Status of the Health Care Debate
It appears that we’re at the point where those who oppose the Democrats’ plans for health care reform (notice I said the “Democrats’ plan,” NOT any health care reform) are complaining about the plans on the table while those who support them are complaining about the opposition.
Telling.
Oh, come on. If there weren’t so many on the right who buy into wacky rumors like those about “death panels,” there wouldn’t be the need for complaints against them. But those who support plans for health-care reform can’t just let crap like that go unanswered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 0956 hrs
Don’t take this critically, but change:
“those who oppose” to “those who question”
“are complaining about the plans” to “are expressing skepticism about the plans”
“those who support them are complaining about the opposition” to “those who support them are clueless about the opposition”
And that is pretty much the crux of why we are embarking on a political polarization not seen since the Viet Nam war in the 60’s.
Don’t have time to comment further right now, but consider how the Democrat leadership is fast & furious with throwing off labels. I’m not so sure everyone is who expressing concerns necessarily wants to be labeled as “Republican”, “channeling Rush Limbaugh/FOX News”, “Nazis”, “want Obama shot”, “UnAmerican”, “misinformed”, etc.
Seems like the Democrats are blowing off a lot of people, and absent a 3rd party, where will those people go? A few months ago, the Republicans were “lost in the wilderness”, now they are stating to poll + on the Generic Congressional Ballot
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 0958 hrs
The Libs are making a fatal error in trying to rationalize the opposition as being motivated by some Sarah Palin death panel comment.
There is a large core of people in the US who view good and comprehensive healthcare as something you work hard to be able to provide for you and your family. This group has zero interest in being asked to work even harder to provide comprehensive health care to those who don’t want to work for it (and in the process see their own healthcare services get gutted and deteriorate as a result of watering down the whole thing into a government run operation)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1008 hrs
Steve, I completely agree with the first part of your comment. There are many Americans who question the specifics of proposed health-care reform and who have a different opinion about who should provide health care. And they are part of a sensible if heated debate.
But it’s usually the extremists who are the most vocal, and who tend to spout a combination of half-truths and flat-out bullshit, and so they get the most attention and the most reaction.
In Owen’s original post, he refers to people complaining about the opposition; I’m saying it’s the extremists among the opposition who get the majority of the complaints, not people who understand the specifics of proposed reform and have intelligent things to say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1026 hrs
It’s not a mistake. Someone needs to hit back—quickly and hard—against the ‘death panel’ and the other nuts circulating a list of outrages which happen to be complete lies.
IF we could dispense with the death panel complaint, the “it will outlaw private insurance” complaint, the kooky “keep government out of my Medicare” complaint, and the other two dozen wacky issues, we might actually have a reasonable debate on policy rather than a shrieking frightfest of insanity. It was not people like myself who started this nutjobbery. It was people on your side who did. Don’t go blaming us for pointing at it and saying “you’re nuts!” And this wasn’t sandwichboard-wearing crazies protesting in front of the white house. This was—no, IS—elected Republican officials and major media personalities perpetrating this BS.
I would love nothing more than to honestly discuss the merits of what’s being proposed in washington. Unfortunately many on your side thought the best way to combat reform was to not honestly discuss the issues.
I’m not even looking for you to back Democratic health care reform at this point. I’m looking for commenters here to clearly and unequivocally condemn the lies and misinformation as well as those who perpetrate them.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1032 hrs
I have no idea what the “truth” is in this debate. I just know that all you have to do is look at the federal government’s record on operating anything. (The USPS comes to mind). The government cannot operate anything as cheaply or as efficiently as private business can. If the government takes over health care—it will be a DISASTER!!!
And ya’lls PRESIDENT keeps making statements out of BOTH sides of his mouth. You can’t trust him to tell the truth about anything!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1106 hrs
Why do the VA and Medicare have higher patient satisfaction than private insurance? And why has it’s cost risen more slowly than the private sector?
No, these blanket “the government never does anything right” comments are no longer getting a free pass. Kind of reminds me of the “everyone knows tax cuts generate more tax revenue” bullshit that supposedly is “fact” but which is actually fantasy.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1113 hrs
Many people have legitimate concerns about what has been proposed. Unfortunately, their legitimate concerns about being drowned out by a sea of illegitimate concerns about things that are not in the bill but are simply easier to organize voters around. Sadly, there are people who buy into talk of bogus death panels and whatnot because it’s what Rush or Glenn Beck tell them to believe. Some liberals are no better in this regard, they just have different sources for their distortions.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party lacks a political or intellectual leader who is prominent enough to stand up to the crazies within and demand a discussion of the real issues. Unlike two generations ago, when William F. Buckley and his friends effectively trounced the Bircher movement by ridiculing them off the national stage, today’s GOP leaders sit back and quietly stoke the crazies because they simply have nothing better to contribute. So long as they win, they don’t particularly care how it’s accomplished. It’s just another example of the hyper-partisanship that most voters generally can’t stand.
I’m sure we’ll see it in this thread. Already, Scott is asking why conservatives who know better don’t express a little disapproval of the BS that some talking heads are promoting. And of course, if any of them respond, they’ll talk about how “Democrats do it too” as though that makes all of the nonsense justifiable. Fact is, everyone’s guilty.
This debate has provided so many perfect examples of why people hate politics and politicians - whether it’s the the screamers at the town halls or the guy who says “get your government hands off my Medicare” or the arrogance of Sheila Jackson Lee talking into her cell phone while someone is trying to address her. Seriously, who looks good right now in this discussion?
This kind of fear mongering demeans democracy and cheapens the level of discourse, but neither side is willing to renounce the tactics because, sadly, voters today are stupid enough to fall for it. If voters of all stripes were just smarter in general, these tactics wouldn’t work. The easiest and most contagious kind of fear is the one that’s bred of ignorance - whether it’s conservatives who harp about death panels or liberals who tell seniors that their Social Security would vanish if we privatized it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 14, 2009 at 1121 hrs
Scott—-we watched Obama and Pelosi ram through Stimulus. 1,000 pages. $787 Billion of money we don’t have. No debate. Must be passed. People now know what irresponsible government that was.
Now we see Obama last month claiming another 1,000 page bill must be rammed through before the August recess. No debate. We need this. Trust us. Blah, blah, blah.
I don’t trust anything coming out of Obama after the Stimulus bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1126 hrs
Scott…........
People are reacting to hyperbole on both sides. The difference is that the people “shouting” at town halls, etc. are reacting to the perceived intentions of the language in the proposed bill. Does the language say “Death Panel”? No. BUT…......
It does setup up a nameless, non-elected, panel to determine cost v result decisions. When a “secret”, non appeallable board makes that type of decision, it can cause people some concern.
This is just one of the actual concerns that the ruling party is calling a “myth”.
I think that if people on both sides actually read this bill, it would have been dropped a long time ago.
Now, just to make RS happy…......
Exactly which party is trying to make people believe that doctors are amputating limbs for profit? I am sure it cannot be the party of “lets just talk facts”, could it?
HmmmmmmmmPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1139 hrs
there are people who buy into talk of bogus death panels and whatnot because it’s what Rush or Glenn Beck tell them to believe.
We should not absolve the Republican party, such as it is. It’s not just Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and other conservative news commentators. It’s Newt Gingirch, reps Fox (R-NC), Bachmann (R-MN), Gohmert (R-TX), King (R-IA), Rogers (R-AL), Tiahrt (R-KS), Burton (R-IN), Price (R-GA), Ron Paul, Kingston (R-GA), and others. This is the Republican party’s message. They’re not standing around bewildered while pundits put forth these lies. They are putting forth the lies themselves.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1139 hrs
Scott, just as you have ignored the crazies on the left when Bush was President, so do conservatives who want to discuss the future of health care ignore the crazy remarks from their own side. In fact, both sides have an argument that the nutjobs aren’t really on their side, at least philosophically. True humanitarians that liberals claim as being predominantly on their side, would not use violence or shout down tactics to protest the war. Similarly, true conservatives are too proud of being ‘sensible’ to use shout down tactics. Both political sides hire those professionals to obfuscate the fact that neither side is offering really sensible solutions. Both are offering actual deals that help their special interests, whatever their vocal rhetoric.
Why do the VA and Medicare have higher patient satisfaction than private insurance? And why has it’s cost risen more slowly than the private sector?
Because the VA and Medicare are subsidized and price controlled by Government so out of pocket costs are minimal. Users of those plans pay less and get more(Sounds like a satisfying situation to me). It has risen more slowly because the Government limits what it will pay for services and the private insurance companies do not have the ability to control price. Therefore it is simple business for the medical industry to charge more from the people they can raise the price on, and then raise it again to cover the people exempted from the increase by Government control.
This system works in the US because there are still so many private users that despite increases, most people still pay for it. If the majority goes public there will be no one to transfer costs to and then the first things to go in the medical industry will be research and advances. Besides that Medicare at least, is facing bankruptcy.
As long as a hand out (VA and Medicare are not payed exclusively or even primarily by its users) is still being provided, I would imagine its satisfaction ratings will be higher than plans that are paid for more heavily by its user, regardless of medical outcomes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1153 hrs
reacting to the perceived intentions of the language in the proposed bill. Does the language say “Death Panel”? No. BUT…......
Dude, that is so weak. It’s just a misunderstanding caused by ambiguous legalese being interpreted by laypeople! As if! The “misunderstanding” is deliberate and caused by liars and propagandists.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1155 hrs
In fact, both sides have an argument that the nutjobs aren’t really on their side, at least philosophically. [...] true conservatives are too proud of being ‘sensible’ to use shout down tactics.
So why is Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and a half a dozen house reps and senators talking about death panels in front of so many microphones and on so many television programs?
This is the GOP strategy.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1159 hrs
As long as a hand out (VA and Medicare are not payed exclusively or even primarily by its users)
The public option in the house bill isn’t subsidized. The only subsidy is to people, who can either use it to buy private insurance or the public option. Happy with that?
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1203 hrs
Scott!
Ok. You want to discuss the “facts”, but when we want to do that, we are not qualified???
Hmmmmmmm
Much like trying to discuss right and wrong with my kids when they were young, we will keep feeding you the truth. You will keep dismissing it because it does not fit your “vision”. We will still keep doing it because we know it is right, and sooner or later you will too. (Well, at least my kids were smart enough…)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1203 hrs
Can anyone help me understand what the previous comment is supposed to mean?
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1205 hrs
It is not the strategy of most of the people talking here, so why is it so important to you here? I believe you know that there is a significant minority of non-Republicans constantly on this blog. I have not heard about a word the Newt-meister has said in literally a year (until now, thanks for damaging my calm)and I am ecstatically happy about it.
Obama himself has been telling falsehoods about the bill and his message is so pervasive that even I have heard it. His plan is not the bill in Congress. That is an issue. You are correct in saying that death panels are not an issue. (Now guess which one will be the primary topic of comments past this one.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1212 hrs
Scott….
Let me help you out. You are acting like an immature brat, Your reply #13 verifies this. You said earlier that the people that are disrupting town halls are acting on myths. I took the time to explain the truth to you, and because you did not like it, you said it was wrong. What part of my statement was wrong? Is there going to be a panel as I described set-up? Is it wrong to be concerned about some “ambiguous legalese” that may lead to outcomes I am not in favor of? I do not think so, but, I am an adult.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1217 hrs
The public option in the house bill isn’t subsidized. The only subsidy is to people, who can either use it to buy private insurance or the public option. Happy with that?
It would help if it were honest. If the Government is guaranteeing a certain level of coverage and administering the plan, and not able to re-allocate funds in to or out of the plan, and only used what was put in by taxpayers, it might begin to approach a non-subsidy situation. But there will not be any ‘the plan is out of money in November so you are all screwed until January’. There will be price fixing that will cause problems in the industry. Perhaps subsidy is the wrong term, but the whole plan will be subject to the whims of whomever is in power.
It could be an incorrect statement that Government cannot run anything efficiently. But I would be prepared to stand by a statement that says Government cannot be trusted to continually run a program with efficency through multiple terms of office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1224 hrs
Re: “Death Panels” - kind of funny how a supposedly “washed-up”, “no-political future”, ex-governor can effectively induce Senate action by one posting on a Facebook page (probably that is more than anything Obama accomplished while he was a Senator). Politicians couldn’t “unring” this bell fast enough.
I think Ann Althaus says it best:
If it was completely wrong for Sarah Palin to say “death panels,” why did the Senate scuttle the provision she was talking about?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/if-it-was-completely-wrong-for-sarah.html
Why didn’t the congressional Democrats defend their own bill? If it was so terribly wrong to say “death panels” — and what indignation was expressed! — then why wasn’t it easy to crush stupid, crazy Sarah for what she so outrageously said? By backing down and removing the language she leveraged, they not only seem to admit she had a point, they sacrifice credibility that they need to promote what’s left of the bill.
Rather than meet Palin’s attack, the Democrats pulled the provision altogether, leaving us wondering what other provisions would have to be pulled if someone subjected them to a memorable — viral — attack.
Then why didn’t Democrats argue their side? Why did they back down? I suspect it’s because they really did hope to save money by substituting painkillers for curative treatments for the old and disabled.
I think this point is very intuitive about what is going on:
Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”
Not just “interpreted… incorrectly” but “implemented incorrectly”! Well, there you have it! We are absolutely right to fear the way laws may be implemented.(bold emphasis added by me)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1250 hrs
And why has it’s cost risen more slowly than the private sector?
Its costs have risen slower because Medicare isn’t reimbursement rates are not being raised.
That is part of the reason doctors are opting out of accepting Medicare patients.
But if people are forced onto Medicare, (Which theoretically could happen, because if there is a Government option, Employers would have no incentive to offer insurance, because the “Penalty tax” would still be a cheaper option) Doctors would be forced to work for whatever rates the Government sets, or quit practicing medicine all together.
Its part of the unintended consequences.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 14, 2009 at 1343 hrs
Please do not ignore the fact that the majority of the people polled are happy with the coverage they have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1345 hrs
Why do the VA and Medicare have higher patient satisfaction than private insurance?
Scott,
Facts please? Numbers?
We’re waiting on a lot of numbers and facts from Scott…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1407 hrs
The public option in the house bill isn’t subsidized. The only subsidy is to people, who can either use it to buy private insurance or the public option.
And why has it’s cost risen more slowly than the private sector
... but last time I checked Medicare was subsidized by everyone who has a job. Happy with that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1419 hrs
Smeety,
“VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.
Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA’s inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale—compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.”
Read the rest here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1424 hrs
Is that study scientific?
They obviously did not ask my father about the VA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1437 hrs
How do you know smeety, it is 83% satisfaction rating, not 100%.
The satisfaction rating of a Governmentally provided low cost service is hardly a comparable orange to this apple comparison. The only way that satisfaction rating would have any real meaning to this discussion is if the new national healthcare plan followed along its lines and the VA program somehow ran in the black. The only really pertinent part of the link NYTexan provided was that the VA budget has been increased by 57% over the last 5 years. My insurance has not gone up 57% in the last 5 years. That seems to directly conflict with Scott’s data about it being cheaper. Now let us imagine us all on the Government plan. Increase the budget for healthcare after a majority of people are on it by 57% over 5 years and we will be seriously headed towards bankrupting this country. But we will be 83% happy instead of only 73% happy with our insurance.
I was reading a little on Scott’s blog and the quality of the politifact blog is seriously lacking Scott. To say there will be no rationing under the new bill because it does not use the word rationing anywhere in the bill is just ridiculously stupid and I have a hard time crediting much else it ‘debunked’ in the health related issues using that as ‘reasoning’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1458 hrs
My guess is the reason for the VA healthcare going up that much in the last 5 years would have to do with the war and huge numbers of injured vets coming back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1544 hrs
I remember a time, not so long ago, when the VA in Milwaukee was known at the VA Spa. There were patients in hallways and the care was awful. It’s been fairly recent when improvements have been made, but it still has a way to go.
The fact still remains that no one knows what is in this bill. The politicians don’t even know what’s in the bill. We don’t have the money to fund it. It will ruin the quality of care we currently receive. It will slow the innovation process. Taxes will rise because of it, meanwhile unemployment is at it’s highest in a very very long time. The majority of people are pleased with their current coverage.
Also, if we are not personally responsible for paying for our care that means it will be used, and used often. This would make the cost even higher that what they claim. However, I still believe there will be long lines, wait times and poor quality of care. Our elderly folks will be treated as 2nd class citizens and not recieve the care they deserve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1544 hrs
Many Republicans have been propagating lies about the health care reform proposals.
The public insurance option is not subsidized.
The reform bill in congress does not foster euthanasia.
Medicare is in financial trouble, yes, but it’s done a better job at controlling costs than the private sector has.
Medicare recipients are happier with their coverage than those in the private sector.
These are all facts. You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts. If you can’t acknowledge facts then there is no real discussion taking place.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2009 at 1552 hrs
Many Republicans have been propagating lies about the health care reform proposals.
So have many Democrats, including Obama.The public insurance option is not subsidized.
If you think the Government’s new role will be to get people in to a private plan, that is no more than they are currently doing. If insurance becomes mandatory, (something the politifact mentioned from your source) what happens to the undocumented alien that chooses to not pay for insurance because they could not afford it without the credit? They are already illegal, what is going to happen? Currrently they are not turned away, would the Government policy accept them anyway? How is that not subsidy? Are we going to put everyone in jail for not having insurance or treat them anyway, or deport them?The reform bill in congress does not foster euthanasia.
Isn’t this redundant with your first point?Medicare is in financial trouble, yes, but it’s done a better job at controlling costs than the private sector has.
No, frankly, it hasn’t. It has merely passed the increases on to the private sector.Medicare recipients are happier with their coverage than those in the private sector.
That is a fact, but I am quite sure that polls would indicate that recipients of a Government check for nothing are happier than the people who do not receive one.Your facts are not very impressive.
‘Hardcore partisans lie.’
‘The bill does not mention the word subsidy once, therefore it does not subsidize.’
‘Hardcore partisans lie.’
‘Medicare has passed its cost increases to others, private insurers have passed increases on to its users.’
People who have their insurance paid for them are happier than people who have to pay for those others and themselves.’
a hearty collection of facts Scott. and can you sound any more petulant?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1611 hrs
Medicare is in financial trouble, yes, but it’s done a better job at controlling costs than the private sector has.
Medicare pays less than cost to health care providers, and then those of us who pay out-of-pocket or through insurance premiums pay the difference in our prices. Your statement is technically true, it’s just that the “better… control” leads to higher prices and higher taxes simultaneously for the productive members of society who pay their own way. A brilliant point, but it’s not the one you were trying to make.
What a blithering idiot you are, Scott. See? We can attack you personally and attack your “points,” whereas you are intellectually limited to the former.
Posted by Mike Gallo on August 14, 2009 at 1629 hrs
Here is an example of why Medicare is “cheaper”.
This example is from Alaska last year, where Senator Stevens advocated for a 35% increase in Medicare reimbursement rates (instead of a nationwide 10.6% decrease):
THE BOTTOM LINE
For many family doctors it boils down to a simple calculation, in which the government only reimburses them a quarter to a half of what they would have charged a non-Medicare patient.
“For most procedures it’s like a 25 percent reimbursement,” Vasileff said.
So instead of the doctor getting paid $100 for a particular service, the government pays $25. Increasing that number by 35 percent will only raise the reimbursement to $33—about a third of a standard charge, Vasileff said.
So, for every $100 that private/insurance pays, Medicare pays $33. Hand my health insurance discount a 67% decrease, and I’m sure they could offer cheaper rates too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1918 hrs
If Medicare is cheaper, than why am I paying out of my paycheck for coverage I can’t get for thirty years?
Smell test, jackass!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 1943 hrs
Scott, the mere fact that no one knows what is going on with the bill is enough to kill it.
Obama, himself stated that if an elderly person was not in the best shape then perhaps it’s best just to “give them a pill”. The “great one” said it. Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve had two parents and one in-law suffer with horrible diseases and we did whatever we could to prolong their lives so that they could be with their children, grandchildren and us with them. Obama himself, would not have let this happen and that my friend is a fact from direct from the horses (Obama’s) mouth.
If we have Medicare, then why do we need more government run health care?? You yourself stated that people were “happy with Medicare” (see post 23). Well, the majority of people say they are happy with their current coverage, so let’s leave it alone. Why do you continue to push something that the majority of people don’t want?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2119 hrs
It’s not a mistake. Someone needs to hit back—quickly and hard—against the ‘death panel’ and the other nuts circulating a list of outrages which happen to be complete lies.
Many news organizations — including The Associated Press — debunked Palin’s claim. The provision that caused the uproar would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling about end-of-life care.
Well, that convinces me, the AP, i.e, the Pravda of the U.S. has debunked this claim.From the headline of the same article: Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_2
Well, let’s not call a death panel a death panel. That is an outrage!!! Dr. Menegele is spinning in his grave. He knows a death panel better than anyone and this sure is not a death panel.
Cerebral lemmings like Scott have nothing to worry about if the panel wants to keep useful idiots on life support. These are all facts. You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts. If you can’t acknowledge facts then there is no real discussion taking place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2134 hrs
If Medicare is cheaper, than why am I paying out of my paycheck for coverage I can’t get for thirty years?
Smeety, the point I’m trying to reinforce is what M. Cheaney said at comment #22 in response to Scott’s comment at #7 about Medicare costs not increasing as fast. Obviously the system is rigged when they are only paying 25 - 33 cents on the dollar, and everyone else is paying 100 cents (and maybe more on the dollar). It’s ridiculous to infer that somehow Medicare is providing medical care at a reasonable cost when they aren’t paying anything close to “market”.
As to funding Medicare, you are right about “advance funding” your Medicare over your work life (I think it is about 1.45% payroll tax times 2) + people on Social Security pay $96 a month premium and then if they want more coverage they buy a supplemental policy.
If you want to do any smell tests, I suggest you bend over and put your head in the proximity of your ass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2140 hrs
Obama, himself stated that if an elderly person was not in the best shape then perhaps it’s best just to “give them a pill”.
No, Obama didn’t say this. It’s something that Rush Limbaugh made up. This is one of the nutty lies that pops up on conservative blogs. Try finding a record of it in any transcript from even a conservative news outlet. It didn’t happen.
Thanks and good night.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2147 hrs
John Galt.
I think that the headline was shortened for space.Here is a more complete headline:
The provision that is clearly intended to extend a opportunity for people to discuss with their doctors end of life considerations so that they could discuss their wishes with their families and that would have the government pay for such consultation is being removed from consideration since it is impossible to explain to people like Sarah Palin that Death Panels are an unfair characterization of the benefit.
It was likely shortened for space considerations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2148 hrs
As I see it, almost any one of us is a job loss and a pre-existing condition away from having unaffordable health insurance coverage.
Then when we are caught out of the insurance system we are only one or two hospital stays away from bankrupcy.
The insurance system that we have right now is not addressing these problems.
While HR 3200 does address the insurance industry and how it operates, I still believe that a government insurance option is a valid way to incent insurance companies to address these systemic problems in their industry. They will come up with products that address what is happening to people as they should have been all along. They haven’t been able to because providing benefits to sick people is not profitable. These new products will make the entire health care system better for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2009 at 2220 hrs
Regarding the VA, they depend on the private sector for just about everything other than simple cases. Why not comment on the BIA problems, some of the worst health care in the U.S. And it is federal government run.
Medicare recipients are happier with their coverage than those in the private sector. Yeah, well, if you get something free or close to free, you would like that as well.
I think some reform is neccessary. Tort reform, get the state and federal governments to stop mandating certain coverage, low cost catastrophic insurance and things like that. But that is not what the bill demands. They demand everyone get insurance and that just is plain stupid and outrageous. What other product does the U.S. government demand we purchase? It demands health care “reform”. If this was about low cost health insurance, you may be able to convince more people, but this is about socializing health care, plain and simple.Posted by Dan on August 15, 2009 at 0408 hrs
NYTexan, I believe you need to watch this ABC clip where it shows Obama stating that it may be better to give someone a pill rather than try a surgery.
So NYTexan…what do you think about the “great one” now? Do you still wish to drink the Kool-Aid?
For the record: Rush did not make it up, but of course that is what the left always says. I understand, you are just quoting the party line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0713 hrs
Remember whne the Feds hobbled or shut down the cheaper drugs people were getting for Canada? One of the Fed arguments was people would abuse them. The Feds could have just blocked shipment of the stuff people use to get high and allow the rest through. Competition would be promoted, but the drug companies would send reps and cash to Washington to cry “Unfair”.
Besides Mexico, many (maybe not millions) are going to Thailand for medical/dental work. I mat a swiss lady on vacation. She said people leave Switzerland all the time for medical/dental work in a neighboring country because Switzerland’s costs are too high for commoners.
As U.S. health row rages, many seek care in Mexico
Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:19pm EDThttp://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57C40C20090813
The total number making the trip is unclear. But a recent study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimated that nearly 1 million people from California alone seek medical, dental or prescription services in Mexico each year.
Some making the trek have little or no medical coverage. Others like Ritz are on fixed incomes and want to avoid so-called co-pays and deductibles charged by U.S. insurers on top of policies that routinely cost from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand each month.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0729 hrs
Privepilot:
Regarding post:
“Does the language say “Death Panel”? No. BUT…......
It does setup up a nameless, non-elected, panel to determine cost v result decisions. When a “secret”, non appeallable board makes that type of decision, it can cause people some concern.”Do not hospital, drug, and insurance corporations have these cost v result panels to determine where investment and R&D should go?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0734 hrs
I’m glad they have an option. If they choose to go to another country it’s their choice. I know of someone who went to Mexico for lyposuction because it was cheaper. Now, I wouldn’t risk it, but hey it’s their choice. Now I know a many choose to come the US for better care…heck they come for any care.
We need choice and currently we have some choice. We can choose to be uninsured. We can choose how high our deductibles are. We can choose our doctors. We can choose to be fat or thin. We can choose our proceedures. We can choose how often we see the doctor.
Under government care…we will have no choices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0738 hrs
Vic:
OK I will call it a death counseling session in stead of a death panel. Does that sound better? Is it any different. Is that why they are eliminating it, even though they said it wasn’t in there in the first place?
Since Scott has a monopoly on facts, I will exercise my monopoly on reality. In reality, it is an end of care discussion, and yes, death is part of that equation. I don’t think that is the most outrageous thing in the world, but what worries me is that Obama, et al are lying that it is not in there. It is, or was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0807 hrs
Regarding the VA, they depend on the private sector for just about everything other than simple cases.
This isn’t true. I worked there for a number of years and the cases were complex and the patients often tough cases- many of the same physicians and surgeons that work at Froedtert also have priveleges at the VA and do a multitude of surgeries and procedures. They don’t take in trauma cases like Froedtert, but that’s about all they don’t do. Most of the nurses and therapists I knew were extremely dedicated. There is also lot of research that goes on. And it is also untrue as Kelly says that the care is/was awful. The Milwaukee VA always did very well on satisfaction surveys and I know most patients were happy with their care. About the worst thing I can say is that when I started there 20 years ago, the waits for primary care docs were very long but they improved that. The decor and asthetics of the hospital weren’t great(old) and didn’t give a good impression, but there was alot of renovation updating that over the years when I left. I know that some VAs in the country do not have a good reputation and are not good; the Milwaukee VA is not one of those.
Not that this in my mind has much of a part in the health care debate, but I couldn’t let this go.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0847 hrs
I don’t wish to get into it, but a friend of mine, an intern at the time worked at the “VA Spa” and it was in worse shape than it is now. Currently, I have a few family members who work there and it is much better than years past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 0905 hrs
The public insurance option is not subsidized
Uh-huh. And the Tooth Fairy is my aunt.
Who the Hell is going to 1) buy/lease the buildings and furniture; 2) purchase/lease the IT systems—software and hardware; 3) cough up the payroll (and BENEFITS) for the employees; 4) cover the losses in bad years?
In your ignorance, you forgot “capital.” Private companies have to raise it and pay interest or dividends on the amount raised.
Gummint, too, borrows to raise capital. But the people who PAY the INTEREST are called “taxpayers.”
Nice to note that Scott and RS are here; by their own testimony they are the only two in Owen’s nation with any intellectual firepower. All the rest of you dummies who can read plain English can rely on their interpretation of what is undoubtedly the worst-drafted piece of shit since Porkulus.
Trust them! THEY know all, see all, and will be happy to tell you all!!
Posted by dad29 on August 15, 2009 at 1016 hrs
OK I will call it a death counseling session in stead of a death panel. Does that sound better? Is it any different.
Do stop talking out of your ass.
Now: If you want to consult with your doctor about living wills and other similar issues, it’s billable.
Future: If you want to talk to your doctor about living wills and other issues, it’s billable.
THAT is what the bill provides for.
If you want to continue this fantasy that somehow health care reform bills are fostering euthanasia, fine. But you’re not talking about reality. You’re talking out of your ass.
Thanks to Sarah Palin and other crazy fucks in the Republican party, it’s no longer in there. Bravo.
It’s ridiculous to infer that somehow Medicare is providing medical care at a reasonable cost when they aren’t paying anything close to “market”.
The fuck it is. Medicare has done a better job controlling costs. Period. Yeah, they aren’t paying the same amount for services that private insurance pays. That’s called negotiating better and controlling costs better. Last time I checked, runaway health care costs was one of our most serious issues in our health care system. If Medicare can get these same services at a lower cost, then why the fuck aren’t you for that? Oh, it’s not the same service? It’s substandard? Then why are Medicare recipients more satisfied than their private sector counterparts?
We should ALL have insurance that gets the same care for lower costs. Stop whining about hospitals and doctors accepting a lower fee for their services. This is what we WANT. That IS controlling costs. We should ALL have this.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1101 hrs
Error. My previous comment should have read:
Now: If you want to talk to your doctor about living wills, etc. it’s may or may not be billable.
Future: If you want to talk to your doctor about living wills, etc., it IS billable.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1111 hrs
Scott - Please, don’t forget that the VA also passed off valid health complaints from returning Gulf veterans as nothing - only to have the veterans get worse over time. Talk about controlling costs - just ignore the ailment and don’t pay to help the soldier.
If that is what we can look forward to on Obama-care, I am not interested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1237 hrs
GOP backs away from end-of-life counseling
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 14, 6:00 pm ET
“WASHINGTON – Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare.
That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic “death panel” that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate. . . .
Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.
Supporters say the current House proposal just goes one step further by paying for the counseling, with the idea that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. The counseling is voluntary.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1248 hrs
Please, don’t forget that the VA also passed off valid health complaints from returning Gulf veterans as nothing - only to have the veterans get worse over time.
Rich2, please don’t forget that there was absolutely no evidence linking Gulf service to the myriad health complaints of returning veterans—until there was. And when there was, they got covered. Tragic, but hardly sinister.
And please also don’t forget which of our two major political parties consistently advocates better benefits and pay for our nation’s veterans. Why—I think it’s mine! All your party has done for servicemen and women recently is to give them stop-gap tours of duty in a war that turned out to be completely unnecessary. Way to do right by them.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1424 hrs
Scott your party- (liberal) may support health care for Veterns, but where is your parties support for when they are in combat? Ah, I’d venture to say non-exisitant. Seems to me they didn’t want to provide them with the proper equipment to protect themselves. Give me a b r e a k!
Also, the Conservatives are vastly more supportive of Veterns than the Left has ever been. That my friend is a fact.
Obama, just wants to say he passed health, but he has no clue as to what is in this bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1441 hrs
Duh…correction Veterans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Yeah, they aren’t paying the same amount for services that private insurance pays. That’s called negotiating better and controlling costs better
Actually, it’s not. It’s called “imposing the Government’s will” on providers—which is exactly what they do.
It’s also called “rationing.”
Posted by dad29 on August 15, 2009 at 1445 hrs
but where is your parties support for when they are in combat? Ah, I’d venture to say non-exisitant. Seems to me they didn’t want to provide them with the proper equipment to protect themselves.
Bullshit.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1448 hrs
It’s also called “rationing.”
it’s called getting a better price for services. Exactly what we all need.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1450 hrs
Scott,
I’d recommend an ECON 101 class for you. It will help explain free market…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1458 hrs
And I recommend kissing my ass.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1459 hrs
you know scott, you would sound so much more intelligent if you didn’t swear so much. I mean can’t you make an intelligent point without swearing? It really shows a lack of class and intelligence. It’s like I can’t make an intelligent arguement, so I’ll just yell and swear and that way people won’t realize how stupid I really am. Maybe, just maybe you will actually make an intelligent statement. I realize I may live in a fantasy world hoping for that, but I doubt it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1607 hrs
And I think it’s exactly the response the previous comment merited.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2009 at 1609 hrs
Scott, I know the truth hurts. It’s understandable that you’d feel angry. By all means, vent out your anger. It’s tough being duped by your own Democratic party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 1617 hrs
Scott, you may want to ask some servicemen and women about how their symptoms were ignored and they all had the same service history… Hardly no merit… Then when it was YEARS afterward, it is time to treat them (oh yeah, under G.W. Bush). That’s how gov’t run health care works.
You want to fix the system, try torte reform. Reduce the operating costs for doctors.
Also Scott, I must add that either by choice or by accident, you are a shining example of Owen’s original post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 2312 hrs
I have to give Scott credit for putting up a credible argument. He may get angry with the whole situation and it is understandable since he is basically out numbered here. It is hard to discuss this issue when you are constantly being attacked with misinformation.
I have followed the debate closely and most of the arguments you are throwing at Scott are made up to scare the public and you know it. This Sunday at church I hope you are forgiven for all the hate and lies you spew.
Kelly, you are the most uninformed and I am sure you will jump all over me for this but I have read very few of your posts that even resemble the truth. You have gone so far as to say that it was the Democrats that sent our troops to war with substandard equipment when all of that happened under Bush when both houses were controlled by Republicans. It wasn’t until the Democrats finally took the House that this was corrected. So Kelly, listen to Sarah Palin and “Stop making stuff up”.
For the record: Rush did not make it up, but of course that is what the left always says. I understand, you are just quoting the party line.
Posted by Kelly on August 15, 2009 at 0713 hrsKelly, Rush didn’t make it up, he only spun it so hard that now you think Obama wants to kill your grandma. I understand, you are only being a blithering dittohead.
Scott, I know the truth hurts. It’s understandable that you’d feel angry. By all means, vent out your anger. It’s tough being duped by your own Democratic party.
The people are watching and learning which party is trying to do something and which party is trying cause the other to fail even when the legislation may be good for the country. The Republicans are not learning that they were exposed during the last election and currently are proving to be everything and more that cost them the election. If they continue it will seal a filibuster proof majority and then there will be no need for debate at all. I hope you will be satisfied then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 2325 hrs
Also Scott, I must add that either by choice or by accident, you are a shining example of Owen’s original post.
Again I commend Scott for being a shining example of Owens original post.
More people need to see through the lies being circulated by the right wing extreme. I am not putting all of the posters in this boat but when you only quote the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly talking points then you are not getting both sides of the story. I watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX to hear all sides. I am always amazed by the fact that FOX calls itself news but never talks about anything but Obama. At least CNN provides a break from politics and reports real news too. I won’t say that about MSNBC though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2009 at 2333 hrs
Unfortunately, MoveForward, these “credible arguments” that Scott brings up have no real basis. People have debunked his VA theory. As for Medicare, yes, Medicare costs have gone up slower than private sector but that is because the private sector is being saddled with the extra cost. The hospitals have to increase costs on the private sector patients to make up for the lesser amount being paid by Medicare patients.
As for the news - lets be honest here… All the networks, most of the wire services and many of the newspapers lean way to the Democratic party and the Obama administration. Fox is the one outlet that conservatives and Republicans can go to get right leaning news. Both sides will and do spin. I think more people need to see through the lies being circulated by Obama and the left. Say what you will about Limbaugh and Hannity (I will not comment on Beck and O’Reilly - as they are ultra-fear mongers) but they at least bring up the points that the left does not want you to know, or at least hopes that you don’t find out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 0746 hrs
There are no greater fear mongerers and misinformation speaders than the people currently trying to take over my health care, MoveForward. From the the “47 million uninsured Americans” BS, to the economically ignorant “health care spending is going to break us all” BS, this whole argument is about nothing more than the desire of a group of people who consider themselves other people’s betters to impose their ignorance on everyone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 0815 hrs
MoveForward- First off if you’re going to slam someone make sure YOU have YOUR facts straight. I never said, “sent our troops to war with substandard equipment”. The Democrats are indeed anti-military. The liberals would rather spend money are art programs than fund the military.
Oh, I forgot the liberal media ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC never ever produce spin. Don’t make me laugh. At least Rush has the facts.
What we’ve learned from this past election my dear MoveForward, is that Obama’s “Hope and Change” is laughable. Obama has not done ONE thing that has made Americans better off. This is where you throw in a comment about Bush: ________________ <——old line…find a new one that works.
My family, my business along with my friends were FAR better off under Bush than we have been under Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 0853 hrs
I suppose I should not have suggested an Econ 101 for Scott. He is less interested in free market an more interested in a Marxist-style system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 0907 hrs
Just wanted to report some “facts” to MoveForward:
“There has always been a significant split among Congressional Democrats over how hard to push on Iraq. Some in the party, fueled by grassroots support, want Congress to simply stop funding the war entirely, believing that’s the only way to force an end to the war.
Other Democrats, including Hoyer, want to hasten an end to the war but believe a cut-off of funding would be disastrous for both the military and for the party’s standing with the public.
In 2007, Democrats tried to use various Iraq funding bills as the vehicles for their policy aims. It didn’t work. There were never enough Republican votes to move such measures through Congress or to override a presidential veto if a bill did get through. At the end of the year, Democrats held out so long on Iraq funding that they ended up submarining their entire appropriations strategy, and they lost the chance to get their desired domestic funding increases in the process.”
~Washington PostPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 0912 hrs
Also Scott, I must add that either by choice or by accident, you are a shining example of Owen’s original post.
To be fair, at least Owen has it half right. Pro-reform folks like myself are talking about the opposition. But what are the opposition folks talking about? Policy, as owen suggests? Not really. What they’re talking about are lies. Which of course prompts our side to point at them and say “liar!”
Did you guys see Newt talking up end of life counseling for Medicare on July 2, only to claim a few weeks later that it’s “death panels”? Heh. Suuuure, he’s being completely genuine on this issue.
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 1035 hrs
Scott,
What school do you work? When this health care reform takes place, I’ll need a place to work that does not use this crappy system….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1051 hrs
Well, I guess you can continue working wherever you currently work, assuming they currently offer health insurance benefits. Why would it be any different where I work?
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 1123 hrs
You need to do some research, Scott, if you don’t know the answer to that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1303 hrs
Did you guys see Newt talking up end of life counseling for Medicare on July 2, only to claim a few weeks later that it’s “death panels”? Heh. Suuuure, he’s being completely genuine on this issue.
Rationing and end of life counseling equals death panels. I’m more than comfortable with this analysis. I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1311 hrs
Kelly actually said:
Seems to me they didn’t want to provide them with the proper equipment to protect themselves.
I don’t want to mince words but it sounded to me like you were blaming the Democrats for the “lack of proper equipment”. Once again Kelly, Republicans controlled the whole government at that time.
What we’ve learned from this past election my dear MoveForward, is that Obama’s “Hope and Change” is laughable. Obama has not done ONE thing that has made Americans better off. This is where you throw in a comment about Bush: ________________ <——old line…find a new one that works.
My family, my business along with my friends were FAR better off under Bush than we have been under Obama.When things straighten out, and they will, are going to give the credit to Obama whether he deserves it or not? The economy goes in cycles and the last year is only different because of its severity. I will not blame Bush because he was basically a lame duck since the 2006 elections. He could have done like Sarah palin and just quit because he had run out of usefulness.
I don’t, however, think that it can all be blamed on Obama either as he has been in office only 7months. Why don’t you start to think for yourself and stop being a dittohead. You worship the almighty Rush far more than anyone is worshipping Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1336 hrs
You need to do some research, Scott, if you don’t know the answer to that.
And I suggest you either explain what you mean or STFU.
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 1415 hrs
I mean your question is grounded in such ignorance as to suggest no knowledge with regard to the primary candidates for the govt rationed plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Speaking of ignorance, smeety, are you aware of what Newt had to say back on July 2nd of this year about end of life counseling? He was so enamored of it that he wanted it to become a part of Medicare. Wonder why he’s saying a different thing now. Could it possibly be that his “concern” is entirely manufactured? I think that’s the most likely possibility. Thoughts?
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 1918 hrs
Thoughts? Can you provide the quotes and sources?
My thoughts are that if Newt suggested death panels for medicare it is wrong…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1924 hrs
Here he is, praising end of life counseling and suggesting that Medicare should do likewise.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html
So your position is that six weeks ago he was for death panels, but has since seen the light and is now against them? I’m sorry, that just strains credulity.
As I said, the far more likely scenario is that he knows full well its’ a sensible idea but he’s now feigning outrage and concern because it’s politically expedient in his effort to stymie health care reform.
Duh.
And it also has to be said: Anyone who seriously believes that having Medicare—or any other government health insurance plan—pay for end of life consultations with one’s own doctor is somehow sinister and will lead to euthanizing seniors is off his frickin’ rocker.
Let’s have a show of hands. Who’s nuts? At the very least we know Newt isn’t. He’s just a liar.
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 1932 hrs
More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care.
Patients and families, not government death boards.
Scott, please deposit quarter and try again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 1939 hrs
Okay, I see we have one hand raised high. Are there any others?
Or perhaps there’s someone on the right who’d like to speak up and tell his fellows to stop acting like idiots?
Posted by scott on August 16, 2009 at 2055 hrs
Or maybe Scott can present facts instead of wacked out Marxist opinions…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 2100 hrs
Death Panel? My insurance company has one already. Otherwise, how would they make a profit if they didn’t know where to cut and where to invest. It’s not Logan’s Run in our capitalist world. It’s planned profit:
Does your boss want you dead? - MSN Money
Right now, your company could have a life insurance policy on you that ... Wal-Mart alone had taken out about 350000 such policies between 1993 and 1996. Nestle USA had policies on 18000 workers in 2002…
moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.aspThis story was widely reported.
By the way, I’m considering taking out a life insurance policy on Smeety and a few obese people in the community. I may have to jump through some hoops, but it’s perfectly legal, and simply sound, grim, predatory, vulture-like investing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 2243 hrs
IF Obama does anything right I will acknowledge it…unlike the lefties to the GOP. It’s been 7 months and I still have not seen ONE thing. Telepromtors, calling police “stupid”, raising taxes, government run health care of which he hasn’t read, hiring tax evaders, supporting a racist male-hater for Supreme Court,Air Force One flying over NYC, Beer Summit, Joe Biden, mud-slinging Joe the Plumber, Rev. Wright, etc. . Oh, you know what..he has done one thing right….he’s kept Gitmo. There..you see I can do it.
Typical liberal name calling….I don’t believe I ever stated I worshiped Rush, but pointed out how he was right about Obama (see link in post #43). Feel free to keep name calling, but I haven’t seen you prove Rush wrong.
The Dems don’t want to fund the war…they’d rather pull out. They just don’t want to been known as the people who don’t support our service men and women.
You go ahead and support Obama…while we experience the highest unemployment in a long long time. What was it 3% under Bush and 14% under Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2009 at 2248 hrs
From moveforward:
The people are watching and learning which party is trying to do something and which party is trying cause the other to fail even when the legislation may be good for the country. The Republicans are not learning that they were exposed during the last election and currently are proving to be everything and more that cost them the election. If they continue it will seal a filibuster proof majority and then there will be no need for debate at all. I hope you will be satisfied then.
I don’t want to mince words but it sounded to me like you were blaming the Democrats for the “lack of proper equipment”. Once again Kelly, Republicans controlled the whole government at that time.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Anyone else note the blatant inconsistency? What matter the ‘lies’ of the Republicans here? Do not Democrats control everything right now? Oh wait, you mean the party not in power can have an effect on issues even though they are not in power? That is typical partisanhood. ‘This cake looks good, let us eat it too!’
From Scott:
The fuck it is. Medicare has done a better job controlling costs. Period. Yeah, they aren’t paying the same amount for services that private insurance pays. That’s called negotiating better and controlling costs better. Last time I checked, runaway health care costs was one of our most serious issues in our health care system. If Medicare can get these same services at a lower cost, then why the fuck aren’t you for that? Oh, it’s not the same service? It’s substandard? Then why are Medicare recipients more satisfied than their private sector counterparts?
Are you simple or is your partisan armor so thick that nothing can penetrate? Currently the market corrects for the required price by Government for medicare by raising your and my coverage.(There is no negotiation, negotiation infers each side has some control. The Government mandates) If the majority joins the minority (People on private insurance join the people with public insurance), there will be no one to absorb those extra costs. The only result of this possible is that roughly 75% less money will go into the medical field if the Government decrees all fees will be 25% of the current private fee. 75% less money to pay doctors, nurses, related fields like X-ray and anesthesia technicians, staff, research, etc. 75% less money for newly developed equipment and new developing procedures. How would you be doing with a 75% pay cut?
Medicare has done a better job of controlling costs? Period? Do you take acid, because that is one heck of a fantasy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0811 hrs
You seem to be suggesting that medical services cost a certain fixed amount and that it’s not really possible to pay less for them. The price is X, Medicare pays X-1, and privately insured therefore must pay X+1 as a result.
What I don’t understand, however, is how all these other nations of the world get away with paying less. How does that work? Or are privately insured Americans paying their unpaid share, too? Or perhaps you contend that they are getting only half the services we get—because they do only pay half the price.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 0851 hrs
The problem supporters have of health care reform is that their side has been made more complex because they have had to steer around single payer, which BTW has the support of a majority of Americans.
Why can’t we have single payer and now perhaps the public option because our dysfunctional campaign financing system. We’re all paying for it whether you know it or not, certainly in the case of health care.
You may luv your health care insurance, but it’s killing you softly. Right now you probably not seeing raises because your health insurance wants a another annual double digit increase.
Or, like a tumor waiting to grow, your insurance might refuse to cover a procedure or have a cap on payout. Or you lose your job.
All costs one way or another.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0855 hrs
single payer, which BTW has the support of a majority of Americans.
I would love to see single-payer here in the United States. But I wonder if it’s just one of those things which is fundamentally incompatible with American sensibilities—like gun bans and such. Fortunately, single-payer isn’t required to make a much better system than the one we have now.
Right now you probably not seeing raises because your health insurance wants a another annual double digit increase.
That is so true. I bet health care increases are the main reason American workers have seen such little increases in cash wages over the last decade in spite of great gains in productivity.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 0906 hrs
A few questions for you single payer people or public option people:
1. Would you support doctors forming a union that could strike, by speciality group?
2. Would you support doctors opting out and taking cash, or in the case of public option, opting out?
3. Where are all the new doctors going to come from to support the influx of new patients? There is a shortage of PCP doctors right now and it is projected to get worse, and there is nothing in the bill that addresses this. Also, many doctors are projected to retire in the next 5-10 years, many sooner if the Democrats plan becomes law, what is the plan for this? How about the baby boomers reaching medicare age?
5. Would you support a single payer systems for lawyers, photographers, teachers, why dont we have the government dictate the pay for everyone. Medicare/and Medicaid, mandate reimbursements, they do not negoiate at all.In many areas of the country, if PCP doctors only took medicare/medicaid patients, they would not be able to stay in business, due to the low reimbusement rates. In many cases, the reimbusement rate is below cost. The whole medicare system needs to be reexamined and reimbursement need to reflect the true costs. The government know they do not have to pay market rates or even a step below, because, it knows that private insurance has higher than normal reimbursements to make up the difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0914 hrs
I have worked in the trenches in health care, both as a provider (nurse) and in administrator. For people like Scott, Moveforward, especially Scott, you have no idea, what the FU** what you are talking about. I thought I would use language that you can understand , since you like to swear all the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0919 hrs
I did oversimplify to make the point. Yes, there could be much to save in making the whole system more efficient. I hardly think there is 75% to be found, though unless some fundamental changes in the way Americans think are to happen. The bill in Congress addresses few efficiencies and the only thought process change is that everyone should be covered up front, no matter what.
Other systems world-wide work less expensively through a number of ways:
All Government health care world-wide have reprogrammed the populace to believe that suing a medical facility/doctor is for mere failure is not acceptable. In the states it is expected.
Most Government run programs have very little in the way of research and development. Producing a generic equivalent really does cost 25% of the patented pill. Building a new piece of equipment does cost 50% or less than the originally patented piece of equipment, at least until the development costs are paid for.
Most Government run programs have one fiftieth (a guess, true, but probably in the ballpark) of the number of laws, rules, and regulations currently in the US to check potential current private practices. While many are necessary and logical checks, many more were made to favor some special interest, such as the AMA or trial lawyers.Single payer does have some efficiencies built in and it can be less expensive, just as it has drawbacks. The money not set aside for research and development is a major savings, as is the alleviated need for suit and suit protection.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0924 hrs
The whole medicare system needs to be reexamined and reimbursement need to reflect the true costs.
That’s genius! What we really need is for Medicare to more closely match the costs of the private sector, not the other way around!
Regarding items 1 and 2, what are you getting at? Do you suppose that other nations all have this problem because it’s the inescapable nature of having more government involvement in health care? If so, I’d like to see the data on their plight. If not… well, if not, then why are you asking?
You have an interesting point about primary care physicians. I’d like to see them make more money—at the expense of specialists. You’re sure that isn’t part of the reform package? To increase compensation for them in Medicare in the public option? If it isn’t, it should be.
Would you support a single payer systems for lawyers, photographers,
Sure. Just as soon as everyone needs to buy insurance to pay for those services.
And by the way, don’t we have a single-payer system for teachers?
Seems to me that in order to justify a single-payer insurance compensation scheme, the services have to be critically important and/or potentially unaffordable without risk-sharing.
Let me ask you something: do you support single-payer systems for firefighters and police officers? Do you want the government dictating their pay? Or would you rather we let the market decide?
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 0929 hrs
Wow, after reading all of that my head hurts. Scott needs to actually read the bill he is defending. And take up Smeety’s suggestion.
I do think we are spinning some things a bit far, but that is the nature of this type of discourse. Will there be “death panels”? No, but there will be people who decide what we will pay for…there are now, that has to exist. However in a free market, the consumer has some impact on those decisions, and options. Under single payer, we will be stuck with our government, (which has zero incentive to be run efficiently, and actually some perverse incentives to do just the opposite) making all of those decisions for us. If you have faith in government employees having a huge say in your health, then single payer is for you.
If there is a government option, it will by nature replace all of the others. Insurers, while more efficient, and better run, can’t compete with someone that is subsidized by taxes, and can unilaterally set payments and rules.
Change a few rules regarding preexisting conditions, and there is very little wrong with our current system.
All this bill does is let government control one more aspect of our lives. This country was set up to limit the powers and responsibilities of our government. The creep to a more invasive government, only increases corruption, and has been the cause of a slow erosion of our freedoms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 0944 hrs
5. Would you support a single payer systems for lawyers, photographers, teachers, why dont we have the government dictate the pay for everyone. Medicare/and Medicaid, mandate reimbursements, they do not negoiate at all. -William
Outstanding question! I wonder how WEAC would think if this went through?
The fact is that is what Obama wants. I believe that he wants to control every part of American lives. From how much they make to their jobs, the cars they drive, what schools they attend, what they throw in their garbage, their religion or lack there of and so on. It’s called socialism and I don’t any part of it…not a public option not a single payer nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Scott needs to actually read the bill he is defending.
Oh, for goodness sake. None of you have “read the bill.” It exists in several different versions, is in constant flux and is a thousand pages of legalese—which none of us here have a hope in hell of understanding with regard to current health care law. And last time your side was saying “read the bill!” it was accompanied by the “analysis” of someone who supposedly had—all of which turned out to be lies.
However in a free market, the consumer has some impact on those decisions
The remarks following this statement are rational and interesting. I just don’t think they represent the reality of health care today. If it were true that the private sector does such a good job at being efficient, then why are we all paying double-digit increases in our health insurance and still risking being dropped or having coverage rescinded? And why is the market not accommodating millions who can’t afford insurance? And if government is so inefficient, then why do other countries pay so much less than we do with so much more government involvement? And why are they so satisfied with their care? And why are their health outcomes comparable to our own?
Like I said, it all sounds very sensible—but it isn’t reality.
Insurers, while more efficient, and better run, can’t compete with someone that is subsidized by taxes, and can unilaterally set payments and rules.
As far as I can tell, the public option would not be subsidized (at least not in the long term). I’m perfectly prepared to be proven wrong about this, though. Can someone really and actually show where the current reform proposals are unfairly subsidizing the public option?
And I for one want someone to start exerting pressure on providers to lower their prices. Controlling costs is among our top concerns, after all.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1011 hrs
Outstanding question!
And I think I gave a fairly decent answer in comment 97.
I believe that he wants to control every part of American lives.
Dude, you’re way paranoid.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1014 hrs
As far as I can tell, the public option would not be subsidized (at least not in the long term).
Yes, I heard Obama has a farm full of money trees to pay for this.
Of course it will be subsidized, just like medicare is subsidized by everyone with a job and still going bankrupt…
Econ 101 is a wonderful thing, Scott…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1022 hrs
So basically, no. You can’t show where in the bill that the public option is being unfairly subsidized.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Here’s some info from the Levin Group:
“In April, the Lewin Group, a health care consultancy, issued an analysis of how the public health insurance option plan might affect the provision of private health insurance. Currently about 170 million Americans are covered by private health insurance plans, mostly through their employers.
The Lewin Group crunched the numbers through their health care model and found that premiums for the public option plan would be 30 to 40 percent lower than private plans. Sounds great, right? But these lower premiums are essentially achieved by imposing price controls. The Lewin Group assumed that the public option plan will pay doctors and hospitals at the same rates they currently receive from Medicare. And Medicare reimbursements already run 71 percent and 81 percent below what private health plans pay hospitals and doctors, respectively.
First, the somewhat good news. Lower public option premiums and an increase in Medicaid coverage would attract 28 million of the 48 million Americans who currently are not covered by health insurance. Now the bad news. The lower premiums would encourage employers to drop private health insurance and put their employees into the public plan. Overall, the Lewin Group estimates that if Medicare reimbursement rates are imposed, the number of Americans with private health insurance would decline by almost 120 million, leaving only 50 million Americans in the private insurance market.Defenders of the public option quickly point out that Kennedy’s American Health Choices Act promises to pay health care providers 10 percent more than Medicare. But as the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner noted at Cato@Liberty, “When Medicare began, proponents promised it would reimburse at the same rate as insurance. That promise didn’t last long.” In fact, in his letter to Kennedy and Baucus, Obama explicitly endorsed the idea of setting mandatory physician and hospital reimbursement rates through the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. In other words, the payments would no longer be merely advisory.
The Lewin Group looked at another scenario similar to the Kennedy proposal, where the public option plan reimbursements to doctors and hospitals were set at the midpoint between Medicare and private plans. In that scenario, the number of Americans covered by private insurance would only drop by 67 million, instead of 120 million. Today, the number of Americans covered by Medicaid is 51 million, with another 45 million covered by Medicare, and 5 million covered by SCHIP. In addition, the Lewin Group estimates that an additional 10 million more would be covered by Medicaid under the Kennedy proposal. So the grand total of Americans likely to be initially covered by government health insurance once the public option is launched would come to 177 million out of 306 million, leaving 103 million privately insured and 20 million still uninsured.
The best result of creating a parallel public insurance scheme is that the United States would end up with an explicit two-tier medical system in which privately insured Americans have better access to better medical care. Such two-tier health care systems already exist in countries with national health care schemes such as the United Kingdom and Germany. In the United Kingdom, more and more Britons are opting for private health insurance instead of remaining with that country’s National Health Service. Privately insured Americans would get higher quality health care, but because the market for medical innovation would be smaller, everybody will get worse care than they would otherwise have received had most health care not been nationalized.
The worst case scenario is that the public option plan would eventually absorb what remains of the private health care system. This could happen as the political constituency for private health care and insurance shrinks while more and more Americans become covered by government insurance. In addition, it will be hard for politicians to resist forcing wealthier patients to join the government plan as a way to make up for eventual shortfalls in revenues.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1038 hrs
So basically, no. You can’t show where in the bill that the public option is being unfairly subsidized.
I told you, it was Obama’s magic money trees….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1053 hrs
As far as I can tell, the public option would not be subsidized (at least not in the long term). I’m perfectly prepared to be proven wrong about this, though. Can someone really and actually show where the current reform proposals are unfairly subsidizing the public option?
So basically, no. You can’t show where in the bill that the public option is being unfairly subsidized.
Be a lttle more consistent, Scott. You have not read the bill, but you expect that we have? And you would trust anyone who you has been at odds with in this blog with the interpretation?
In the absence of the word ‘subsidy’ in the text of the bill, you still have to be able to answer reasonable questions or acknowledge the point that the bill is an official subsidy in place of the current unoffical subsidy.
Reasonable question: If everyone is mandated to have insurance, but they choose a public option and pay for it through a deduction from their ‘income’, how are the rest of the taxpayers not paying for the insurance of every unemployed person in the US? I would have to insist on the interpretation that a deduction from one’s unemployment check is still a subsidy. I believe that the literally millions of people who do not choose any plan will still get coverage just like now, at everyone else’s expense. Again, a subsidy. There will still be hundreds of thousands of illegals that do not pay income tax now, because they do not want to be ‘in the system’. Few in this situation, I think, will step forward to pay income tax so they can sign up for insurance. They will not step forward until they are about to lose their foot and need some sort of medical care. Will violators be prosecuted or denied care? is there any proviso in the bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1054 hrs
Oh, this Lewin Group?
Honestly I hate to come back at you with the old “i don’t trust your numbers/experts,” but sometimes a spade really is a spade.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1055 hrs
And if government is so inefficient, then why do other countries pay so much less than we do with so much more government involvement?
Rationing…
And why are they so satisfied with their care?
They are not satisfied with their rationed care. Maybe in your make believe world they are satisfied. Not in the real world.
And why are their health outcomes comparable to our own?
Do you have numbers, maybe wait times, to back up your point?
I didn’t think so.
Don’t worry Scott, no one is expecting facts and numbers out of you anymore, just Marxist puke…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1101 hrs
Rationing…
I don’t know what you guys mean by rationing. Because clearly you mean something we don’t have. And as far as I can tell, all health care systems “ration” in some fashion or another. Our system just happens to be a grossly unjust and inefficient form of rationing.
They are not satisfied with their rationed care.
Just googling for links to data that I’ve been seeing pretty consistently for years as I’ve followed this issue. These come up pretty quickly.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/are_patients_in_universal_heal.php
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=7
Do you have numbers, maybe wait times, to back up your point? I didn’t think so.
I think that’s addressed in the first link, if you scroll down for it.
Scott, no one is expecting facts and numbers out of you anymore, just Marxist puke…
Stop being such an asshole. Jesus.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1118 hrs
I guess the Lewin Group was okay when the Wisconsin Democrats were championing “Healthy Wisconsin”,.
You do NEED health insurance, one chooses to buy it. I do not know what William thinks, but I think that the market should decide what individuals get paid, not the government.
I notice Scott did not answer the question about letting doctors unionize, but it it is fine for them to be paid by a single payer.
Teachers are not under a single payer system. They are paid by whatever school district that they are in. Their pay is not dictated to by a federal government panel. A teacher is free to work at a public or private school and can move to a different district.
I am no Obama fan, he seems to think that surgeons make $30-40K on taking off someone’s foot, what a moronic statement, and the left thought GWB was stupid. You take the teleprompter away from him, look what happens. Anyway, I do not call him advocating paying healthcare providers medicare rates, he is advocating paying them based on outcomes like they do at the Mayo Clinic and at the Cleveland Clinic.
Most democrats in the health bill process want the public option to have negoiated rates with providers. This is different than medicare. If the fees are negoiated at arms length than I think that private insurance can compete with the public option. There would have to be other constraints on the Public option to not give it an unfair advantage, but I think it can work. I just do not trust the govenment to do this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1129 hrs
I’m not siding for or against the Lewin Group, but thought I’d post it.
All I want is the government to stay out of my health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1153 hrs
Scott,
Rationing is what happens when demand critically outweighs supply.
Please see health care in Europe or Canada for examples.
ECON101
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1243 hrs
Still waiting for any kinds of facts from Scott
And I’m waiting for you to pull your head out of your butt. See my last comment, genius.
Rationing is what happens when demand critically outweighs supply.
Rationing is what happens when any good isn’t freely available in the quantity anyone could want—that is to say, any economic good whatsoever. Price rationing is when the supply and demand of the marketplace determine each person’s portion of the scarce good. Non-price rationing is when we elect to use other criteria to determine who gets what. I just happen to believe that health care shouldn’t be rationed on supply and demand alone. It’s unjust, it’s inefficient and it’s a case where market forces do not serve the public interest very well.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1333 hrs
Rationing is what happens when any good isn’t freely available in the quantity anyone could want—that is to say, any economic good whatsoever. Price rationing is when the supply and demand of the marketplace determine each person’s portion of the scarce good. Non-price rationing is when we elect to use other criteria to determine who gets what. I just happen to believe that health care shouldn’t be rationed on supply and demand alone. It’s unjust, it’s inefficient and it’s a case where market forces do not serve the public interest very well.
Unjust? Maybe at the whims of those in power?
If the supply greatly exceeds the demand, then one section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The existence of the worker is, therefore, reduced to the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and he is lucky if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the worker’s life depends is regulated by the whims of the wealthy and the capitalists.
- Karl MarxPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1345 hrs
No, actually. Price rationing will occur to an even greater degree when you also introduce non-price rationing into the equation in the form of cost controls. That it will manifest itself as reduced supply does not alter the effect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1402 hrs
Unjust?
Yes, unjust. As in “not according to what is right and fair.” I myself don’t believe good health care should be a commodity sold to the highest bidder while some at the bottom get little or none. After all, foremost among those inalienable rights we hold so dear is “life.”
Comprehensive health insurance should be the right of every American, no matter his or her life circumstances. Period. If the wealthy among us wish to spend more out of their own pockets for, say, private hospital rooms and such, good for them. But nobody should go without regular preventative care, care for chronic conditions, and thorough and modern treatment of disease and injury. Part of me is still surprised that there are among us those who disagree with this notion. It is an embarrassment that here, in the wealthiest nation on earth, we cannot devise a system whereby all our citizens can be assured of good medical care. Especially when so many others seem to be doing it reasonably well.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1402 hrs
Y’know, after one of these long threads where you continually answer only the least reasonable arguments and exchange insults with the writers, I find myself leaning away from such high-minded notions when they are presented by you.
I start thinking of the bulk of the people who are uninsured(before the massive layoffs of the last 10 months). People who choose to risk it to save money, illegals who have not paid their dues to join this country, people whose primary job is drug dealing or theft/crime who only show up on the radar because they have filed for unemployment and food stamps…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1414 hrs
you continually answer only the least reasonable arguments
You know what? I think you have a point there. I really should try not to do that. It’s just that the most unreasonable arguments are, well, the most unreasonable and put me in smackdown mode. I shall try to refrain enough to engage some of the more thoughtful points in the future.
One thing makes it especially hard, though, is that so many prominent Republicans and conservative media personalities have made such a huge effort to disseminate lies and distortions—the most unreasonable arguments, if you will—over the last few weeks.
This isn’t Bill Moyers debating Bill Buckley. This is say-anything-to-win, eye-gouging politics. Sometimes you have to fight fire with punches in the face.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1427 hrs
That is the political side. Ignore it when you can. I have been ignoring both sides of the spin for years to the best of my ability(I can’t always restrain myself either). The eye-gouging really is not much worse than the dirt heaped by Democrats on the war issue during the Bush years. It is a political reality today and it is constantly reinforced at every outlet. It will not go away until a majority of people stop listening to it and spewing it. Same with the shout downs by Democrat employees/volunteers in the last 9 years. It worked pretty well because Republicans are employing the tactic now. Of course, that is a tactic that is older than US politics, but it sure sucks if you want to be heard.
I dunno, I just get sick of it. As I believe I have already said, who the hell cares what Newt and other ‘prominent Republicans’ said recently? They are not in power now. The only way some health bill does not get passed is if Democrats don’t pass it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1454 hrs
It will not go away until a majority of people stop listening to it and spewing it.
Believe it or not, this is one of the primary reasons why I have not watched TV in my home in several years.
who the hell cares what Newt and other ‘prominent Republicans’ said recently? They are not in power now. The only way some health bill does not get passed is if Democrats don’t pass it.
Well, some are still elected members of congress. It is only their caucuses steadfast disapproval whicih makes the “blue dog” Democrat’s skepticism relevant. Works both ways.
At least the Republicans have valid political reasons for nay-saying. The blue dogs seem to be doing it for their own careers, which is worse.
Anyway, I’m tired of arguing. I’m not exactly in the mood for a group hug yet, but i’ll buy you a shot and a beer—anyplace downtown Waukesha (and there are a few cool places to choose from).
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1459 hrs
Do you not realize that their a good portion of those who do not have insurance that choose not to have it. Trust me, I can name 10 people right now that I know who personally choose not to get health insurance. They don’t WANT to pay for it, not that they can’t pay for it.
At work we used to offer insurance, but a good number did not want to pay the deductible so they took Badger Care instead.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more effective to cover those folks who are in between jobs and don’t have insurance…call it gap insurance.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1510 hrs
They don’t WANT to pay for it, not that they can’t pay for it.
They choose not to pay the US market’s exorbitant prices for it because they think they can win the gamble. They’re young and healthy and want to risk it. Unfortunately we all end up paying the price for it.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more effective to cover those folks who are in between jobs and don’t have insurance…call it gap insurance.
What will that do for the problem of people who can’t get it in the first place because of preexisting conditions, or who have their coverage reneged on because of rescission? And what will it do to reduce cost?
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1526 hrs
My opinion on health care, without partisanship (hopefully), is that there could be massive amounts of reforms that would do tremendous good that aren’t being suggested. Tort reform, more ‘drive thru’ type services, two examples.
Health care is absolutely not a right and is only promoted as such by a small minority of idealists that either don’t know how to pay for it or want to pay for it with my money.
I believe we could, thru technology, eventually make health care affordable for everyone who is able and works. I believe the answer to this is thru the free market. I also believe this could be closer than people realize. I’d be all for subsidizing Physician’s Assistants.
I believe that if you are able and don’t work, you do not deserve health care. If you are not a U.S. citizen you do not deserve free health care paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
I also believe the pre-existing conditions situation is a huge problem.
There is my no-nonsense response. I have an idea I may follow thru on my blog…. we’ll see…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1534 hrs
a small minority of idealists that either don’t know how to pay for it or want to pay for it with my money.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is the in-your-face example of, well, just about every other civilized nation you can think of. They all provide universal health insurance in one fashion or another and yet the all pay a hell of a lot less than we do. Less, as I have pointed out in these discussions many times, is not more. I don’t for a minute believe the charges that they’re getting substandard service as a result of this lower price tag. There’s plenty of empirical data to suggest otherwise, as well as the level of satisfaction from the people themselves.
I believe the answer to this is thru the free market.
And yet you can’t find a single example of any nation providing universal, affordable, comprehensive health insurance to all it’s people based on this principle. Not one. Yet you believe in it still, while eschewing all the examples of how it is done, presumably because it isn’t pleasing to you ideologically.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1548 hrs
So Smeety what about the children of those who are able and don’t work- do they not deserve health care either? And if the non-working parent gets cancer, we should just let them die?
I think the preexisting condition is a huge problem too- I know of families who were driven almost to bankruptcy b/c of it. One family who owned a small business but could no longer afford the health insurance for their family b/c of a child with a heart condition, so he fortunately found a much lower paying job with a large company that covered insurance and had to let his business go. Many people who have a family owned business are one disease away from potential bankruptcy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1601 hrs
Scott…they did not want to pay the deductible. Not an enormus one either. I know it’s hard to believe, but there are a good number of people who choose not to pay for coverage no matter how small.
just about every other civilized nation you can think of. They all provide universal health insurance in one fashion or another and yet the all pay a hell of a lot less than we do. -Scott
HI have family that lives in Germany and their taxes are outrageous! $3,000 just for a teen to get a drivers license…not to mention your average taxes. This is socialism….bottom line. I work hard, I save my money, I buy my insurance no matter how much it is and yet YOU want ME to pay for people who a.) choose not to pay for coverage or b.) sit on their behinds and not work
How about all those lines and poor quality of health care that we’d be paying through the nose for. Sorry, it’s my life and the life of my family…let me choose, not the governement. It’s way too risky to let the government medal…we are people not an experiment.
I’d rather cover those people who want coverage, but are in between jobs rathering than cover those who don’t want to be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1614 hrs
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is the in-your-face example of, well, just about every other civilized nation you can think of. They all provide universal health insurance in one fashion or another and yet the all pay a hell of a lot less than we do.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is the in-your-face example of, well, every other civilized nation’s socialized health care sucks.
What are the numbers of current socialized health care of other countries and our own medicare? Every paycheck I see medicare tax taken for coverage I do not receive or won’t receive for thirty years, I tend to disagree it’s cheaper.
And yet you can’t find a single example of any nation providing universal, affordable, comprehensive health insurance to all it’s people based on this principle.
My current health insurance rocks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1617 hrs
Currently children can get coverage. They will not be turned away from a hospital.
Perhaps instead of changing our health care to a government run systems the government should give out low interest loans to families who are on the verge of bankruptcy. The could then pay back in small increments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 1617 hrs
I have family that lives in Germany and their taxes are outrageous
“Their taxes” are the result of a whole host of decisions about spending, social and otherwise, besides health care. Get this through your head: they. pay LESS than we do for health care. And less is NOT MORE. Why do you insist on not understanding these two words?!
YOU want ME to pay for people who [...] sit on their behinds and not work
Typical of the American conservative. Too fired up inside about sin and it’s punishment to actually think about what is humane, fair and pragmatic. The only thing that matters is that the Good People are rewarded and the Bad People suffer the consequences of their behavior. Frickin’ typical.
How about all those lines and poor quality of health care
Again, I draw your attention to the many examples of health care provided by government funding that satisfies its patients, gets high marks from the WHO—both inside and outside the United States.
that we’d be paying through the nose for.
They. pay. LESS—NOT MORE!
Currently children can get coverage. They will not be turned away from a hospital.
[...] the government should give out low interest loans to families who are on the verge of bankruptcy. The could then pay back in small increments
This entire comment stands as a grim testament to the callous heartlessness of American conservatism today. Jesus H. Christ. Children can’t get turned away from hospital emergency rooms? Low interest loans that they could pay back in small increments? Un. Be. Lieveable.
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 1629 hrs
They. pay. LESS—NOT MORE!
Enlighten. Us. How.
You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 2021 hrs
Actually what I’m full of is indignation at the fact that some of us here still don’t grasp the most basic facts of the situation.
Here. Health care expenditures as both per capita and share of GDP of all OECD nations. You’ll be able to identify the United States right away. It’s the bar in the graph that’s twice as long as the others.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
I mean, really? We’ve come back to zero now? I’m being challenged to demonstrate how the free market United States could possibly pay more than all those socialist hell holes?
Posted by scott on August 17, 2009 at 2054 hrs
It’s funny, because most of the coverage on television has supported BO’s policies. And despite it all, the majority of Americans are opposing this reform.
In terms of being cost neutral, I think the Congressional Budget Office should be considered at worst, neutral. What’s they’re take? Budget deficits to the tune of $1.2 trillion over the next decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html
So much for bending the cost curve.
The only bending really being done here is to taxpayers, by the used car salesmen tactics of those in control. The harder they push, the more suspicious people become, and with good reason. The stimulus has failed to do anything except further burden taxpayers.
I won’t even go into the takeover of the auto industry, banking industry and insurance. So when an earlier post was called paranoid for thinking BO wanted to control all aspects, I guess there’s no basis for that, huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 2104 hrs
Scott,
That’s not what I asked; however it is good to know what it costs to not have rationed health care.
Please deposit quarter and try again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 2114 hrs
If Dick Armey is any indication of the Republican position on this then Rachel Maddow is on to something.
MS. MADDOW: This is an—I mean, you said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”
REP. ARMEY: Right. Absolutely right.
MS. MADDOW: You said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”
REP. ARMEY: And I’m going to enumerate exactly what I’m talking about. Medicare…
MS. MADDOW: Americans need to know this is your position and this is the position of the anti-healthcare reform lobby.
So all plans that might help our fellow citizens in time of need are to be done away with.
How long ago was the solution to the problem with Social Secuity to privitize it?
So yes to Owen’s initial quesiton: We do, on the left, look closely at the messanger from the right and discount them when they are filtered through such backward thinking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 2146 hrs
Too fired up inside about sin and it’s punishment to actually think about what is humane, fair and pragmatic. -Scott
You what’s humane is…giving to needy families, helping those who help themselves,donating to charities, giving of your time. What’s fair is we all pay the same in taxes, we all work for what we have. What’s not pragmatic is paying for those who choose not to pay for coverage is not pragmatic…it’s dumb.
Please…you don’t have a clue as to what is going on in Germany. Taxes are high for many reasons and one of them is health care.
If the Democrats think this is such a good idea (which is is not), they control both the House, the Senate and the White House…pass it. The Republicans have no control over their vote. The fact remains that people on both sides, young and old see the failures in this plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2009 at 2217 hrs
Dick Armey does not necessarily represent the majority of coservatives, but with that said… if I had the ability to ‘opt out’ of social security and medicare, I gladly would.
Something does not pass the smell test from the data regarding cost per capita for health care coverage. I have excellent health care coverage, per my employer in the top 20 percentile (confirmed). Cost is significantly less than $21,000 (me, wife, daughter), like half… I’d like to see what the median numbers are as they probably shed some light regarding cost. Ironically it’s the teachers and gov’t employees which have better health care than my family.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0014 hrs
giving to needy families, helping those who help themselves,donating to charities, giving of your time. What’s fair is we all pay the same in taxes, we all work for what we have.
Why would you give to them and then try to make them pay it pack with a low interest loan? Do you give loans to your church and expect something in return (with interest)? Maybe we can have a bake sale for the child of poor parents and make him pay it back by washing cars at the grocery store on the weekends for the rest of his life.
Please…you don’t have a clue as to what is going on in Germany. Taxes are high for many reasons and one of them is health care.
Germans don’t pay for health insurance premiums. They are happy and healthy. They have money left for lots of beer.
If the Democrats think this is such a good idea (which is is not), they control both the House, the Senate and the White House…pass it.
Yes they should. They should pass the single payer version which is the only fair version for everyone, including you even though you won’t see it. Everyone should pay their share.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0020 hrs
Please…you don’t have a clue as to what is going on in Germany. Taxes are high for many reasons and one of them is health care.
Of course what you all fail to recognize is that we already have a tax, which is the roughly $12,700 (http://tinyurl.com/nzc2n) per family that we pay in health insurance premiums, either directly or in wages we could have seen through our employers. The average German family does not pay an additional $12,700 in taxes.
But of course all of this frantic time Kelly has spent on this topic is well worth it, because she gets to stand up for white guys in suits who are screwing her blue. Arguing against your self-interest is, well, psycho.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0556 hrs
Oh don’t make me laugh. You know I can always tell when I hit a nerve with liberals, it’s usally at the point when they start name-calling like a 5 year old. May I suggest growing up.
If you don’t think that the taxes in Germany don’t help pay for health care you are kidding yourself. How do you think the German government pays for 10 months of materity leave? Call it a “contribution rate”, but it’s a tax.
“Most Germans receive health care coverage through the state health insurance plans, which are funded from contributions (aka mandatory tax/fee). If employed with earnings below a set income limit, you pay half the insurance contributions as an employee, and your employer pays the other half. “As of 1 July 2002, the average general health insurance contribution rate is 13.99 percent of the non-exempt part of employees’ income. Employers and employees each pay half of the contributions.” People making between 400 and 800 euros per month are required to pay less towards their insurance, making on average a contribution of 4 percent towards the total cost.1 There are additional subsidies for coverage for the poor, the unemployed, and the elderly. Over 90% of the population in Germany is covered by the compulsory state insurance program.2 If you are a salaried employee and make more than the income limit, you can either purchase private health insurance or enroll voluntarily in the state program. In the latter case, your employer will pay a supplement toward your contributions.3 Only a quarter of persons with incomes above the income limit choose to purchase private health insurance, and spending on private health insurance was only 7.1% of Germany’s total health care expenditure in 1998. Less than .2 percent of the population is uninsured.4”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0714 hrs
:zpopcorn: That took me along time to read through.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0736 hrs
Sorry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0758 hrs
You right rads burst my belly as well. Post after post you have done nothing but call names, plus play sheep for the health insurance companies.
And as usual you didn’t get my point. Of course they pay for maternity leaves (how dare they). I know rad right women would prefer to give birth right there in the cubicle so they can keep on the job. Plus those we know how notoriously lazy Germans are as they get generous vacations. But with sheep like Kelly, we can only sit and watch with our noses press against the glass.
How can I make it any simpler? We pay a hidden tax on average to private insurance companies of $12,700 a year on average. Not only does the average German family not pay over and above our taxes to the tune of $12,700.
Going with your article above, if someone making 800 euors forks over what looks like $48 a month or this system, not only is that a great deal but try buying health insurance or that amount that does not have a huge deductible.
And again, no one is going broke paying for health care in Germany.
Now Kelly, go on and spend so much of what is your valuable time defending private health insurance.
So Kelly. You love health insurance companies so much let me ask you, we pass our money through insurance companies. So what do they bring to our health care system, other than doctors being months late in repayment, huge executive salaries, marketing costs, paper shuffling, us spending endless hours on 1-800 lines and the large possibility that after paying all of this money they may not cover you for what may be a life saving procedures or cap your coverage.
Cong. Anthony Weiner this morning just rendered joe Scarborough speechless on that question. Or can we expect from you the standard screaming diatribes about socialism, government can’t do nothing right and death panels.
So Kelly. What do private health insurance companies do for us?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0828 hrs
Kelly, what point are you trying to prove? Scott’s point is that Germany pays less and a higher percentage of the populace are covered because they use a nationalized healthcare system. Your information is proving him correct, is that your intent?
To question whether we pay more for healthcare is ridiculous. The information is overwhelming. As a nation, we pay more. The problem I have had from the beginning with Democrat healthcare is two-fold:
There is an enormous increase in cost to start their programs up. Hardly the best way to decrease costs.
The paid public healthcare that we currently offer (teacher, police, Government officials, etc.) has a higher median than the private insurance we offer as a nation.Add to this, that the proposal currently in Congress addresses few actual inefficiencies that the US currently has and we are looking at a very expensive underhaul in healthcare.
Kenosha teachers could have saved $3,000,000 this year alone by switching away from WEA, the union affiliated WI healthcare provider. If every district in the state switched there would be over 100 million in savings this year alone. The only reason this is not done is the union. There was no vote. This a horrible precedent for a very pro-union Government to start up healthcare for everyone.
I wonder what the actual median for publicly paid premiums is versus privately paid premiums. The PPO Gold option for teachers and administrators is over $56,000 per year (I do not know the proportion of people who choose this option). The empoyee dollars for my family insurance (UHC) is $936.00. The company portion is $1250. They just average the total for all employees, whether we use their insurance or not. We have no option to get that as additional income if we opt not to use company insurance. They also pay the first $1,000 dollars used on the $2,000 dollar deductible. According to Scott’s source, which I do believe, the median cost for people in the US is $12,700. My cost is under $2,200.
See, I think there are 2 major costs (among many others) that the US bears that other countries do not, besides all the lawsuit and tort reform that could be done. Our publicly paid insurance is el Supremo and that brings the average up significantly. We pay for over 55% of all medical breakthroughs (this is a 1996 stat. It could be less now, but with the number of developed countries that have gone national, I would bet that it is a higher % today). The rest of the world benefits from this without paying the costs. I am okay with the second cost even while I am disgusted by the first.
I would prefer a less socialized method for insuring the uninsured. Scott, so should you. Requiring insurance through taxation requires you to pay taxes. Many of the uninsured do not pay taxes…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0843 hrs
Sorry, that 12,700 figure is Keith’s not Scott’s. Keith, want to check out an honest question? See if you can find what the average is for publicly paid insurance and what portion of the working populace that covers. If you will share your findings, I bet you will not be nearly as happy with your $12,700 figure as you are now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0852 hrs
it is good to know what it costs to not have rationed health care.
So basically that’s your response. Everyone else in the world has “rationed care,” while we enjoy “un-rationed care.” And for that we get the privilege of paying double for health care. I guess it’s your position that they only get half the quality of care that we get or something. Is that really your argument?
you don’t have a clue as to what is going on in Germany. Taxes are high for many reasons and one of them is health care. [...] f you don’t think that the taxes in Germany don’t help pay for health care you are kidding yourself. How do you think the German government pays for 10 months of materity leave? Call it a “contribution rate”, but it’s a tax.
I don’t care how high their taxes are. That’s not the point. You want to make the case that they are getting substandard care, fine. You want to make the case that paying for it through government is bad for quality or efficiency, fine. Go for it. But you cannot make the case that their system costs too much compared to ours. It. Costs. Less than ours. Less.
There is an enormous increase in cost to start their programs up. Hardly the best way to decrease costs.
This worries me, too. But I honestly believe it’s a necessary upfront cost in order to stop our decades-long slide into the abyss.
I wonder what the actual median for publicly paid premiums is versus privately paid premiums.
A thoughtful question. But i think I’d rather know this: what’s the per capital health care cost for people with private insurance versus people with public insurance. You see, insurance premiums do vary widely—and so does their coverage. Good for you that you pay $1k for insurance. But I’m sure you have copays, deductibles and limits that more expensive policies don’t have. Furthermore, isn’t it the case that many publicly insured people are sicker than privately insured people? I’m not talking about teacher’s unions, of course. I’m talking about Medicare, etc. Wouldn’t we need to control for that when comparing these two things?
While we’re speculating about that, here’s what we do know: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than the private sector.
We pay for over 55% of all medical breakthroughs
I think I see where you’re going with this and I’m skeptical. You seem to be saying that if we were to hold cost increases down such that in a decade we’re paying for health care more like what other nations are paying, that medical research worldwide would dry up. I don’t buy this. I don’t believe that the United States is a large enough market to have that profound an effect when compared with, well, the entire rest of the world. Furthermore, even if it were true, do you feel comfortable funding drug company product development for the entire world on the backs of American businesses, families and its increasing number of uninsured? I wouldn’t be. But as I said, I don’t believe it in the first place.
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 0912 hrs
The problem is not whether you pay directly or pay indirectly, but we all pay one way or another.
You cite one insurance company for one union. Seems the plans for everyone else get run through private insurance companies, and for the rest of us it is all private insurance.
So if your policy is less and not with a whopping deductible, whoopie for you. But again, I just cited an average, so someone is paying a lot more. Either they are seeing it directly, or they are seeing no raises, or it is being passed through to all of us through higher taxes.
But we all pay for an entity that provides no perceivable value to health care.
You are all fans of am620 Chuck. He’s always talking about supporting the “producers.” Why not now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0915 hrs
This just in. A GAO report recently surfaced which indicates that substituting insurance cooperatives for an actual public plan would fail to save money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/compromise-co-op-proposal_n_261044.html
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 0918 hrs
I may not be the best at getting my point across, but my intent was prove that Germany’s system is socialist. I do not want the government telling me what to do when it comes to MY health care or those of my family members. This is what will happen.
I recall an article that discribed a person visiting Germany and they saw an ambulance pull up to a restaurant. It seemed like the man had a heart attack and they did the CPR thing on him. It didn’t work and they just sat there. The ambulance drivers did not wisk him away in the ambulance to the hospital. The person who wrote the article said, they wondered if this had happened in the US they would have rush him away quickly to the hospital to try to revive him.
Giving that the government is paying for our care does not mean we will get the best care. Why, because the government does not want to pay…so if they don’t take this man to the hospital…they don’t have to pay. End result being, this man died when he could have been saved. It’s cheaper to let us die than it is to rush us to the hospital and try keep us alive.
The government then holds the key to who lives and who dies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0925 hrs
Just because you did not answer the comments I made earlier on Medicare do not make them invalid. Medicare should not count for this question, but even if it did, it would probably help my case more then yours. Medicare is a Government controlled entity. They pay 25% for services compared to the private sector at the expense of the private sector. If everyone had the medicare equivalent there would be no private sector to dump those extra costs on. Despite paying 25%, the Government cannot afford the current version of Medicare. The other reason it is unfair is that Medicare is for a much higher risk portion of the population. Even at 25%, the average expense per capita is much higher. Certainly higher than the 16% of the GDP by income.
You seem to be saying that if we were to hold cost increases down such that in a decade we’re paying for health care more like what other nations are paying, that medical research worldwide would dry up.
To deny that research dollars spent in the US is more than all the budget allocations of all the Countries in Europe combined is as nonsensical as denying that the US pays more for their healthcare. This does not count private research in Europe, but without the US market to sell it in, research will be reduced worldwide.
There are thousands of genius people world-wide willing to do research to cure (put your favorite disease here). There tens of millions of people willing to do research to make a lot of bucks. If it save lives, so much the better. If you think research will not be significantly reduced if we go national, then I think you have no appreciation of what the free market has done for this country to date and perhaps a quick econ course would really help your perspective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0935 hrs
R & D would come to a stand still because making money is the motivator. Is the government going to fund all the
R & D? If so, how are they going to pay for it? Raise taxes or print money?You want to save money? Then don’t let the government get involved. When was the last time the government ever saved you money? Answer: never.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Medicare should not count for this question,
Why on earth not?
They pay 25% for services compared to the private sector
You guys keep saying this. Can you show me? Twenty five percent? Really? C’mon. That’s gotta be cherry picked for certain services or products. Can’t be across the board.
Despite paying 25%, the Government cannot afford the current version of Medicare.
if only we’d all had Medicare for the last ten years! Then we wouldn’t be in this mess! As I’ve said before, Medicare has done a better job at controlling costs than the private sector. And they probably would have done better still if it had been expanded to all citizens.
research dollars spent in the US is more than all the budget allocations of all the Countries in Europe combined
That sounds impressive, but can you document that? I’m aware that half of major drug companies live in the US, but so what? Is that because American patients pay $5 for a Viagra while the rest of the entire world pays $3? Really? Might it not also be a) because the US university system cranks out brilliant scientists and b) puts a lot of valuable basic research into the mix for free, c) because American corporations pay almost no federal income tax, d) some other reason we haven’t even thought of? You think that these companies and their product development is solely dependent upon American’s overpayment for drugs? In a worldwide market? I’m just not buying it.
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 0948 hrs
For starters, the Marquette Interchange project.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 0948 hrs
When was the last time the government ever saved you money? Answer: never.
Well, genius, Medicare has done a better job at controlling costs than the private sector. And all those other OECD countries I referred to up yonder in this thread seem to have saved a whole lot of money compared to the good ol’ US of A. I don’t think you’ll get a lot of mileage out of a reflexive “the government never saves you any money” argument.
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 0950 hrs
You gotta do better than, it’s socialism.
Seems to me the Germans do a pretty good job with business, and the management doesn’t have to waste time noodling with health insurance nonsense.
BTW Kelly, surely there is plenty of room in the advertising, lobbying and outrageous executive salary budgets to pay for R&D. From what I understand despite all that R&D spending now the drug company profits are pretty robust.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1013 hrs
Gee, don’t make me blush…but Medicare costs ALL of us money and I don’t use it..so according to my “genius” that means it’s costing me money, not saving me money.
Social Security also costs me money and I’m getting any of that either. Government supported Art Programs cost me money and I don’t use that either.
Sorry, but it is indeed socialism. Now if you like the government telling you what to eat, when to eat it, you’re too fat, your too old, you make too much money, your car is too big, your too disabled then by all means embrass the socialism. I on the other hand like to run my own life.
For all of the libs like the ACLU who don’t want government intruding in their lives they sure slobber all over the government run health care where they will know all about you, your health, your money and on top of the that tell you how to use it. Now, don’t get old because you would, like Obama said; may have to take a pill instead of opting for life saving surgery.
Here’s the grass… |||||||||| ....let the Obama-sheep graze.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1104 hrs
Ding dang ol’ gubmint! Socialistic liberal ACLU taxing sheep-grazers! Gonna give gram’s a pill just like Old Yeller!
Heh.
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 1119 hrs
You forgot to mention P.E.T.A.
:zzdeadhorse:Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1145 hrs
Don’t kill the messenger:
VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.
“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.
Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”
“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.
According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.
The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.
As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.
“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.
Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.
Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.
The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.
In all, Fraser Health is looking at a $160-million funding shortfall.
D’Angelo said Vancouver Coastal’s deficit is closer to $90 million — almost a third of which ($23 million) has already been absorbed through reductions in non-clinical administration efficiencies.
Vancouver Coastal performed 67,000 surgeries last year, an increase of 6,500 surgeries over 2007.
“What has now happened is that now our wait times are about 25 per cent lower than the provincial average,” D’Angelo said. “We have put a dent in that wait list.”
Brodie acknowledged surgical waiting times have dropped significantly in recent years, particularly for patients needing hip and joint replacements.
He said the proposed cuts threaten those advancements.
“It sounds like we are going backwards here,” he said.
Total health spending in British Columbia was $15.7 billion this year, up about four per cent over last year’s total of 15.1 billion, according to figures provided by the ministry of health.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon was unavailable for comment Monday on the proposed health-care cuts. A ministry spokesman said Falcon is away on his honeymoon until the end of August.
Elsewhere in British Columbia, the province will look to replace the head of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, after he announced he will step down at the end of the year.
Ramsden has said his decision to retire is not related to financial problems faced by the authority.
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor;
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1240 hrs
How about this example, from a drug makers viewpoint. Now, I’m not an expert but this is as close as I can get to a simple explanation why drug costs are higher in non-universal healthcare countries.
In this example we’ll use 4 countries: US, Canada, UK, and Germany (to make it relative and simple.)
Drug company creates new BP medication.
Drug costs $5 / pill to produce.
Sales will be according to what can be negotiated with other countries.Canada states its policy can only pay for $4/pill
UK & Germany state they can cover $5/pill
US cost is $7/pillSo, with all things being equal. Those who can afford to pay for the pills, will. And the social systems pay a defined amount.
But.. but… but.. The US is paying ~1.5x what the others pay!
Why, yes. Yes they do. This is because the company needs to recover the costs of producing ALL the pills made, while only collecting from the socialcare nations what they will pay for the drug.
So, the most prosperous nation on earth is covering for those LESS fortunate than us! (As the libs want us to do normally)
But.. but… but the US is paying more than the remaining cost of production!
Why, yes. Yes we are.. And the answer to that is to help the drug maker to recover the cost of R&D on that drug. If they don’t recoup the cost, why should they continually lose money in the creation process only to break even in the production.
So, hopefully making my explanation clear, we have several options to reduce this cost to the manufacturer.
1) Do not sell for under production cost +x% in order to cover production cost and R&D costs. (What a normal company does.)
2) Ask for govt. subsidy (read: tax money) to pay for development costs, and charge only what covers the cost of production.
3) Close the doors on the R&D section when all buyers tell the drugmaker what they’ll pay (which is usually much less than what is required to keep production running.)
So, as far as I can see it. Unless the world as a whole converts to a Star Trek type of world govt where all needs are provided for (and I can leave the planet for vacations) I don’t see how drug research and new drugs come to the market in a socialized system.
Things I think that need to change:
- Drug marketing. (If someone needs a drug, their physician should prescribe it, not have it recommended from a TV ad. they spend twice as much in marketing than development from some article I saw.))
- A more streamlined FDA process to get new drugs to market a bit quicker. (But yet be safe.)
- Knock down the 20-yr patent to a more reasonable level before being able to create generics.
- Some sort of lawsuit/tort reform for drugmakers as well as physicians.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1245 hrs
Makes perfect sense, but I’m not really convinced that this is how drug pricing/manufacturing really works. For starters, there aren’t just three countries buying these drugs. I don’t for a minute believe that our overpayment is even close to “making up for” the lower prices in all these other places. If drug prices in the US were to drop 25% over the next decade, I think the impact on their bottom lines, and on their R&D budgets, would be negligible.
Under “things that need to change” I could probably get behind all those things. Prescription drug advertising is creepy as hell, IMIO. Of course the FDA might need a bigger budget to make the kind of improvements you’re talking about. Prepared to do that? I’m all for patent reform. Amen hallelujah yes. I’d even go for reasonable tort reform as long as it was, as they say, part of this complete breakfast.
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 1333 hrs
Mark Stein recanted a story of a recent visit of a family member from the UK. Every month for 10 years under the UK health care she visits her Doctor. As an elderly person, she has an ongoing issue with her hand. The doctor in the UK prescribes the UK version of Tylenol and sends her on her way.
She now comes to the US to visit Mark Stein and her hand/arm swells up. They take her to some average run of the mill walk in clinic. The US doctor gives her arm/hand a scan to find out she has gout (a cronic illness).
In the UK she was not diagnosed, but sent on her way. Her is the good ol’ U S of A she was diagnosed and treated.
Personally, I’d rather have what we have the US, quality care rather than the substandard care in the UK.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1443 hrs
Kelly, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
Posted by scott on August 18, 2009 at 1448 hrs
Answer to health care is not the “government”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1633 hrs
Is there a breakdown anywhere of health care costs in the U.S., showing maybe cost per capita for private industry vs. cost per capita for gov’t employees, such as teachers?
My employer pays in the top twenty percentile for my family’s health insurance (to include gov’t employment), yet it is nowhere near the $7k/person…
It is ironic that Marxists like Scott claim health insurance costs are higher in the U.S., yet we all know teachers and gov’t employees have the best health insurance around, and these are the people pushing for this…
I’d like to see data to prove or disprove my theory…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1637 hrs
1972: Nixon signed into law a requirement that large employers offer a prepaid group health care plan, a health maintenance organization or HMO to their workers of the employer offering any health plan. The use of HMOs was designed to increase competition and it guaranteed loans and grants to HMOs to they could rapidly gain cash and expand. HMOs had to be, by law, nonprofit or run by charities, as in some states. The fed provided hundreds of millions of dollars for HMOs.
In 1981, Reagan signed into law a phasing out of the government loans and loan guarantees for nonprofit HMOs. This allowed people like Fred Wasserman and Pamela Anderson to buy the non-profit HMO Maxicare - Los Angeles, California (Lockheed and Northrop) - for $238,000 on an unsecured, interest only balloon note due in 15 years at 8% at a time that corporate customers were normally paying 20%. The value of Maxicare in seven years was $700 million.
From there on out, nonprofit HMOs which were build on U.S. tax dollars, were sold to private interests: Robert Gumbiner – Family Health Plan, Orange County California – bought the HMO FHP for $36 million though the FHP board had estimated the HMO was worth $216 million. A CA corporation admin and a Superior court judge allowed him to buy public assets without even a counteroffer from Wasserman’s Maxicare. Gumbiner’s later stock sale indicated he acquired a $225 million dollar company for 17 cents on the dollar.
Leonard Schaeffer acquired Blue Cross California for $6 billion in 1996 (which became WellPoint) Assets in 2005: $51 billion and net worth: $20-25 billion. His pay went from $922,000 as a nonprofit CEO to $19.2 million annually as a Wellpoint exec. In 2004 Schaeffer received $50 million due to a merger and $60 million more in deferred pay and cash outs. Physicians and laboratories took a pay cut. Subscribers paid more, got less.
From that point on the story was repeated across the nation. Nonprofit hospitals, HMOs, and insurance plans were sold for pennies on the dollar. Billions of tax and charity dollars were transferred to private industry. Premiums went up. Service went down. Doctors and medical staff did not see the profits unless they bought stock.
Johnston, David Cay. Free Lunch – How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense (and stick you with the bill) p.214-234
Recommended by the NY Times, The Miami Herald, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, San Jose Mercury News, Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN
This nonpartisan books also blasts the Bush II white house prescription drug benefit bill (p235-243): One key provision is that it forbids the government from negotiating the lowest possible prices for Medicare recipients drugs. The Bush white house said the plan would cost $400 billion over ten years. A year after the bill was voted on, the Bush II white house put forth the real numbers: $720 billion. Thank you, Lobbyists, Tommy Thompson (former Secret. of Health and Human and Services) and others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2009 at 1646 hrs
JPentermans post (above) proves that any time government gets involved (no matter the which side of the aisle) it does not work.
Like you said with Bush and prescription drugs, so will go Obamacare. Saying one thing, but what really happens is an entirely different story.
Just another reason to say NO to government health care or whatever the left is calling it these days.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 0758 hrs
@ Scott for comment#160
I know the drug situation is more complex than what I put forth, but as I stated, it’s simply an example, a simple one, but I believe a somewhat accurate one.
As for the FDA and a bigger budget.. If they scrap this “healthcare/health insurance bill” I could go for increasing the FDA budget somewhat to accomplish what would be required. But only if this would be part of the cocktail that I had listed. To get what the people want, it needs to be multi-faceted in it’s approach, and overseen by a NON-partisan group. (I know, where on earth will we find one of those!)
All this bickering about what’s in this or that version of the current bill(s) is inconsequential. The people, whether well-informed or not, have decided this isn’t for them (in the majority at this point).
If the govt was still the voice of the people, instead of deciding to pass/put-forth what they think is good for them, I think they would give this track of thought a more serious look. But then again, they seem to think they are rulers instead of public servants.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 0810 hrs
I received this e-mail from a friend today. Not sure if it’s his or if it was a forward, but either way it’s appropriate:
“Let me get this straight.
Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 0940 hrs
I’m as afraid for the future of my country as I have ever been.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 0945 hrs
“I’m as afraid for the future of my country as I have ever been. ” -Scott
On this we can agree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 0949 hrs
The people, whether well-informed or not, have decided this isn’t for them
Recent polls notwithstanding, i think it’s still premature to proclaim reform is dead.
And, I have to add that the sliding polls on reform can only reasonably be attributed to the lies and misinformation with which the American people have been bombarded lately. How many believe it would give free health care to illegal aliens? How many believe it would allow tax dollars to fund abortions? How many believe it would let a government bureaucrat decide when to pull grandma’s plug? I mean, come on. The shit that the right has thrown at this and the force with which it is being thrown, is the cause of the declining approval numbers on Democratic reforms.
And, sadly, I guess I really do need to say it: all those claims are untrue. No, really. Untrue.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1014 hrs
I’m as afraid for the future of my country as I have ever been.
Might I recommend Cuba? I hear their health care suits your needs…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1020 hrs
And, I have to add that the sliding polls on reform can only reasonably be attributed to the lies and misinformation with which the American people have been bombarded lately. -Scott
a. The media is liberal, so if were misinformed it’s your side that’s doing it.
b. Both sides agree that they do not want this plan
c. Misinformation? The people who drafted the plan don’t even know it.I agree that reform is not dead. This is why we must keep the pressure on the elite politicians who are for this crapola.
And in the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
-Thomas JeffersonPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1029 hrs
Smoking Obama: “smokers” a burden on society, it’s a myth.
Google: smokers not a burden on society
Articles:
USA Today report:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htmMilw. Journal Sentinel report (AP Press): http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/45025207.html
Rather ghoulish, but logic appears to lead to the idea that a society with a all or partly socialized health care system should not discourage tobacco use.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1030 hrs
Kelly,
The information I provided does not support a laissez-fair approach to health care. Among other things, ending the FDA would mean a return to wonder tonics with opium sold on street corners.
Government health care auditors pay for themselves by discouraging health care providers from billing for services not needed or not provided, something I saw when my grandmother was in a nursing home (Medicare was billed for her toenail clipping and wheelchair maintenance, a service never provided.).
In the 1990s, Columbia/HCA Healthcare and KPMG accounting (KPMG was supposed to watch for Medicare fraud) was busted by Kurt Eichenwald and James F. Alderson for Medicare fraud. Three Columbia execs received prison terms for keeping two sets of books. Government health care police (FBI) are necessary to discourage fraud, Medicare and otherwise. They save taxpayers money.
Competition in the medical services field does not address that the majority are incapable of assessing the skills of a physician.
Hence, government review boards for hospitals and doctors.Robert Smith’s laissez-fair philosophy requires buyer and seller are 100% competent without pressure or threats. Health care is complex.
Imagine shopping for the pilot of the next jet you fly or even the jet itself. How does one evaluate? We do not. It’s too complex. We trust our government to set standards for pilot education, testing and work conditions and to monitor if the jet is meeting safety regulations throughout its lifespan.
When there is a bottom line, temptation is inevitable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1035 hrs
The government promises us one thing, but we end up with something different…was my point. Obama can say this, that and another thing, but in the end government will be running our health care.
I never said smoking was a burden on society, but under Obama care ...they will. This is why government is banning smoking in cities across the country. Big government telling taxpayers how to run their lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1101 hrs
Good point Kelly,
Not trusting the government to run health care, or most anything for that matter, is reason enough…the reasons are inherent
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1133 hrs
but in the end government will be running our health care.
I don’t think you’re even prepared to discuss what “government-run” health care even means. Does it mean Medicare, where the government is the payor for private health services? Does it mean the VA or the United Kingdom where the government actually pays for and provides health services? I think what you really mean is that you don’t want the government involved in any way, shape or form. Not to insure, not to provide—and probably not even to regulate. Just nothing. Because government, according to your ideology, is just bad. All the time, for all reasons, bad. And that’s just wrong.
Not trusting the government to run health care, or most anything for that matter, is reason enough
Not trusting Republicans to govern effectively, that you can count on. You guys were against Social Security. You were against Medicare. You were against the New Deal. And while most people see those things as important successes in government policy, in your world they are obvious failures. That gulf in understanding is the source, I believe, of all our arguments.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1219 hrs
I am not a fan of Medicare, but like most government run programs it’s hard to remove them once they are in place. So, as far as health care goes…I’ll give you Medicare, but do not socialize my health care.
We have the best quality of care then anywhere on the globe. That is why people come from other countries to get their health care.
Let me continue to be self-insured, let me pay my high deductible, let me continue to choose my doctor, choose my procedures, let me be able to live as long as I can at my choice…not the governments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1227 hrs
Whoa…Medicare and Social Security are a sucess?! Holy cow…what have you been smokin’?
I guess if you call throwing your money away to support others while not having anything left for yourself even though you paid in for many many years a sucess…then by all means feel free to think that. However, that is completely insane.
I’d rather have kept that money that I put in and saved it for myself. See, unlike liberals we Conservatives think we can manage better for ourselves. We don’t need babysitters or nannys.
Just wondering if you could give me some of your money…I’ve got braces to pay for?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1231 hrs
I am not a fan of Medicare
Fine. But you seem not to realize that most others are. It’s one of the most cherished institutions in the country. Politically untouchable, such is its popularity among voters. And as for the recipients, they’re more satisfied with it than the rest of us are with our private insurance. Is it in financial trouble? Damn straight. All of American health care is in trouble. The rising cost of care is bankrupting our businesses and families. Why should we be surprised that the same phenomenon is squeezing Medicare? In fact, we should congratulate Medicare for keeping costs from rising as quickly as in the private sector.
We have the best quality of care then anywhere on the globe. That is why people come from other countries to get their health care.
“People” come here? Which people are those? Just random sick people from around the globe? Wealthy people come here. They do so because a) they live in developing countries where top care is harder to come by or b) because they live in a country where health care is divvied up according to medical need not market forces. And I’ll wager that there are as many Americans buying drugs from Canada and having surgeries in Mexico as there are sheiks coming to Mayo for cancer treatment. Consider me unimpressed.
let me continue to choose my doctor, choose my procedures, let me be able to live as long as I can at my choice
I’d be a lot more moved by this little speech if it in any way reflected the reality of anything that’s been proposed. Are you aware that Canadians choose their own doctors? Are you aware that Brits have the exact same ability to make their own medical decisions as Americans do? (Possibly more so.) Are you aware that there are no “death panels” being proposed?
See, unlike liberals we Conservatives think
But you don’t. You really don’t.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1322 hrs
Someone may already have mentioned this - sorry, 181 comments was more than I could do - but NEITHER party seems to be serious about addressing costs. The current leading proposals are sort of ‘cost containment lite’. Democrats seem pretty focused on universal coverage and public plan (the first of which is critical to comprehensive reform, the second of which technically is not), but not as much on the fundamental problems that make our system unsustainable. The Republicans seem intent on maintaining the status quo and scoring points against Obama.
What everyone should be able to agree on is that the growth in health care costs is bad for everyone, even those of us with insurance. Robert Laszewski has developed what he calls a ‘health care affordability model’ and I am truly amazed that some Republican hasn’t seized upon it. (I tried to provide a link but your site won’t accept it.)
Combine this with Wyden-Bennet—which at least technically has Republican support—and I think we have something that would actually start us toward meaningful reform and cost control.
Posted by hope morrison on August 19, 2009 at 1407 hrs
What is it that other countries are doing to contain costs that isn’t being offered by the Democratic proposals?
And if you say “rationing!” I shall scream. You sound like a rational person. Don’t tease me.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1412 hrs
Like I said….Medicare is so ingrained it is not going anyway. People are hooked on Medicare like they some are with crack. It’s because people counted on it. Now it’s not viable, but continues anyway.
Costs are up because people are living longer and using the system for longer. R & D has made it so we have the tools and prescriptions to help us live longer. People use the doctors more now than ever before. As a child I never went to the doctor. I remember having an ear infection and I still didn’t go in.
Do I have the answers….not really. What I do know is government running my health care is NOT the answer. I want them far far away from callign the shots regarding my care.
Canadians have a hard time finding a family doctor, so I’m not real sure where Scott is getting his information from.
I prefer the status quo until we can find a suitable non-government run solution. We are not guninee pigs to be experimented on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1424 hrs
Not trusting Republicans to govern effectively, that you can count on. You guys were against Social Security. You were against Medicare. You were against the New Deal. And while most people see those things as important successes in government policy, in your world they are obvious failures. That gulf in understanding is the source, I believe, of all our arguments.
Scott, if by successful, you mean almost bankrupt… then medicare and social security are successful.
Honestly, Scott ... you are not the one prepared to have a discussion about health care.
How many believe it would give free health care to illegal aliens? How many believe it would allow tax dollars to fund abortions? How many believe it would let a government bureaucrat decide when to pull grandma’s plug?
You have obviously no knowledge of the House version of this bill….
Your sour attitude is greatly appreciated. God Bless You…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1425 hrs
if by successful, you mean almost bankrupt
There’s nothing wrong with Medicare that general health care reform can’t fix. The problem is that health care costs have risen dramatically. That includes Medicare. But Medicare has done a better job at keeping those costs down than the private sector. You’re like a flood victim neck-deep in water being rescued by a guy in a leaky boat: Me get in that? No way! There’s a leak in it!
I would really iike to know at this point if you understand what I’m trying to say. Because you keep on coming back to “Medicare is bankrupt!” as if I’d never made this point. Are you hearing me loud and clear this time? Medicare’s financial problems spring from the same rising costs that the private sector has seen—only it’s dealt with them better.
You have obviously no knowledge of the House version of this bill
And without a trace of irony. How many fact-checking and news organizations need to debunk those lies before I can expect it to be noncontroversial here? Will it ever be accepted as fact here that there are no death panels and that illegal aliens don’t get free medical care? Ever? No matter how many times it’s debunked? Will I still be the one called ignorant?
Your sour attitude is greatly appreciated.
My attitude? Weren’t you the one calling me a Marxist and suggesting I move to Cuba?
Black is white, up is down. Typical with you guys.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1440 hrs
What is it that other countries are doing to contain costs that isn’t being offered by the Democratic proposals?
I certainly wouldn’t say rationing is not in the Democratic proposal.
If drug prices in the US were to drop 25% over the next decade, I think the impact on their bottom lines, and on their R&D budgets, would be negligible.
Econ 101, Scott???
This just in. A GAO report recently surfaced which indicates that substituting insurance cooperatives for an actual public plan would fail to save money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/compromise- co-op-proposal_n_261044.html
Did you seriously just refer to the Huffington Post? Seriously?
And yet you can’t find a single example of any nation providing universal, affordable, comprehensive health insurance to all it’s people based on this principle. Not one.
My health insurance thru my employer is awesome, and per capita is cheaper than at least 2/3 of these countries on this list…. This argument is grossly invalid….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1441 hrs
I certainly wouldn’t say rationing is not in the Democratic proposal.
And yet you can’t really explain it.
Econ 101, Scott???
A question of scale, as I clearly indicated.
Did you seriously just refer to the Huffington Post? Seriously?
No, I’m referring to the GAO. Perhaps you’ve heard of them?
My health insurance thru my employer is awesome, and per capita is cheaper than at least 2/3 of these countries on this list…. This argument is grossly invalid….
You really have zero idea what is being discussed here, do you?
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1448 hrs
Rationing is not a clear term. Different people use it to mean different things. So I won’t say it.
But you won’t like my answer: Depends on the country. Some things that are in the proposals are similar to some things done elsewhere. I think what you mean to ask, though, is what is wrong with the current leading proposals vis-a-vis cost control. As I understand them, the leading proposals’ main effects on cost are:
1) raise costs via subsidizing coverage for the uninsured
2) pay for those additional costs through provider payment cuts and additional taxes on higher income familiesProvider cuts (Medicare/Medicaid) are not targeted to fundamentally alter how providers do business. The tax change doesn’t do anything to incentivize purchase of more efficient, lower cost insurance. Nothing in the financing addresses system problems - they are just ways to raise money. What we need is a financing approach that heads us toward a more efficient system.
Posted by hope morrison on August 19, 2009 at 1454 hrs
I certainly wouldn’t say rationing is not in the Democratic proposal.
And yet you can’t really explain it.
ECON 101, specifically supply and demand.
Econ 101, Scott???
A question of scale, as I clearly indicated.
So now you are running drug companies? Interesting…I guess those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach…
You really have zero idea what is being discussed here, do you?
Nice strawman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1459 hrs
hope, I think your items 1 and 2 are correct, and I embrace them—but I’m not sure that’s the whole picture. Besides, it seems to me that the number one way other countries are keeping costs low is to put pressure, through large scale purchasing power, on health care providers to charge less. Isn’t that true? And isn’t that what Medicare is doing by paying ~$0.85 on the dollar? Why are so many people against this?
Smeety, strawmen are created by people in order to have a handy idiot against which to win an argument. When I’m arguing with you, I have no need of one.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1516 hrs
Scott, be honest, do you have any Che/Lenin/Marx/Fidel/Mao items at home, like a t-shirt or such?
Just wondering…
Scott, I promise to toast to you when this whole debacle is over. You have had every point you’ve tried to make debunked. You have helped present the side of the left with the arrogance and lack of fundamentals that are being prescribed by Barack Obama himself. People who read your posts are actually more ignorant than they were before reading.
A toast. To Scott the Marxist. Power to the People.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1527 hrs
But Medicare has done a better job at keeping those costs down than the private sector.
This.. At best, is a half-truth.
Medicare has kept costs down via government controls/mandates (not sure if the term mandate is appropriate though.)
The flip side to this wonderful cost reducing measure is the corresponding rise in free market premiums and costs to those outside of Medicare. All so the hospital/doctor can break even and make a living, pay his staff, and keep the lights on.
But now, if some of the independent studies are correct, implementing a public option may well cause a collapse of those “evil” insurance companies to either a minor or major degree.
Now add to that the mass amounts of people put into that Medicare (public) style of plan, and what would the outcome be? With no/little private sector, who would absorb the leftover costs that the hospitals and doctors are left with as Medicare doesn’t cover them?
It would leave the health industry monetarily crippled and requiring infusion from another source. (I.e. govt.) More taxpayer subsidy.
As for the GOP…
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_629778.html
It’s by U.S. Rep. John Boehner, from June 2009.
The first thing people will say against it is that it doesn’t have specifics… Well, the current plan is chocked full of vaguarities. So, one really can’t hold that against the GOP.
And you haven’t heard much about it due to the rucus caused by the townhalls and the Dems pretty much leaving them out of the creation process. They get what airtime they can, but it’s usually cut short by the talking heads. And, of course, they do get more time on FOX, but that’s singing to the choir for the most part.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1534 hrs
Oh, and before anyone can say, “Well, the doctors are making more than enough.”
Remember that most of the doctors coming out of medical school will be repaying their student loans for 10-20 years. And if they are specialists then it is more towards the 20 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1545 hrs
The flip side to this wonderful cost reducing measure is the corresponding rise in free market premiums and costs
Yes, this is always the complaint when Medicare’s cost control is brought up. I’m just not sure how much I care. Perhaps the private insurance market should become more like Medicare instead of making Medicare more like the private sector. At least that way we’d all save some money. Isn’t this how it’s done elsewhere?
It would leave the health industry monetarily crippled and requiring infusion from another source. (I.e. govt.) More taxpayer subsidy.
That’s a pretty tenuous cause-and-effect chain. I don’t believe it would necessarily work out that way. I’m not looking for insurers to immediately reduce payments to providers by 20%, here. That would be too great of a shock to the system. What we’re talking about is a public insurance option that would be only one insurer among many. It would be large enough to negotiate prices the way Medicare does, but not so large that it immediately flattens private insurers. They would either have to find ways to be more efficient, or negotiate better prices themselves.. or yeah, maybe they go out of the health insurance business. Whether they do or don’t, we’re not talking about an immediate 20% reduction in payment to health providers. We’re talking mostly about containing future cost increases. The system will find ways to become more efficient. Providers and private insurers can, with time and motivation, change. There’s no reason to think that the current payments and prices are chiseled in stone or that an entire industry is just going to sit there idly and collapse.
As for the GOP proposal, what I understand of it is great—except that insurance companies participate in this new regulated pool voluntarily. Which means, a lot of them might not participate. And if the private insurance market is split like that, guess who’s going to join up in those new, regulated policies? The sick and the old. That’ll sure do a lot for premiums.
I would like to see a greater share of the pie going to primary care physicians, but on the whole I’m not crying in my beer over doctor’s ability to make a living. Especially specialists, which we have too many of in the first place.
Generally speaking, when doctors, hospital groups or drug companies say “we can’t accept less money!” I basically say “yes we can.” After all, it’s done everywhere else.
Posted by scott on August 19, 2009 at 1555 hrs
Anyone who would argue against reducing costs in health care - whether in Medicare or otherwise, and regardless of your political views - cannot expect to be taken seriously.
I know most of the people who follow this blog are very conservative, with a few liberals—and why on earth do you guys do this to yourselves?
I don’t expect to agree with the underlying values. But some of the comments are just…I don’t know, purposely obtuse? You seriously worry that reducing Medicare costs will drive up private insurance costs? Why do you not worry about the drivers that underlie BOTH Medicare AND private insurance cost growth? (I know, the answer is that you guys have fun trying to score meaningless little points on each other - and far be it from me to deny you your jollies! But sheesh…LOL.)Look - go check out Stuart Butler over at the Heritage Foundation for pointers on how to express conservative views on health reform in an intelligent way. I don’t agree with all his prescriptions, but he understands the issues and discusses them without coming off like a jerk. (Which I probably just did by saying that - sorry…I actually find the exchanges here to be pretty entertaining.)
Posted by hope morrison on August 19, 2009 at 1614 hrs
Anyone who would argue against reducing costs in health care - whether in Medicare or otherwise, and regardless of your political views - cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Most of us are not arguing against reducing costs, just the methods to be used to get there.
You seriously worry that reducing Medicare costs will drive up private insurance costs?
Merely because that is how the systems balances itself. You take away part or all of one part of the balance, the remainder crashes.
Why do you not worry about the drivers that underlie BOTH Medicare AND private insurance cost growth?
Again, most of us do, but as above, we argue about the methods to get the job done.
And if the private insurance market is split like that, guess who’s going to join up in those new, regulated policies? The sick and the old. That’ll sure do a lot for premiums.
The sick and the old would go into the public plan, again reducing one side of the balance equation.
I’m not crying in my beer over doctor’s ability to make a living.
It should worry everyone. If a doctor cannot make an adequate living at his learned trade, why do it? Why shell out the fortune for a medial degree if you’ll make no more than your average union worker? Especially true for specialists.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2009 at 1643 hrs
I would like to see a greater share of the pie going to primary care physicians, but on the whole I’m not crying in my beer over doctor’s ability to make a living. Especially specialists, which we have too many of in the first place.
Scott, more than anything else, that is a major difference between you and libersls in general and me or conservatives in general. Take away partisan bullshit and liberals don’t give much of a damn for anyone who has worked hard, while conservatives think less of people who do not work hard. Contrary to your incorrect rhetoric, most conservatives care about the workers who have something bad happen to them. I think both sides are very sympathetic to, and willing to help those people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job or ability to work.
In general, however, I think you can define a conservative as caring more about a hard worker than someone who is trying to live off of others. Liberals, for better or for worse, care more about the loafer than the hard worker. If at first you seek to deny this, I challenge you to consider your words on this post and your attitude in general.
With that difference in mind, there is always likely to be a major difference in policy means. Liberals never mind taking from the people they do not care about and conservatives will always balk at empowering people who do little to do even less.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 0804 hrs
I’m quite aware of the conservative crusade against the undeserving. But let’s put that aside for the moment and let me ask you this. How is a working person who has no health insurance a “loafer”? How is someone who paid exorbitant premiums for 40 years and who has coverage for their cancer treatment rescinded a “loafer”? How is an insured middle class person a “loafer” when she finds herself bankrupt because of her copayments and payment caps?
Health insurance reform isn’t about helping the lazy. It’s about helping us all. It’s about a lot of hardworking, honest people who are suffering under a system that does not work.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2009 at 0836 hrs
That is precisely my point. I, and I believe most conservatives, would not define anyone who is working full time as someone who does not deserve affordable coverage and would never define them as a loafer. The fact that you would put that definition forward as mine or as that of most any conservative shows to me that you have defined conservatives too narrowly and incorrectly.
Affordable health care for everyone is what conservatives are all about and not what you were about until very recently. Affordable means everyone that gets it is paying for it. Very few conservatives are against that, only partisans.
To give free insurance to everyone from real ‘loafers’ (a loafer in my book is the petty drug dealer making just enough to support his habit or someone who works just long enough to re-establish his right to an unemployment check) to mass murderers, to welfare mamas, to illegal aliens, and to set up a system to make sure everyone gets it, that is what a conservative objects to. The fact that you are unconvinced that tort reform alone would help 99% of the working people you described above does not invalidate it.
What would prove you right would be all the politicians unwilling to ‘screw’ their special interests by reforming the torts that would hurt them, not the correct reforms themselves. True reform is all that is needed to make insurance affordable, but the people responsible for that reform would never agree to writing that bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 0903 hrs
Especially specialists, which we have too many of in the first place.
Economics 101: supply and demand. When there is less suppliers of a good or service and there is a constant or increasing demand for that good or service the price goes up.
If there are too many medical specialist as Scott seems to suggest, the price to see a specialist should be dirt cheap. But is it? Of course not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 1349 hrs
If health care is “free” and we can go at our leisure to our doctor and get what care is needed, doesn’t that mean that more people will be going to doctor? After all it’s free or nearly free, right? What keeps me from going often right now is that my deductible is very high. I don’t go in for just anything. I wait a while, think about it and then perhaps I will go.
Having “free”(laugh) health care is compared to when Milwaukee was giving away money for people in Millwaukee that had flooding. Barely anyone had flooding, but the lines were long. If you are giving it away the lines will be long, it will cost the government more than they thought it would and the care will be rationed and substandard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 1351 hrs
If there are too many medical specialist as Scott seems to suggest, the price to see a specialist should be dirt cheap. But is it? Of course not.
I’ll backtrack a little on that one. What I mean to say is that there aren’t enough primary care physicians. I think this is a widely accepted view. Can you explain why supply and demand haven’t fixed this problem? (Assuming you acknowledge it exists.)
Kelly, where to start??
1. You’re talking about a system where people have no copyaments for doctor visits—where they’re “free.” What makes you think that this will be the case if the reform bill passes? That certainly is not my understanding.
2. I don’t I don’t think we should be discouraging people from going to the doctor. Is there any good evidence to suggest that people will over-utilize doctor visits if they have no copayments? Last time I checked going to the doctor was not a fun experience. I have to take off work, wait around reading old magazines and then sit in an exam room often in my skivvies. Sound like a good way to spend a Tuesday afternoon to you? Doctor visits aren’t cans of Coca-Cola. Just because they’re free doesn’t mean people are going to have one every day.
Posted by scott on August 20, 2009 at 1416 hrs
Scott…don’t kid yourself. Even if you have to pay a co-pay it is does little to deter people from over use.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 1545 hrs
So I guess in response to my point 1 above, you’re saying there could be overuse even with copays. I don’t agree with that, for the reasons stated in point 2. Thoughts on that?
Posted by scott on August 20, 2009 at 1549 hrs
Scott,
I would acknowledge that its a two-part problem. First, there are not enough general practictioners, and two the general practitioners do not do enough.
In terms of supply and demand, although there may not be enough GPs to lower the cost of healthcare, GP can reduce the demand for their services by refering patients out to the specialists. Why?
Its because GPs have little incentive to treat extra patients. Generally, GPs are not in private practice groups and instead, employed by a hospital (who view GPs as loss leaders) and pay the GPs a set salary. If the GPs are not getting additional pay to treat additional patients why do it? So they don’t treat the patients—they refer the patients to the specialists for issues a GP probably could and should handle.
Kelly, you hit the nail on the head. Most people already have “free health insurance” regardless of whether its provided by private insurance or by the government. IMO, that’s the problem, we want the best health care that someone else’s money will buy. I’m not against reform per se, but the reform has to place the ownership of a person’s health with that person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 1615 hrs
Super ID…exactly. If the person is not responsible for paying for visits or procedures the more likely they will over use it.
Co-pay is just a hurdle, it will not stop over use of the system. The more over use, the system will then break down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 20, 2009 at 1840 hrs
I’ll backtrack a little on that one. What I mean to say is that there aren’t enough primary care physicians. I think this is a widely accepted view. Can you explain why supply and demand haven’t fixed this problem? (Assuming you acknowledge it exists.)
There are, indeed, not enough PCP’s. But the reason that supply and demand hasn’t fixed the problem is, I believe, the initial cost of going to medical school (and beyond if one wants to specialize.). 4years of pre-med and 4 years of med school to gain your license will garner a debt of ~$250K unless you come from a well off family background that can afford to pay directly for school. The majority of graduating doctors aren’t.
So, taking that into account, then noting that doctors will be paid a set wage determined by mandates and other governmental influencing factors, some of those who would think of going to school to be doctors will/may rethink their future career options and make something else of themselves that won’t be limited in such a manner.
Thus we will cause bigger backlogs in the coming years as the number of doctors slowly dwindle and the number of patients being seen grows by a goodly amount.
I see the above as the most likely outcome, but I may be wrong. ( <—Lookit there! Someone admits they may not be right..
)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 21, 2009 at 1108 hrs
years of pre-med and 4 years of med school to gain your license will garner a debt of ~$250K
I think you may be overstating the case. Average debt for med school grads is probably more like $150k.
doctors will be paid a set wage determined by mandates and other governmental influencing factors
Again, I think you’re overstating the case. This isn’t the UK, by any stretch of imagination.
I think the real story here is that primary care physicians are making under $150k and specialists can make double that, sometimes more. Why is that the case? I really don’t know, but I suspect that this state of affairs really isn’t good for public health or for our health care financial situation. (yet another case of market forces alone not leading us to what is in the public interest.)
Posted by scott on August 21, 2009 at 1419 hrs
As kelly and smeety said,
big government is the problem.
so, allow people to practice medicine without a license (i.e. big government interference!). This will open up the number of medical practitioners within the whining poor’s price range. We can also open up the B2B visa and acquire more doctors from poorer countries: They can practice here and earn their keep and we can braindrain unfriendly countries like Russia, Columbia, Pakistan, China and the like. Also, we can get rid of the FDA. Millions saved and lots of innovative new wonder drugs! Then with some serious caps on lawsuits directed at hard-working doctors and drug corporations, we won’t have to worry about ambulance chasing lawyers robbing the capitalist system with tall tales of thalidomide babies.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 21, 2009 at 1730 hrs
...primary care physicians are making under $150k and specialists can make double that, sometimes more. Why is that the case? I really don’t know…
ECON 101
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 21, 2009 at 1837 hrs
As kelly and smeety said,
big government is the problem. -my moneyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2009 at 1105 hrs
Dude, 1980 called. They want their bullshit economic philosophy back.
Posted by scott on August 24, 2009 at 1115 hrs
Heard about this book on NPR without all the shouting. Looks really interesting. The man is quite clear and non-objective.
After explaining many world models, he explains in the United States we have all models here, but our costs are higher, and he explains that too.T.R. Reid’s new book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, hits bookstores until August.
A better description: http://www.slate.com/id/2220534/
T.R. Reid travels the world explaining their health care systems and gets his bum shoulder looked at.
“Every day Washington’s leaders tell us that we live in an interdependent world with a globalized economy . . . But change the subject to reform of the health care system, and the community of nations abruptly vanishes.”
“Engagingly, Reid frames his inquiry by seeking relief for his aching right shoulder, which he injured while serving in the Navy in 1972. A surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital fixed it by inserting a stainless-steel screw into his clavicle, but three decades later Reid could no longer swing a golf club and could only just barely replace a hanging light bulb. In a show of the same sunny resourcefulness he displayed as a foreign correspondent for the Washington Post, Reid uses his ailment as a vehicle to explore the world’s health systems.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2009 at 1925 hrs
Nice one Scott. Keep up the good fight. Power to the people!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2009 at 2056 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 114
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:06 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).