota with a faulty accelerator pedal? 
Unfortunately this car and its problems are completely American Made....LOL
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well the bad part is that this whole ordeal is just political wrangling.. The democrats want to put something notable through, but the republicans dont.. irregardless if the bill is bad or not..
Are you kidding me with this statement???? First of all it is regardless not irregardless...but lets forget that...I truly don't care about that...But you would rather shove a BAD Bill through(that no one outside of the democratic politicians want) just because it is "notable"???? Really???? Your serious???? You honestly think a bad bill is better than no bill at all???You think a bill that could CRUSH this economy should just be run through because it is notable???
WOW???? 
First of all.. it is IRREGARDLESS... or it could be regardless, but i choose irregardless which is correct. look it up.
Bad bill or not.. a lot of this wrangling BS is just Dem or Rep trying to make their stands... The democrats want to put this bill throw whether it is good or not.. and the republicans just want it to fail so the democrats cannot say they put Healthcare reform through.. The republicans have not really put anything on the table other than "we don't want health reform.." But the big basis of this entire argument is Dem vs Rep irregardless to the fact if this is a good or bad bill..
I do believe that Healthcare reform needs to be looked at, but the bill as it stands now is horrible. Lets see if Dems and rep's can actually work on something they both can agree on.. but I have my doubts, because the dems will always want it their way and the republicans simply don't want a big bill like this to be passed even if it were a decent bill.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The republicans have not really put anything on the table other than "we don't want health reform.."
That lie, as perpetuated by our friends in the media, has been proven false countless times.. the fact that they won't report on the ideas the republicans have posed doesn't mean they don't exist.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Well if you are going to harp on it...did you see this part.... —Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. To put it another way......just because "shiznit" is used alot doesn't mean it is the proper term to use either. But as I mentioned that was not my point.... Quote:
The democrats want to put this bill throw whether it is good or not..
Some are filling campaign promises, some are getting bribed, some think socialized medicine is the way to go, some want to show up the GOP...
Quote:
and the republicans just want it to fail so the democrats cannot say they put Healthcare reform through..
This is an asinine statement and completely unbackable. While that "MIGHT" have a positive effect for the Reps....the impact is minor at best and would be a STUPID and very risky strategy to implement....especially when the other side has a super majority.....You can't actually fathom that they actually think this bill could be bad for Americans??? Not to mention it goes against their core beliefs(which they have not held to as of late and they need to show people they are trying to get back to)
Quote:
The republicans have not really put anything on the table other than "we don't want health reform.."
There have been many recommendations by the Republicans that have fallen on deaf ears or couldn't make it through the thick oak doors of those closed democrat planning sessions whenre they constructed the bill. Why should they vote for a Bill that they were not given a chance to have input on and goes against everything they believe in???
Quote:
I do believe that Healthcare reform needs to be looked at, but the bill as it stands now is horrible. Lets see if Dems and rep's can actually work on something they both can agree on..
Now that is something we both can agree on!!!! 
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
and the republicans just want it to fail so the democrats cannot say they put Healthcare reform through..
Yes, the republicans sit in their offices every day thinking, "Wow, this is a great piece of legislation, it closes all of the loopholes, it's cost effective, it would greatly improve our healthcare system to the most people.. but I'm going to vote it down anyway just because I don't like Democrats." Is that seriously what you believe they are thinking? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
web page FACT CHECK: Dueling polls and dubious stats By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM DRINKARD, Associated Press Writers - 4 mins ago WASHINGTON - Beware of politicians quoting poll numbers. That was one lesson from the White House health policy conference Thursday as lawmakers in both parties cherry-picked survey results, ignored contrary findings and presented public opinion, which is highly nuanced on these questions, as a slam-dunk. Claims, counterclaims and statistics flew through the room in the daylong talkfest by President Barack Obama and lawmakers from both parties. Some didn't hold up to the facts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada suggested his party hasn't been preparing to do an end-run around the normal legislative process to pass a health care bill, when in reality this option is very much in play. Obama squabbled with a Republican senator over what his initiative might do to health premiums, and had a superior command of the facts. A look at some statements in the meeting and how they compare with reality: THE CLAIMS: McConnell: "I think it is not irrelevant that the American people, if you average out of all of the polls, are opposed to this bill by 55-37. And we know from a USA Today-Gallup poll out this morning they're opposed to using the reconciliation device, the short-circuit approach that Lamar referred to that would end up with only bipartisan opposition, by 52-39." Reid: "Last Monday, a week ago Monday, all over America, the results were run from a poll done by the Kaiser Foundation. It was interesting what that poll said. Fifty-eight percent of Americans would be disappointed or angry if we did not do health care reform this year - 58 percent. Across America, more than 60 percent of Republicans, Democrats and independents want us to reform the way health care works. Is it any wonder?" THE FACTS: McConnell's device of averaging polls to come up with a precise result is dubious. Because polls are often taken at different times, with different sample sizes, margins of error and ways of wording their questions, combining them may not yield a valid result. McConnell aides cited CNN, NPR and Quinnipiac polls taken at various times in January. The Republican leader and others on his side ignored a variety of findings in recent surveys, such as the one suggesting most people want Washington to act on rising medical costs and shrinking coverage - and trust Obama and the Democrats more than Republicans to do it. Even so, the Kaiser survey cited by Reid was hardly a cheer for what Democrats have come up with so far, although there was no telling that from his remarks. Less than one third wanted Congress to send Obama a final version of the legislation approved by the House and Senate. More than 40 percent wanted Washington to put health care on hold or pull the plug. Overall, people were split 43-43 for or against health care legislation. That's in keeping with other surveys that have found Americans evenly divided or leaning against Obama's effort, even while liking some of the measures and wanting something done about the system. ___ THE CLAIMS: Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: "The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill." Obama: "No, no, no, no. Let me - and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight." Alexander: "That's my point." Obama: "Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously." THE FACTS: Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out. The nonpartisan analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, supporting Alexander's point. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies to defray the extra costs. As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others. Moreover, the analysis estimated that the people getting subsidies would see their costs cut by more than half from what they pay now. ___ THE CLAIM: Obama: "We've tried to take every cost-containment idea that's out there and adopt it in this bill." THE FACTS: A number of money-saving ideas have been watered down or excluded entirely. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the government could save $41 billion over 10 years by capping jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits — an idea promoted by Republicans but opposed by trial lawyers, who have traditionally been heavy contributors to Democratic politicians. The forecast savings are far higher than were anticipated when the nonpartisan budget office studied the issue in the past. But Obama and congressional Democrats have not gone along with caps. Also, the budget estimated the government could save nearly $19 billion over 10 years by "bundling" Medicare payments to hospitals. Under this proposal, the government would make a single reimbursement covering a patient's hospital stay and post-surgical care instead of paying separately for each procedure or visit. Obama initially embraced the measure but Congress and the White House ended up settling for weaker steps like demonstration projects that won't yield savings anytime soon. ___ THE CLAIMS: Alexander called on Obama to "renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through" the bill with only Democratic votes. He was talking about a parliamentary process Congress can use called "budget reconciliation," which would prevent Senate Republicans from blocking health-care legislation. In response, Reid denied that was his intent, saying, "No one has talked about reconciliation." THE FACTS: Talk about the use of the reconciliation process, which Republicans view as an assault on their rights as the Senate minority, has been in the air for months, and Reid himself has been part of that conversation. In a Nevada political talk show, "Face to Face with John Ralston," Reid said on Feb. 19 that he planned to use the reconciliation process to pass a pared-down health-care bill. And answering reporters' questions about the process this week, Reid said Republicans "should stop crying about reconciliation. It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else." On the latter point, Reid was right. ___ THE CLAIM: Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply criticized the president for his failure to hold public health-care negotiations earlier. He noted that "eight times you said that negotiations on health care reform would be conducted with the C-SPAN cameras. I'm glad more than a year later that they are here. Unfortunately, this product was not produced in that fashion. It was produced behind closed doors." THE FACTS: McCain is right. Thursday's session fulfilled a promise Obama broke before he kept it. Several times in the 2008 campaign Obama vowed to hold open negotiations in reworking health care. But once in office, Democrats in the White House and Congress conducted negotiations as usual, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, other special interests - and each other - in private. And beyond Thursday's televised session, there is no indication Obama or the congressional Democrats plan further open talks. ___ Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
another good read. it's a huge table, so you'll have to follow the link to read it. Compare the health-care bill that passed in the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, with the House's version of health legislation passed Nov. 7, President Barack Obama's pitch to Congress in September and the plan he released ahead of a televised health summit with congressional leaders Thursday. Any final health-care bill would have to meld proposals from the House and Senate. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_20090912.html
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
From your link ....
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Regardless of how you feel about the word, Irregardless is improper English.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm in the same boat with most others and am not pleased with either side. If there isn't a 3rd party choice to vote for this fall I can see myself abstaining from this year's congressional election.
Oh....don't sit out a election. Abstaining doesn't do anything to help you.
Being an independent I can choose which primary I want to vote in. I've pretty much decided I'll vote for McCain over J.D. Hayworth. Can't imagine the Democrats fielding anything but a token Senate candidate.
As for the House seat, I'm in Arizona congressional district #6. To show the insignificance of that vote, just take a gander at these results of late, the Democrats sometimes don't even bother to field a candidate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona's_6th_congressional_district
I believe to the victor goes the spoils and it is my recall that the Democrats won the Presidency and retained the Congress. I simply wish there was a 3rd major party to reduce the chances of the Republicans or Democrats being in complete control.
Last edited by Reckon; 02/25/10 10:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Back to the topic ....
I was listening to the radio this afternoon, and the talk show host was basically saying "We have to do something .. anything ... even if it's bad we can fix it later ......."
I got to thinking ... is this really the best approach?
Govenrment rarely, if ever, fixes its own messes.
Anyway .... how about this .... since any "reforms" they are talking about urgently needing to pass won't cover everyone until 2015 or so ..... why not look at things that could be done today ......
Elimination of state border restrictions on insurance companies ....
A requirement that every person pays the same regardless of pre-existing conditions ..... (with exceptions made for smokers, or certain high risk hobbies like water skiing, racecar driving, etc) A family of 2 would pay $X. A family of 3 would pay $Y .... and so on. Simple flat rates with limited high risk riders.
Modest and limited tort reform. No matter how bad the damage to a finger, it's not worth $25 million.
Elimination of Medicaid, and the placement of current Medicaid recipients into the Medicare system. This would involve co-pays .. and would cut down the frivoulous trips to the ER for sniffles that Medicaid patients make because it's free. In my entire childhood, from birth to age 18, I think I went to the ER once. (I went over the handlebars on my bike and ripped my chin open ... still have the scar too) I have people working for me who have their kids at the ER 10-15 times per year. It's absolutely ridiculous. (and expensive)
This would be immediate help for those who currently buy healthcare. It would significantly unburden the healthcare system itself by removing the "freebies" that leech hospital resources for a case of the sniffles. It would allow everyone the opportunity to buy health insurance, no matter their pre-existing conditions or current health.
This could be done in one day..... with no more than 10 pages in th legislation. It would immediately help those without insurance, and would bring lowered rates via competition to those struggling with enormous premiums.
There is then time to sort out the other details.
So why couldn't this work? Why does it have to be "all or nothing, and done today!"? (even though it wouldn't take full effect for 5 years)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Anyway .... how about this .... since any "reforms" they are talking about urgently needing to pass won't cover everyone until 2015 or so ..... why not look at things that could be done today ......
That's part of what just kills me about this "must do now - immediate action needed to save the country " health care "reform" - it doesn't take effect for years.
Did people get that? It doesn't take effect for years!!! So why is it a "must do now" thing?
Kinda like the last bailout we had - had to be done immediately - last I heard, less than half the money has been spent - a year later less than half the money has been spent. But don't worry - it's in the bill - it can be spent on anything deemed ready - even those "shovel ready" projects we were told about a year ago.........which haven't yet started.
Must've been a gov't. shovel they were using.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 |
Quote:
You cite a guy that changes party affiliation simply so he can get re-elected - and then you assume that now he speaks the truth?
I have a hunch that if specter thought being a member of the party of martians would help him get re-elected, he'd be wearing green.
I was waiting for someone to say it...quoting Arlen Spectre
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 |
This was a heck of a thread....I think you guys nailed it! There are alot of issues involved in this debate and I think most were brought out in this thread. Damn, some people on this board know their stuff! I believe almost all Americans would like to see coverage available to all citizens. We are historically a very giving people. We are not that cold as a society. I personally don't think the majority of Americans can handle any more taxes. The impact on the economy would be devestating IMHO. I know almost everyone would like to have their healthcare costs reduced, I know I would, I just don't believe we should totally destroy a system that the majority of people are happy with to extend coverage to the 6% of society who don't have it, 3% by choice I believe. I think we should try some of the low cost fixes first, like eliminating state boundary restrictions for insurance companies, limit malpractice settlements, assess the results and go from there. I am not sure whats the best way to fix it, but it seems like we should be able to pass legislation that simply targets those with pre-existing conditions as a means for providing them coverage. It shouldn't require a complete tear down of the system. Very simply stated, I think ultimately the government is going to have to restructure its own spending and divert more resources to healthcare, not take from one healthcare pot (medicare) to create another, there is only so much blood in a turnip.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Elimination of state border restrictions on insurance companies ....
A requirement that every person pays the same regardless of pre-existing conditions ..... (with exceptions made for smokers, or certain high risk hobbies like water skiing, racecar driving, etc) A family of 2 would pay $X. A family of 3 would pay $Y .... and so on. Simple flat rates with limited high risk riders.
Modest and limited tort reform. No matter how bad the damage to a finger, it's not worth $25 million.
Elimination of Medicaid, and the placement of current Medicaid recipients into the Medicare system. This would involve co-pays .. and would cut down the frivoulous trips to the ER for sniffles that Medicaid patients make because it's free. In my entire childhood, from birth to age 18, I think I went to the ER once. (I went over the handlebars on my bike and ripped my chin open ... still have the scar too) I have people working for me who have their kids at the ER 10-15 times per year. It's absolutely ridiculous. (and expensive)
IMO, the first three you listed don't really address the two main factors driving cost increases in the health care industry. Technological advance and lack of cost sharing (leading to larger use of health care) are the top two from a CBO report (Table 2).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8947/01-31-TechHealth.pdf
Fostering insurance competition will not address these underlying costs of health care, thus, to stay profitable, insurance companies will still have to increase rates.
Setting flat rates for insurance will cause insurance companies to drop more of their sickest patients in order to stay profitable as greater than 75% of health care expenditures are on the chronically ill. The only way to incentivize coverage for sick patients is transfer of profits from firms that predominantly cover healthy individuals to firms that predominantly cover sick patients (this is part of how the Swiss are able to cover the maximum number of people at significantly lower costs).
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358#6b
Defensive medicine as a result of frivolous lawsuits barely registered a blip in the CBO report on rising costs (in fact two studies found no contribution to rising costs). It won't really help rising costs, but I don't see a problem with capping awards.
IMO, you are on to something in your fourth point. But I would say not just for Medicaid. For the whole system. Any types of changes that force people to share in the costs of health care will cause people to make better, more informed decisions on when to use it. You cite Medicaid patients who go to the ER a lot, but this also happens for people on employer covered plans, because in many cases, they are as sheltered from the costs as people on Medicaid are.
I would say that the currently proposed bill sort of does this by requiring insurance, creating the Exchanges, and offering federal subsidies for people below the federal poverty line. The important point is that these subsidies don't cover the entirety of people's coverage; they will be sharing costs at some level. I hope that the final bill (if it goes through) does not include a public option, but rather I prefer the Senate/Obama version for its sharing of costs. The problem is the bill doesn't provide any way to have people with employer provided insurance share in the costs.
The real driver of rising health care costs outlined in the CBO report is improving technology, accounting for anywhere from 50-65% of increasing costs from 1940-1990. I'm really at a loss for how to address this, because usually better technology leads to better outcomes for people. There are only two things I can come up with; either rationing expensive care to the minimum effective level (how much of the rest of the world controls costs, also why they spend much less than US) which I don't see as very popular here (but may be necessary at some point). The other possibility is incentivizing healthy behaviors. As I said before, 75% of our costs are for long term treatment of chronic diseases that can in many cases be prevented. For example, adult-onset diabetes and heart disease are clearly linked to diet, smoking, and exercise. I think wellness promotion is in the current bill as well.
I'm as perplexed as you as to why most of these changes wouldn't go into effect until 2014.
Edit: I got my side by side comparison of the three bill proposals here:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf
Last edited by tjs7; 02/27/10 12:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway .... how about this .... since any "reforms" they are talking about urgently needing to pass won't cover everyone until 2015 or so ..... why not look at things that could be done today ......
That's part of what just kills me about this "must do now - immediate action needed to save the country " health care "reform" - it doesn't take effect for years.
Did people get that? It doesn't take effect for years!!! So why is it a "must do now" thing?
Kinda like the last bailout we had - had to be done immediately - last I heard, less than half the money has been spent - a year later less than half the money has been spent. But don't worry - it's in the bill - it can be spent on anything deemed ready - even those "shovel ready" projects we were told about a year ago.........which haven't yet started.
Must've been a gov't. shovel they were using.
arch...So why is it a "must do now" thing?
...read below.
In 2007, 45.7 million people in the USA did not have healthcare coverage.
In 2008, that figure jumped to 46.3 million uninsured people in the USA.
Jan. 2010, Anthem just announced a rate increase of 39% to individual policy holders in several states. The trend is moving toward a rapid escalation of healthcare premiums for individuals and businesses/companies/corporations that offer healthcare benefits.
It's not just individual policy holders who are going to pay more for their HC premiums...your employer is likely to pass his increases on to the employees.
Some business owners will drop HC benefits for employees because the cost of the HC premiums for employees is eating away at their profits, like never before. Due to the rapid increases in premiums (example: Anthem 39%) that trend will cause a ballooning of the number of uninsured in the USA.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that these trends are not sustainable for individuals and businesses, big and small.
The more we pay for HC premiums, the less we have for our other needs, the less we have to spend and as you should be aware of...spending drives the US economy. The percentage of your take home pay will continue to be less and less as the trend toward higher premium costs skyrockets and your employer asks you to pay more for your HC or simply drops the HC benefit forcing you to buy your own HC package.
The American consumer is going to buy less and less as they pay more and more for their HC benefits. The future of the American economy is not rosy and it is due to HC expenses skyrocketing.
The average income in 1998 was $51,295...
The average income in 2007 was $52,163 ...
The average income in 2008 was $50,303 ...
In the 10 yrs from 1999 to 2009, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%. That figure does not include the 2010 increases (39%) from Anthem.
Given the trend over the last 10 yrs, it is predicted that health insurance premiums for families will rise by another 166% over the next 10 years.
These trends are unsustainable...IT IS TIME TO FACE REALITY...exploding HC insurance costs must be addressed ASAP...
Wages are stagnate...HC insurance costs are exploding...the end result will be less money for Americans to consume goods and services...when consumption decreases...our economy suffers.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
That figure does not include the 2010 increases (39%) from Anthem.
No, why would it?
That increase, while much is made of it, is only for ONE type of policy in ONLY 4 states. I do not have numbers to support this statement, but I would expect that it does NOT represent the majority of policy holders - AT ALL, not even close. Why do I feel comfortable stating that? Because if it did, it would be all over the media. It is merely just the latest media whipping boy, a drum for proponents of this bill to beat.
Furthermore, if everything is as dire as you wish to paint it... then why doesn't any of the coverage kick in immediately, as in - when the payments kick in.
You completely failed to address that.
Quote:
The average income in 1998 was $51,295...
The average income in 2007 was $52,163 ...
The average income in 2008 was $50,303 ...
Hmmm... I wonder if a Dot Com Bubble bursting, a market crash from a terrorist act and a recession could have anything to do with that?
Hmmm.... I wonder if, as we recover from the recession, if the dollar will strengthen and if wages will begin to rise steadily again.
Quote:
These trends are unsustainable...IT IS TIME TO FACE REALITY...exploding HC insurance costs must be addressed ASAP...
That's right, ASAP!!! We gotta have this NOW!!! As in.... ummm..... a few years from now, except you have to start paying for it right away. But we gotta have it NOW, but you're not getting it NOW.
It's a decent emotion driven rant, but you completely FAIL at actually addressing the issue you quoted.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,861
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,861 |
Are you telling me you honestly believe this will be so isolated if they get away with it? Come on, you know better PPE.
Compare health insurance rate hikes compared to the rise in the median income home. Then factor in that while these rate hikes are taking place, in many if not most cases your deductibles and co-pays are higher with less coverage for more money year in and year out.
You have to know the approach you're taking to this is pure hogwash. I do. I've lived it, seen it, paid for it and watched it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
You can speculate all you want, I'm not going to argue that - I could put forth an equally baseless argument to the contrary. In the end it is still arguing over what *might* happen.
All I am doing in that post is commenting on what IS. The Anthem thing is limited in scope, yet it keeps getting bandied about as if it were a global price hike on any and all Anthem customer in those states. That just is not the case.
As for price hikes and less coverage.... I reckon I just need to continue to be grateful for my good fortune in that I have extremely affordable, quality coverage and if/when things change, my costs will probably go up on top of the added taxes I'll be paying.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
And just what exactly are they getting away with Pit??? Do you know exactly what their costs and expenditures are? Do you know exactly what they need to brin in to cover them??? Do you know how many policies they have lost over the past years due to the downturn in the economy???? You don't have a clue into any part of their business except some outside reports showing that their parent company made money last year. at a modest 7% no less.
People are checking into whether there is price gouging going on.....and to this point.....there has been none attributed.....So what exactly are they getting away with Pit????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Well, since O is in office, people don't want to ding big oil.
And since O and the dems say health care is a must reform - well, people follow in lock step with them. We must have reform immediately - so that the reform can take place in 3 or 4 years, and therefore, maybe people will be stupid enough to vote for certain people again.
It's a damn political point - it won't help anyone. But it sure as hell will hurt a bunch - although saying that makes me a right winger - just ask mac.
Anyone that doesn't want to flush their money down the toilet is a right winger, neo con, hate the working class american jerk - just ask mac - he'll tell you.
But me, wanting to hold on to what I have - and worked for - hell, that's un american - I mean, america is the land of equal for everybody not in opportuntiy - not in what you make of your opportunity - but equal in the sense that if you have more than me, you should give to me, right?
And, oh yeah - anyone that doesn't agree with it is a jerk and doesn't understand.
Just look at the European countries - we're told constantly how they have their cake and eat it to.......but we don't hear how bad things are over there. Do we.
Greece.
England.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
At least we have O in office - now the other countries will like us - as we go deeper and deeper into bankruptcy.
What's that you say? O hasn't changed any countries opinion of us? Oh, the truth digs deep.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Mac,
So which are the "several" states that Anthem is increasing rates by 39% in? I can find articles talking about California ... but that's it.
Now .... is Welpoint a company that offers Anthem as part of its insurance coverage?
I have read that there are rate increases of differing anounts in their packages.
What companies are allowed to compete in California?
The California AG is now taking the familiar tact of looking at upper level executive compensation, and opening personal investigations into upper management at Anthem.
This is actually pretty scary. If the government doesn't like the way you do business .... doesn't like your prices ..... doesn't like policies ...... then they're going to look into executive pay ....? What the hell gives them the right ro do so? Should government set pay rates for executives bow? How long before they set pay scales for all employees of companies?
Work in field A and the government approved scale is ______. For field B, the scale is _____.
This is far scarier than anything the private sector does, or does not do.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,828 |
Quote:
You can speculate all you want, I'm not going to argue that - I could put forth an equally baseless argument to the contrary. In the end it is still arguing over what *might* happen.
All I am doing in that post is commenting on what IS. The Anthem thing is limited in scope, yet it keeps getting bandied about as if it were a global price hike on any and all Anthem customer in those states. That just is not the case.
As for price hikes and less coverage.... I reckon I just need to continue to be grateful for my good fortune in that I have extremely affordable, quality coverage and if/when things change, my costs will probably go up on top of the added taxes I'll be paying.
Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years
September 16, 2009
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.
The data was collected by the Kaiser Family Foundation and comes via USA Today:
Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
At the same time costs have gone up dramatically, the policies have grown less generous, and more likely to add deductibles to be paid by the policy holder:
The annual survey of more than 2,000 companies also found that 40% of small-business employees enrolled in individual health plans pay annual deductibles of $1,000 or more. That's almost twice the number who paid that much in 2007.
Unsurprisingly, employers will be passing along the most recent rises in premiums to their employees, as reported in the Washington Post's look at the Kaiser survey:
Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.
Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they are "somewhat" or "very" likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums -- though that would not necessarily mean employees would pay a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same share of the overall increase that they are doing this year…
A major business lobby weighed in Tuesday, saying that if current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade -- to $28,530 per employee.
And here's another snippet from the piece to chew on:
Let's say you're a 22-year-old single employee at my company today, starting out at a $30,000 annual salary. Let's assume you'll get married in six years, support two children for 20 years, retire at 65, and die at 80. Now let's make a crazy assumption: insurance premiums, Medicare taxes and premiums, and out-of-pocket costs will grow no faster than your earnings—say, 3 percent a year. By the end of your working days, your annual salary will be up to $107,000. And over your lifetime, you and your employer together will have paid $1.77 million for your family's health care. $1.77 million! And that's only after assuming the taming of costs! In recent years, health-care costs have actually grown 2 to 3 percent faster than the economy. If that continues, your 22-year-old self is looking at an additional $2 million or so in expenses over your lifetime—roughly $4 million in total.
web page
Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5%
By John Fritze, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — An average family health insurance policy now costs more than some compact cars, and four in 10 companies will likely pass more of that expense on to workers, according to a closely watched survey of businesses released Tuesday.
The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said.
RISING PREMIUMS
Year Single Family
2000 $2,471 $6,438
2001 $2,689 $7,061
2002 $3,083 $8,003
2003 $3,383 $9,068
2004 $3,695 $9,950
2005 $4,024 $10,880
2006 $4,242 $11,480
2007 $4,479 $12,106
2008 $4,704 $12,680
2009 $4,824 $13,375
The new numbers underscore warnings by President Obama about the growing cost of health insurance and were embraced by Democratic lawmakers who are pushing for legislation to change the nation's health care system. "The trends are crushing millions of businesses and American families," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.
The annual survey of more than 2,000 companies also found that 40% of small-business employees enrolled in individual health plans pay annual deductibles of $1,000 or more. That's almost twice the number who paid that much in 2007.
Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser foundation, said it is the combination of higher health care costs along with the recession and other rising prices that "creates the pain level."
Those who oppose Democratic versions of the health care legislation, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, agree that the rising cost of insurance has become a hardship on families and businesses. The two parties disagree on how to address the problem.
"It's a significant issue for our members," said Jeri Kubicki with the National Association of Manufacturers. "They want to continue to offer this benefit. At the same time, it's a daunting task to try to control costs."
Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who is leading a bipartisan group negotiating health care legislation, has promised that his bill eventually will drive down costs. Baucus said the bill could come up for a vote this month.
As insurance costs increase, workers are also picking up a larger share, the survey found. The average employee with family coverage paid 26% of the premium, the study found, but 41% of companies said they are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to increase the amount employees pay for coverage in the next year.
Marion Cowen, insurance coordinator for H.A. Cover & Son Lumber, Co., in Thayer, Mo., said her company switched to a plan with a $1,000 deductible a few years ago. Though Cowen expects the cost of the plan to rise about 4%, she said she doesn't think employees will pay more.
"If there's any way they can bring the costs down, that is the big thing," Cowen said of efforts in Washington. "The costs just seem to be going up, up, up." web page
Last edited by mac; 03/01/10 08:46 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
And NOT ONCE at ANY POINT did that article try and look at WHY???? Insurance premiums go up because healthcare costs are up and they have less people paying into insurance to cover those costs....WHY DON'T WE FIX THAT PROBLEM???? Instead we berate insurance companies as being evil and plot to take over their industry with a bloated, inrefficient, and costly, government run program.
Typical liberal shortsightedness.......bandaid the symptom but don't fix the actual problem....
Doesn't it make sense that if the HEALTHCARE COSTS go down...that the INSURANCE COSTS go down??? Maybe we should be focusing our efforts on trying to keep HEALTHCARE costs down instead of trying to gain a money and power grab of the INSURANCE industry.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
exactly... Some people think universal health care will be free. What they fail to see is that we still pay for it, but instead of our employer taking $120/we out of our checks, the government will. We will STILL be ponying up the costs, and the costs will still rise. We need to fix the cause of skyrocketing costs, and the current system will work fine. There are non-profit clinics out there. But for them to spread to assist those that can't afford insurance at the time, we need to help cover their behinds so that more people will volunteer to open up these clinics. Like this one in Chicago. http://www.communityhealth.org/ Non-profit, run by volunteers. If insurance was more affordable, more employers and employees would purchase the coverage, while clinics like that one would be able to assist those on hard times that can't afford to purchase it, and the system would work just fine. But we need to bring down the costs, and the cost of malpractice. Yes there are doctors who negligently screw up, and those won't be hard to identify and take to court. But we need to stop the everyday cases that are out of the control of the doctors. They are not gods, they will not be able to identify every issue in a timely fashion, but sending people for 100 test to determine they have an upset stomach.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
instead of trying to gain a money and power grab of the INSURANCE industry.....
The current health care bill is a gift to the insurance industry, not a power grab. I don't quite understand where that logic came from, although I imagine it stems from the ridiculous 'socialism' notions many have latched onto.
Actually stumbled across this yesterday evening...
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-14/obamas-plan-is-a-gift-to-the-health-insurance-industry/
Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare
by Ron Paul
Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President’s speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President’s concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.
For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation’s product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.
The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100% of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.
Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.
It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.
What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.
Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Well I won't go as far as say the current system works "fine"....LOL I think they could use some reform...Competition across state lines is a start. Another is just the overall streamlining of the process. Insurance companies deliberately delay the payments as long as humanly possible. The hospitals will make calls to the insurance company concerning claims. They do so many times per claim. Consider the Thousands upon thousands of claims just a single hospital would have. Because there is a deliberate attempt to delay that payment of that claim....and frankly the phone bills of all of those calls is enormous.....those costs get added into the hospital costs and insurance costs which gets processed down to the payor...Just one of many inefficiencies....
BUT that does NOT call for a power grab by the government who will run a system far more costly and inefficient...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
OK so they mandate that everyone has to have insurance....I see that as a positive for the insurance companies....yay(wearing my beanie and waving my little flag).....then they create what amounts to a government insurance company.....and they say you if you don't have insurance through your employer you have it through us....Oh and by the way if you ever want to have an individual policy and want to change your insurance company....you have to change it to us....you don't see the socialism in that??? You don't see how Employers can just take a tax hit and find it cheaper to not offer health insurance and allow the albatross of government to cover their employees is not socialism??? You don't see how this is a step in the direction of Government niversal Healthcare????Which is the ultimate goal??? I mean that is what they have been harping on for well over 20 years...and just because they change their lyrics in the last year does not mean that the tune has changed.
Phil you are smarter than that... I understand the Corporate Welfare aspect of the argument...but I think it masks a greater problem....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
...then they create what amounts to a government insurance company...
And it's my opinion that this simply won't happen.
Our government - for the most part - bends over backwards to appease corporate interests ... not the other way around.
What you're going to see is corporate subsidy/welfare. The 'gov't insurance company' you speak of will be nothing more than a current private insurance company operating with the backing of the federal government.
Quote:
and they say you if you don't have insurance through your employer you have it through us....Oh and by the way if you ever want to have an individual policy and want to change your insurance company....you have to change it to us....you don't see the socialism in that???
I see the fascism in that.
Again, 'us' isn't going to be the federal government. It's going to be a private insurance company that enjoys the benefits of collusion with the government.
And that's not socialism ... it's fascism. A textbook definition.
You're smart enough to see my point, I'm smart enough to see yours ... our fundamental difference is what we see happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
jc... haven't really read the thread. But thought this would be pertinent as we're discussing health care reform. This is a nice graphic as to why we need reform. The site has a bunch of other nice graphics for dumb people like me to look at... like spending per presidency, tarp, global economic recovery, etc... http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,861
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,861 |
j/c The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb) 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. Rank Country 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica 37 United States of America 38 Slovenia 39 Cuba 40 Brunei http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htmlIt lists all 190 countries but I didn't see that as pertinant. The problem is we're paying about double for our health care than the countries who rank above us. The USA Pays Double for Worse Health Results http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/12/30/the-usa-pays-double-for-worse-health-results/The GOP has some good ideas and the Dems have some good ideas to help solve many of these issues. But our political system is so broken that neither party is willing to put its citizens over politics to address it. It's quite evident something must be done but politics dicates little to nothing will. Very sad indeed. jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
I have no doubt that the healthcare insurance system in this country needs work. A lot of work.
However, where I disagree with the party currently trying to stuff a monstrocity of a bill through under a procedural process (that will only serve to bite them back in years to come) is in the methods.
I believe in trying the stuff that doesn't cost trillions first. Open state borders to competition. Eliminate the ability of insurance companies to rate up or disallow coverage of a pre-existing condition. Have a modest and sensible tort reform package brought forward. Uniform paperwork for all insurance should have been done decades ago ......
You could solve maybe half or more of the current problems in the health insurance field right now with simple and straightforward steps. maybe more. Then would be the time to look at what's left .... and why those people are uninsured. Hell, the Democrat's plan takes 5 years anyway .... so why can't we have some smaller steps that take effect immediately?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Because that would make sense and the Democrats didn't think of it...Oh and it wouldn't lead to a Universal Healthcare Program which they can control....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
... plus they wouldn't be able to sneak in their other 100 billion of pork in it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
100 billion of pork
That number seems a bit low...this is Congress we are talking about...LOL
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Procedural maneuver may decide
healthcare legislation
|
|
