Senate Health Care Fiasco Enters Final Stages
Heh.
After months of turmoil, President Barack Obama is calling Senate Democrats to the White House to say it’s time to come together and pass legislation embracing a wholesale remodeling of America’s health care system.
The meeting set for Tuesday afternoon comes a day after Senate Democratic leaders suggested they were ready to abandon the last vestiges of a government-run insurance program that liberals have long sought, in order to placate moderates and secure the 60 votes they need to overcome united GOP opposition.
Have you noticed something? It doesn’t matter at all to these senators or Obama what is actually in the bill. They don’t care. They want to pass something - ANYTHING - to claim political “victory” before the 2010 elections and establish the underpinnings of further government expansion into our health care and economy. They are casting about giving any senator or special interest group whatever they want to get to 60 votes. It’s a pathetic piece of governance.
Seriously… those of you who support “health care reform,” do you know anymore what’s in this mess? Is it meeting your expectations? Would you vote for it?
Has the goal of passing “health care reform” superseded what “health care reform” actually is? I think so.
We know it costs MORE, not LESS !!!!
Haha where are all of those lefty idiots claiming otherwise now…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2009 at 1407 hrs
Can’t be too much of a deal, if on Obama’s self-grading Rubric it only moves him from a B+ to an A-! You would think it would be worth more points than that, but hey, he’s the smart one, or so they say.
I am waiting for the great white “hope” of Shorewood to chime in and tell us what a bunch of yahoos we are for not understanding the complexity and nuances of this climate warming data, oops strike that, I mean the health insurance reform. I’m sure the math supporting this bill is very clear and accurate, and there is no fudging of facts and figures.
Next up, Keith Schmitz!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2009 at 1508 hrs
Noname: don’t you get it? We are just too stupid to understand that even though none of this has worked ANYWHERE, it WILL work here because our Lefties are smarter and better than their Lefties.
Posted by Steve on December 15, 2009 at 1812 hrs
Why Democrats push Healthcare even if it kills them
“Because they think they know what’s best for the public,” the strategist said. “They think the facts are being distorted and the public’s being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it’s good for the public.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2009 at 2100 hrs
All yous guys have to do it recognize there is a problem and do something to fix it.
If a rape in women is a “condition” that can disqualify them from health care then I see a problem that needs to be fixed.
What do you think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2009 at 2230 hrs
Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) is being threatened with the closing of the US Strategic Command, at the cost of 10,000 jobs in Nebraska and a huge hit to our national security. Playing politics with our security. I’d say another new low for the Dems, but this is to be expected from this crowd. Disgusting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2009 at 2330 hrs
All people should be shaking in their boots because this is about power and not about helping people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 0644 hrs
All yous guys have to do it recognize there is a problem and do something to fix it.
If a rape in women is a “condition” that can disqualify them from health care then I see a problem that needs to be fixed.
What do you think?
There is a problem, and most conservatives recognize it. The problem with American healthcare is that the costs are too high, and rising too quickly. You see, the problem with the “Obamacare” bill is that it does nothing to address either issue. Another problem with American healthcare is that there are people, who by the nature of their health cannot be insured profitably, while it appears that the “Obamacare” bill does something about this, it goes about it in the wrong way. Mandating that the private insurers be required to insure the uninsurable, those of us who are young and healthy are going to see MASSIVE increases in our premiums. We are the ones who can least afford it… Stack doubled or tripled premiums on top of my student loans, the mortgage that I just picked up, and the fact that I make peanuts by comparison to someone who had joined the workforce just a few years before me and you have a recipe for economic disaster.
I am not so uncaring to suggest that the chronically unhealthy should have to suffer financial distress or bankruptcy of themselves or their family in order to receive the care they need. We are fixing it the wrong way…
Furthermore, this process has been the least transparent or any of the utterly opaque major legislation that has been considered during the tenure of this congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 0649 hrs
rape is a “condition” that can disqualify them from health care
Source please?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 0700 hrs
Not only would I like the source, Vic, but what is the verbiage in the bill that ‘fixes’ it? Is it a clause that requires insurers to cover this ‘condition’ prior to the rape(so everyone man woman and child will pay for it or it will just increase a female’s insurance or do they just have to offer the insurance on a buffet list of coverages?), or is it a general ‘abortion must be covered’ (Thought that was taken out).
See, my wife is of childbearing age, but she would opt out if she had the choice. She has been on the pill for a long time and wants to be sterilized as soon as she is eligible. Would she have to pay for something she would never use?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 0850 hrs
I’m been talking about health care reform for about as long as anybody. I don’t support a major involvement by the federal government and the bills we’ve seen so far have been nothing short of horrific.
This is not an issue that needs an comprehensive/omnibus solution. The bigger it gets the worse - more waste, more corruption and less success at actually solving the problems. And it’s an incredibly divisive issue because of it.
There are dozens of specific changes that are very widely supported and if passed would fix specific problems we have with minimal disruption to the good parts of our heath care system and much less risk (especially the risk of the law of unintended consequences). And without the loss of liberty.
For example one root issue that causes a number of problems, is that health care coverage is so widely tied to employment. No need to get into all of the problems it causes, but suffice to say addressing this issue - providing a requirement for coverage to be portable is a very widely supported issue that should be addressed directly.
Pre-existing condition disqualifications are another almost universally supported problem - and one that legislation can address fairly easily.
Wider/universal coverage is not nearly the difficult issue it’s made out to be. Setting aside the illegal immigrant aspect (which is a separate issue on it’s own and should be treated as such), the number of people who truly lack coverage is much less than the 40 million we often hear. Even less if we’re talking access to a minimal level of care. And a very large portion of these actually are covered by a federal, state or local program and just don’t know it. Worst case scenario, if the federal government would just pay the premiums for those too poor to do so, we’d save billions of dollars and not have to throw out the baby (what works) with the bath water (what doesn’t). The solution to the uninsured should not in impact the insured except for a very minor increase in our taxes.
Finally one other issue of the top of my head, that could be solved easily enough is that right now, we have this miserable mess of coverage that rolls routine expenditures and treatments into insurance. There is a market and a ton of competition for life, home and auto insurance. Insurance is a good solution to protect individuals from going bankrupt in the event something devastating and relatively unlikely happens. Math geeks (I use that term with fondness) calculate the premiums required to cover the expenses of future payouts. But our health “insurance” covers the catastrophic as well as routine checkups, medicine, preventative tests, stitches, etc. These need to be separated out an treated as a separate issue. Yes they’re a big part of the high costs, and this itself is not a simple problem. But by blurring it with the true insurance portion, it only makes a bigger mess and makes that aspect of our health care fail when it could work perfectly fine for what it is.
OT - but amusing, my captcha for this post is 79hospital
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 1317 hrs
rape is a “condition” that can disqualify them from health care
It looks like that statement is in reference to a Huffpo post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html
But it has about as much credibility as Palin’s death panels.
Even if not statutorily prohibit it does not necessarily follow that an insurer can deny a claim for because of pre-existing history of domestic violence or rape. Basically, an insurer would need to convince a court that domestic violence is a medical condition. Even making that argument would subject an insurer to punitive damages for bad faith. Further, even huffpo notes that in the states that do statutorily prohibit domestic violence from being a a pre-existing condition, there have been no reported cases where an insurer has actually denied a claim on this basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 1932 hrs
I agree with Locke, and would add torte reform to the mix.
We need caps on payouts from malpractice insurance… Insurance costs aren’t just killing the little guy, they are killing the doctors too. Even this compromised bill that may pass by the time the State of the Union Address rolls around does absolutely nothing to address actual costs.
I am willing to accept that now is the time for healthcare reform, but this process needs to be absolutely transparent. The way that the Democrats are going about this is absolutely wrong, and I just cannot believe that the government class still has not accepted that the American people are done being told what is good for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 2018 hrs
Doug,
The myth of an out-of-control tort system is a popular scare tactic that is without factual support. In actuality, malpractice premiums make up 1.5% of health care costs. Setting caps at best, would create a .04% to .05% reduction in health care costs. Now a half of percent might be significant to some but to me it seems like we are missing the forrest through the trees. By comparison, preventable diseases—i.e. obesity, smoking related heart disease and cancer—make up 90% of health care costs.
http://preventdisease.com/worksite_wellness/health_stats.html
What about defensive medicine being the real cost? Bah. Ask your doctor what changes will he make to his practice if he could be sued for $750,000 versus $500,000 for non-economic damages. My guess is not too many.
But setting the cost argument aside, setting caps on either profits or risks is anti-free market. Why should we socialize the risk of bad doctors because the insurance company who writes a policy didn’t do their due diligence? Its basic economics that if caps are imposed on risk, we inevitably will have negative externalities, i.e. more risky behavior. For example, savings and loans and the TARP bailouts. While artificial risk caps in the financial system are inevitably expensive, those same types of caps, in the health care system will be deadly. I note, that already, more people die each year due to medical malpractice than car accidents and fire arms combined:
Car accidents = 40,000
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html
Gun violence = 34,000
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/us-gun-violence-by-the-nu_b_139879.htmlMed malpractice deaths: 195,000
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
Further, I would argue that caps are unconstitutional as the seventh amendment gives us the right to a jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Frankly, I’m not so keen to adopt a socialized principles that infringe on my constitutional rights. But hey, your free to your opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2009 at 2345 hrs
@Doug - I think tort reform is a good one too. Obviously my examples were by no means exhaustive, but a good place to start. I will say that I think tort reform is a little more disputed (mostly because there’s too damn many lawyers). I think there’s room for significant improvement in tort reform - however, it’s not an 80/20 issue (or 95/5 like I suspect some of them are).
The point is to go after the easy wins - areas of consensus to make improvements where they are easiest and with the lowest cost. To quote Voltaire, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” We can’t get perfect - and rather than even bothering to attempt perfect - which is different for everybody anyway, let’s do this: Let’s make something better. Doesn’t even have to be a lot better, just so long as it is better. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 0021 hrs
SI, you are definitely fully cognizant of the value of propaganda, I must say. Say it often enough and people will believe it.
How much do lawyers get out of a represented settlement? 35-50%? Regarding your malpractice death link, what was the additional 19 billion in additional costs related to?
Ask your doctor what changes will he make to his practice if he could be sued for $750,000 versus $500,000 for non-economic damages. My guess is not too many.
I believe you here, but caps would stop 3.5 million dollar settlements. I wonder if any practices would change the difference were ‘can be sued for 5,000,000 vs. 500,000.’ Maybe not, and I surely would not expect a Doctor to admit anything of the kind.
The truth is that without a big pool of insurance money to take from, Lawyers can’t get their cut of the big settlements. I admit that I do not know what percentage of healthcare bad regulations account for, but I disbelieve your 1.5% statistic.
As long as trial lawyers are among the top donors to Democrats and Insurance companies are among the top donors to Republicans, I do not see any tort reform in the offing. After all, insurance companies make a ton of money on all the increased insurance too. Everyone who has the power to change anything has a vested interest in keeping it the way it is.
Basically, I have a hard time believing the trial lawyers Ass gives all that money to Democrats for 1.5% of the healthcare pie or because they are liberals…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 0955 hrs
Tuerqas,
I had a longer response but lost it when explorer crashed.
That being said, you requested a citation and I am happy to provide it.
I got my numbers from the CBO:
Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be
comparably small.http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4968/01-08-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
And articles discussing the various studies and reports.
see http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costsIn response to your last comment, I think we can agree that 1.5% may be small percentage, but 24 billion is a hell of a lot of money. I saw a more recent estimate that 2.4 trillion is spend annually in the health care system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1616 hrs
Superid,
You are right ... it’s only 24 BILLION (and increasing) ... why bother?
Anything in the CBO about the costs of unnecessary tests and procedures in order to CYA malpractice lawsuits?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1649 hrs
Smeety, good point, thanks for bringing that up. Actually, the CBO did comment on the defensive medicine issue:
Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects
of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent
to which physicians practice “defensive medicine” by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread
problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing
medical injuries. However, evidence for those other
effects is weak or inconclusive.You are right ... it’s only 24 BILLION (and increasing) ... why bother? Should we compare that figure to physician salaries?
The total amount Americans pay their physicians collectively represents only about 20 percent of total national health spending.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/do-doctors-salaries-drive-up-health-care-costs/
Since your in favor of caps, perhaps it would be more worthwhile to cap physician salaries?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1718 hrs
SuperId:
Not sure what your argument is, but did you read that article ou linked to? Physicians bills make up 20% of total health care spending, about half of that amount, is office overhead and fixed cossts, not including amortization of student loans. About half of what a Dr bills is actually income, or 10% of the total amount of health care spending. If there were a way to cut Dr bills 20% that would be 2% of the national health care bill. Oh btw, since all the other expenses would still have to be paid, that would but Dr take-home by about 80%...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1729 hrs
However, evidence for those other
effects is weak or inconclusive.Inconclusive being the key word. Soft costs have the ability to kill profits in the real world…
Since your in favor of caps, perhaps it would be more worthwhile to cap physician salaries?
You need to take that strawman elsewhere. Salaries and legal fees are two entirely different entities with entirely different effects on cost and quality…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1736 hrs
Elovrich,
I’m not advocating imposing caps of any sorts, whether they are on profit or on risk.
You were quickly able to list a number of problems with capping salaries. I would add that in addition to the reasons you mentioned, capping physican capping salaries would reduce the number of doctors. Just as rent control reduces the number of investments in apartment buildings.
My point, is that the same thought process should be used when evaluating caps on risks. Tort reform necessarily involves the socilization of risk, the risk is transfered from the physicians and their insurers to the general public.
Smeety, no incomplete is the key word. You need to keep reading that article, it concludes that it is not statistically significant.
Let’s not forget, defensive medicine is profitiable for hospitals and physicians. As that CBO report goes on to note:
“[S]ome so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1759 hrs
The CBO report from October 2009 indicated a .5% reduction in costs ($54B over 10 years). But with a $12T debt… Its a good start.
Especially if the blood-sucking ambulance chasers have to get real jobs.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/710364
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 1922 hrs
Especially if the blood-sucking ambulance chasers have to get real jobs.
Real jobs? they’ll just run for congress. i.e. John Edwards
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 2000 hrs
If I may ask a serious question:
What is the latest ... ie., what are the U.S. citizens getting for this 2.1 Tri (with a T) llion (for starters)?
I honestly don’t know anymore.
Posted by Smeety on December 17, 2009 at 2014 hrs
John Edwards… (shudder)
I live in NC now… We get daily Edwards corruption investigation updates. What a sleaze.
Posted by on December 17, 2009 at 2037 hrs
smeety -
We will get less care at a lower quality with longer waits with increasing rationing and it will become more and more expensive so you will also be charged increasingly higher and more creative forms of taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2009 at 2039 hrs
I’m not advocating imposing caps of any sorts, whether they are on profit or on risk.
SI, neither was elovrich. I never have blamed you for advocating making money for yourself and your profession. Of course you do not want caps on either yourself or the people you are suing. Heck, your suavete’ makes you a top 3 pick of people to try and hire if I needed a lawyer.
Caps are relatively low on my list of things I would attempt to clean up legally. How prevalent is joint and several liability? No form of that is just. Proof lies in how it is made ‘legal’, snuck in to budgets, etc. The climate of suit in the US today attributes more than just the 1.5% of malpractice money in the healthcare business in my opinion. I believe it has raised the cost of drugs, hospital visits, nursing home care and other areas, even research, in addition to the Physician visits that your percentiles are centered on.
Look at your malpractice link in 14. Of the 37 million medicare hospitalizations , i.e. elderly or other higher risk people going not just to the doctor, but going in to the hospital 332,000 died and 286,000 had some sort of classified medical safety incident. Now I have no idea how many of those were taken to court, but 3.1% of those higher risk people encountered some sort of problem and 99.11% of all visitors lived and left the hospital. The percentage of all people going to a medical facility and having a visit that improves their health must be in the 99.999999% or better range. I am not saying negligence or malpractice should not be punished, but multi-million dollar settlements for a single mistake is not a sign of culture or even a civilised society.
To err is human and if your profession is one that deals in life and death a mistake can cost a life. That is why they make the big bucks. They have to live with it and go right out and risk another life. Should they (or anyone) pay several year’s salary for every mistake? The reaon you make similar dollars is a bit more muddy. Doctor’s deserve the living they create. Lawyers, insurance execs, politicians, even hospital admin. would have a hard time proving to me they deserved similar incomes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2009 at 1215 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:07 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).