You’ll Feel a Little Pressure
Wrong picture.
Should be Mengele.
Posted by dad29 on July 22, 2009 at 0934 hrs
Only thing they forgot is “grab your ankles”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 0939 hrs
Oh for fuck’s sake. Really? You think the half-measured, watered-down, compromise reform bill being discussed in the US congress right now is analogous to Marx and Mengele? Do you people simply not know any moderates or liberals who can keep you from flying off the edge of right-wing paranoia?
The single best thing about the reform bill is the so-called public option. And even that has been watered down so seriously that I wonder who will actually get the option. Not me, that’s for sure. I work for an employer who offers health insurance (thank goodness). As such, I can’t choose the public option even if i wanted to—not unless my employer chooses to offer it to me. And I don’t know if they even qualify to have the choice.
What I would have liked to see is a public health insurance option that anyone—employed, unemployed, wealthy, poor, has existing insurance or not—could choose if they wanted it. Only at that point will this plan put pressure on the private insurance industry to shape up. Only then will the public plan have the numbers and political clout needed to negotiate lower drug and procedure prices as other nations do. But no. instead we have a plan which will be available to small businesses (if they choose it) and the uninsured. Weak.
In light of this you think the reform bill is so radical that it should rightly be compared to communism? Really?
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1017 hrs
This cartoon is perfect.
The fact that Scott is so upset by it confirms it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1031 hrs
The cartoon is bullshit. The fact that you haven’t really spoken to my criticisms confirms it.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1034 hrs
Only at that point will this plan put pressure on the private insurance industry to shape up. Only then will the public plan have the numbers and political clout needed to negotiate lower drug and procedure prices as other nations do.
Can you detail this a little more? How exactly will this work, in your opinion. We need details before we can speak to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1038 hrs
Hate to tell you Scott-o, but, you *already* get treatment if you can’t pay.
Hands off *my* healthcare. Go ahead and tell me how the bit in there about outlawing private insurance *doesn’t* in fact, outlaw private insurance.
How about, if this passes, all the politicians, including the jug-eared communist get put on the plan along with the rest of us. No special treatment…period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1040 hrs
Scott - what company in their right mind is going offer any insurance if there is a government option?
The fine they are talking about for not having it is WAY cheaper than paying for the insurance.
This is all a stalking horse to take over health care under government control - and we’ll be Canada and Britian in a year with long waits for people to get cancer treatments.
You are smarter than this - or you think we are all really stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1042 hrs
It’s such a great cost-saving option that every member of Congress will be on the government plan, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1053 hrs
Gman, what you get if you have no insurance and can’t pay out of pocket is emergency care. You can’t go and get a mammogram. And if you did and it showed something scary, you couldn’t get treated for it. Nor could you get the prescription drugs prescribed for you by the doctor you haven’t seen.
Emergency care. That’s what you get.
Hands off your health care? Fine. Keep the insurance you have. The only things that might affect you is that a) should you change plans in the future you’ll get to choose from plans which can’t preclude you for preexisting conditions, nor dump you for becoming ill. You’re welcome. And b) your insurance may cost less because it’ll be competing with a lower cost public option.
How about, if this passes, all the politicians, including the jug-eared communist get put on the plan along with the rest of us. No special treatment…period.
i’d love to see us all get on the plan. Supplemental insurance available for those who want it and can afford it, but we all get the same publicly funded basic health insurance. I would like that. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about small employers being able to choose a public option if they want it, and the uninsured will be able to choose it also.
And by the way, if you want to see a future in which all politicians receive government health care, welcome to your dream! Every single member of congress is enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. Government health insurance.
Seriously, wake up man.
Can you detail this a little more?
Absolutely, I can try. Government health insurance will have some advantages that the private system does not have. First, there will be a lot more people in it than in any single private insurer, giving them a much greater ability to negotiate prices for services and products. Ever wonder why Canada pays so much less for prescription drugs than we do? Yeah. Second, it will have lower administrative costs and no dollars skimmed off for profit.
Basically, it’s all the reasons why single-payer health insurance costs so much less everywhere on earth.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1055 hrs
what company in their right mind is going offer any insurance if there is a government option?
The fine they are talking about for not having it is WAY cheaper than paying for the insurance.
It’s not a “fine.” And if it’s cheaper than private health insurance perhaps you should be asking yourself why you’re against it? Plus, not all employers will be able to choose it in the first place. At least that’s my understanding. it’s only “small” employers, whatever that means.
This is all a stalking horse to [...] be Canada and Britian in a year
Having removed your baseless fear mongering from your remarks, all I can say is: Gosh I hope so.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1058 hrs
Government health insurance will have some advantages that the private system does not have. First, there will be a lot more people in it than in any single private insurer, giving them a much greater ability to negotiate prices for services and products. Ever wonder why Canada pays so much less for prescription drugs than we do?
My guess is that Canada’s pricing is lower, because it’s cheaper for the companies to subsidize the loss of profit on the negotiated pricing to the US. What’s going to happen when the last place that doesn’t have negotiated pricing evaporates? The pricing around the world will go up… or the companies will stop making products, or they will stop spending as much on R&D, and you know what happens then.
Yeah. Second, it will have lower administrative costs and no dollars skimmed off for profit.
This is absolutely ridiculous. There’s no point in even rebutting this statement. I can’t believe that an adult with a functioning brain can even make this statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1127 hrs
I am with Scott on this one. I have health insurance through the WEA which costs a lot for the school district. I am also on our city council so I have witnessed the tripling of health care costs since 2001.
Why does the conversation always lead to cries of “socialism and communism”?
The current plan being debated is seriously watered down (again Scott is right). It will do very little to control the costs of health insurance because it leaves the insurance giants in charge.
The only real solution is a single payer plan that requires some contribution from everyone. It would not be an extra expense out of your (or your employers) pocket but rather a savings. Employers would save, all taxing entities would save, and our property taxes would see some actual relief.
Call your local municipality and ask them how much they spend per employee for health care and also ask them what percentage of their budget goes to insurance benefits. You will see what I mean and hopefully realize that something needs to be done or we will continue to see property taxes go up no matter how much governments can cut.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1136 hrs
In light of this you think the reform bill is so radical that it should rightly be compared to communism?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
There is a poll in facebook, really easy to find (I can’t link because you have to be signed it to view), 130k people voted. r AGAINST
socializing health care. Americans do not want this…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1138 hrs
Seventy-two percent of the 130k votes were against. For some reason that did not come thru on the post…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1140 hrs
Canada’s pricing is lower, because ...
Basically what you’re saying is that hospital systems, physicians groups and pharmaceutical companies make up for the low prices they get in, well, every nation on earth, by charging us extra. This is the argument you want to sell people? Good luck with that.
Would you mind terribly putting your huffing and puffing and outrage aside for a moment and explain why you don’t agree that government health insurance has lower overhead costs from administration and profit. Last figures I heard was that Medicare—as an example—had significantly lower administrative costs than any private insurer. What am I missing? (That is if you can recover from your fright at my having pointed it out at all.)
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1140 hrs
Yeah. Second, it will have lower administrative costs and no dollars skimmed off for profit.
This is absolutely ridiculous. There’s no point in even rebutting this statement. I can’t believe that an adult with a functioning brain can even make this statement.
Actually Scott is correct again.
Insurance companies and hospitals spend 30 percent of every dollar on administration of all the multitude of conflicting forms needed to do business.
Medicare spends 3 percent on administration costs.
The ultimate example of a well run system is the VA Hospitals. They are run on limited funds yet still have the ability to care for millions of people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1141 hrs
There is a poll in facebook [...] Americans do not want this…
Oh, come on. Americans do not want this? It was something like 70% who thought it was “very important” that health reform include a public option. Do you really want me to dredge up a couple of other public opinion polls on health care reform to prove that people do in fact want significant reform?
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1144 hrs
There is a poll in facebook, really easy to find (I can’t link because you have to be signed it to view), 130k people voted. r AGAINST
socializing health care. Americans do not want this…The way it is worded it was set up to scare people as though a facebood poll really mattered.
What if they would have asked people “Would you like to save money on your health insurance whether you pay it or your employer pays for it?” Probably 100% yes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1145 hrs
Insurance companies and hospitals spend 30 percent of every dollar on administration of all the multitude of conflicting forms needed to do business.
Medicare spends 3 percent on administration costs.
Scott, MF, That doesn’t prove efficiency. And what happens to those administrative costs when every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly start visiting the doctor for every sniffle? Administrative requirements will skyrocket and the “mathematical enigma you term efficiency will disappear.
Would you mind terribly putting your huffing and puffing and outrage aside for a moment and explain why you don’t agree that government health insurance has lower overhead costs from administration and profit.
You made the statement, I disagreed with it, and you’re demanding proof from me? LOL, sorry, you first, and then I’ll respond.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1154 hrs
you’re demanding proof from me?
Proof? Firs things first. it would at least be nice if you gave any reason for your disagreement.
what happens to those administrative costs when every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly start visiting the doctor for every sniffle?
Medicare patients are already arguably the sickest, as they are much older than everyone else. Besides, you really think people are just itching to get themselves some of that free gubmint doctorin’ that they’re going to all take off work to stand around in the exam room in their underwear for every hangnail? C’mon. People don’t go to the doctor unless they are genuinely concerned about something. There’s no reason to think that Americans are going to start loitering in the lobby of every doctor just because they have the public option. Besides, I’m assuming it’ll have copays and deductibles just like everything else. Is this wrong?
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1201 hrs
I got one option.. Tort reform.
Medicine ain’t perfect and the same drug/procedure/diagnosis is not guaranteed for everyone. Some of those extra costs would disappear if a doctors malpractice insurance could be reduced and they didn’t have to order extra tests to cover his ass.
People need to realize that a vast majority of the time the physician has your best interest at heart and wants nothing to happen to you, but he can’t guarantee it. Hence waiver forms. But usually those same waiver forms are ignored when going to court.. And thus starts the domino effect of higher costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1215 hrs
The way it is worded it was set up to scare people as though a facebood poll really mattered.
What if they would have asked people “Would you like to save money on your health insurance whether you pay it or your employer pays for it?” Probably 100% yes.
The way it is worded. ‘Do you want universal health care?’
What if they would have asked people “Would you like to save money on your health insurance whether you pay it or your employer pays for it?” Probably 100% yes.
If this were the statement, then it would project a lie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1217 hrs
It was something like 70% who thought it was “very important” that health reform include a public option.
People do want a better healthcare/insurance system. They don’t want whats being formed by Congress now when the bits of facts start coming to light on how it’s to be implemented and paid for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1218 hrs
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/does_ted_kennedy_deserve_his_e.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1222 hrs
The way it is worded it was set up to scare people as though a facebood poll really mattered.
130k registered users voted. I’d love to hear the argument why that does not matter.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1222 hrs
Medicare patients are already arguably the sickest, as they are much older than everyone else.
Exactly my point. They’re already the sickest, and so the claims payout for this small type of people needing insurance are going to be higher than Soccer Mommy taking little Tommy to the DR for the slight fever. And when you take those higher claims and divide it by the actual administrative costs, you get a much lower percentage rate. Which is why I state that your math for administrative costs over claims is not in any way a measure of efficiency. The classic example is Tom has a credit card and charges $5000 on it. Sally has a credit card and charges $1000 on it. The administrative cost to the bank is $5 to make and mail both cards. Is the bank more efficient in it’s administrative costs for Tom’s card versus Sally’s?
Proof? Firs things first. it would at least be nice if you gave any reason for your disagreement.
Hmmmm, thought that I did. I disagree with your assertion that the federal government will result in “it will have lower administrative costs”. Your move.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1224 hrs
Scott, MF, That doesn’t prove efficiency. And what happens to those administrative costs when every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly start visiting the doctor for every sniffle? Administrative requirements will skyrocket and the “mathematical enigma you term efficiency will disappear.
Lets assume they increase by 500%. That would place the cost of administration at 15% of each dollar which is still 1/2 of what the insurance companies are hoarding. Hardly a mathematical enigma.
Why do you continue to defend the right of the insurance companies to rip us off?
On another thread here the debate is that medicare is not necessary and Owen would gladly give it up. This would be a move to middle ages and some lucky people may be able to pay for their parents as they get older. I don’t think one can assume that the future will always be bright for them either. What happens when you get diagnosed with cancer, your insurance company drops you and then the hospital or state comes and takes your home. OR you could just go bankrupt and dump it on the system anyway. This is already happening and why we are in the mess we are in.
We will not always remain as healthy as we are now, just look at your parents before you deem Medicare unnecessary.
Medicare for all is the best way, it does not constitute “Socialism”. This is merely an expansion of an already existing program that has proven to be effective and affordable. The cry of socialism is effective in scaring people that the government will come in to tell them when to wipe their butt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1226 hrs
Lets assume they increase by 500%. That would place the cost of administration at 15% of each dollar which is still 1/2 of what the insurance companies are hoarding. Hardly a mathematical enigma.
Where are you getting you 30% from. I’ve been seeing numbers around 8-15%. Again, the enigma I’m referring to is the use of administrative costs / claims paid to prove “efficiency” That’s the enigma.
This is merely an expansion of an already existing program that has proven to be effective and affordable.
But I thought that Medicare is running out of funds? Effective and Affordable? Not so much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1244 hrs
Quoting Leo of the Bohicans from another post – “Baracko is not a doctor, but he knows what’s best for health care. Baracko has never run a business, but he knows how to run an economy. Baracko hires tax cheats for his administration, but he knows better how other countries should be run. Baracko is hailed as a great leader, but he does not know what is in the legislation he champions.”
Quoting from Steve from another post - “If you like going to the DMV and waiting for slow and poor service, if you never wonder why the Post Office loses money every year, when FEDEX and UPS make money, if you never understood why private education is superior to public education, then you will certainly think your “free healthcare” is improved when you need to wait weeks for an appointment to see a doctor you didn’t choose.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1301 hrs
130k registered users voted. I’d love to hear the argument why that does not matter.
Because it’s not a scientific poll in any way shape or form. How’s that for a reason?
And when you take those higher claims and divide it by the actual administrative costs, you get a much lower percentage rate.
Jason, that’s probably the only sensible criticism you’ve brought to this debate so far. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions, but that is a very interesting point.
Where are you getting you 30% from. I’ve been seeing numbers around 8-15%.
Me, too, actually. Jason we’ve got to stop agreeing on things quick, lest the natural order of the universe be disrupted.
bajaskier, that’s cute reasoning but it unfortunately doesn’t hold water. FedEx and UPS make money because they a) don’t have to carry all the kinds of items that USPS does and b) they don’t have to carry them everywhere like the USPS does. Don’t get me wrong, I love me my FedEx. But your argument is roughly analogous to observing that an expensive private high school has better test scores than a free public school and then arguing all public schools should be made into private schools. Which, now that I think of it, is probably just the kind of specious reasoning you use in that area, too.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1340 hrs
Ever wonder why Canada pays so much less for prescription drugs than we do?
I don’t. What drugs were discovered, perfected, and produced in Canada recently?
CanadaCare is wonderful if you ignore the obscene costs and the obscene wait times. Canada is spending BILLIONS just to lower the wait times, not to provide better care, just lower wait times.
Patients are also facing long delays when they go the emergency department, the WTA said, waiting an average of nine hours to be seen and treated and for patients who needed to be admitted, the average wait time was nearly 24 hours.
All you need to do is google “Canada wait times” (or similar) and read 100’s of articles from Canadian sources about how rationed government care is crap, expensive gold-plated crap.
Canada’s median wait time for cancer care is 7 weeks. Guess the cancer waits to progress too, right?
I used to work for an agency that worked with a ND hospital, and that hospital did a big advertising campaign to attract Manitobans to the hospital to have surgery to have drainage tubes put into the ears of kids with chronic ear infections. It’s a simple procedure, but the wait time in Canada was 13 MONTHS for the surgery. Imagine dealing with ear infections for another 13 months in your young child.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1347 hrs
Canada is spending BILLIONS just to lower the wait times, not to provide better care, just lower wait times.
Whoa, scary!!!1 But you’re missing the forest for the trees: Canada still pays a heck of a lot less for health care than we do.
And listen, I’m not saying Canada is the best model to follow or that they’ve done everything right. All things considered, i’d rather have their system than ours, but I think there are better models to look at and lessons we can learn from their mistakes.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1407 hrs
Jason, that’s probably the only sensible criticism you’ve brought to this debate so far. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions, but that is a very interesting point.
Does the Credit Card / Banking administrative example jive with you? Why would total cost of administration over total claim payout have anything to do with efficiency? Especially in this case when you’re looking at a number of disparities in the members of both. One the one hand you have elderly, and on the other hand, you have everyone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1429 hrs
Well, the Bureau of indian Affairs health care is run so good that Indians have some of the worst health problems and health care available.
And scott, according to the plans, people would be required to purchase health insurance. What do you do to the people who refuse to purchase health insurance because of religous beliefs? Throw them in jail?
And do trust the GOP to run the health insurance plan when they come back into power?
You praise Medicare and Medicade, but do realize the problems with the programs? Wait times. Many doctors do not accept Medicare and Medicade patients. Try getting a dentist appoint if you are on government health care. So, now, you will have more government health insurance and unless you force doctors to take government health insurance, you will have longer wait times.
Finally, how do you trust the U.S. government to solve the health care “crisis” when they have screwed up so many other things, such as the war on poverty, education, farm policy, FAA, DOD and so many other government mismanagement.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1439 hrs
Canada still pays a heck of a lot less for health care than we do.
You mean they pay less for worse care and worse services???
NO WAY!
How much less? Sounds really tempting so far…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1440 hrs
I always find this debate interesting. As the rules are set by the right over this debate, that one side is for government run health care and the other is opposed, they’ve already lost. We have government run health care, and it is very successful in some areas (just try to find the politician willing to talk about ending MA, and see how quickly they lose their seat) and a disaster in others (the aforementioned emergency room examples).
The real question to debate, if you want to be honest, is the size and the scope of that coverage. Obama and the Dems will make a big gain this year in advancing their side of the debate, but what they are ultimately talking about will fail, or more accurately fail to solve the problem (as I’m sure the system will function and provide care to some). What it will do however is create such a dependency on government supported health care that future administrations (maybe even Obama’s second term) and future congressional bodies will clean it up with sweeping reform.
That’s the prediction from this Lefty at least.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1441 hrs
I think you’re on to something, Lefty. At least I hope you are. I hope that even if the current proposals prove to be too watered down and too half assed to really solve the problems we have, at the very least they may make it easier to really and truly fix them in the future.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1455 hrs
Because it’s not a scientific poll in any way shape or form. How’s that for a reason?
So because it does not meet scientific criteria, it is null and void?
130,000 people that voted may tend to disagree….
Can you provide a larger sample size? Didn’t think so…Their is significance to the poll. You can believe it does not represent a trend all you want… I tried to believe McCain had a chance…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1456 hrs
You mean they pay less for worse care and worse services???
No. I mean they pay a lot less for a system with fewer and less grievous problems than ours has.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1457 hrs
So because it does not meet scientific criteria, it is null and void?
Yeah, pretty much. it’s not reliable. You really should learn something about science, research design and statistics before you start telling other people what’s what.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2009 at 1459 hrs
It is accurately termed “socialist” as soon as the government demands that everyone participate and “share” in the cost. The free-market approach is that you have a choice in whether to use the service, and then take responsibility for paying for it.
From an overall cost perspective, there are several factors that contribute to escalation. One is technology advances, where we lead the world because there is a financial reward for doing so - a socialist plan will minimize that reward, so advances will slow. Another is frequency of use, and accessibility to various procedures - a socialist plan will control that through rationing. The third is fear of lawsuits and the practice of “defensive” medicine - a true socialist plan simply eliminates that…but do the Democrats dare take on their trial lawyer buddies? A fourth is cost-shifting - which the blunt force of a single-payer (price controls) system, ala Medicare, will solve…but quality will eventually suffer.
Basically, the farther removed the consumer of the service is from the responsibility for paying for it, the worse the system works. Health Savings accounts are targeted for elimination in this “reform” mainly because liberals can’t stand to empower consumers. With an HSA, the consumer becomes a stakeholder in the process by being allowed to keep savings derived by cost-efficient use of his dollars - rather than just handing them all to the insurance company and/or health care providers.
The current bill does not take us directly to single-payer…but it sets the parameters and puts us on that road…a highway with no exits. Scott may term that right-wing paranoia, but we all recognize it for what it is…incrementalism with a socialist goal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1636 hrs
No. I mean they pay a lot less for a system with fewer and less grievous problems than ours has.
So out of control wait times for diagnosis and treatment don’t fit the definition of grievous for you? Seems like the best example of grievous problems related to health care to me.
Go ask 5 women you know how they’d feel about waiting 7 weeks or more to receive their very first breast cancer treatment. You can even tell them it’ll be 100% “free” once they get that treatment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1639 hrs
So because it does not meet scientific criteria, it is null and void?
Yeah, pretty much. it’s not reliable. You really should learn something about science, research design and statistics before you start telling other people what’s what.
Scott, I’m a quality engineer and a Six Sigma Master Black Belt. So I’ve forgotten more than you know about stats. Lesson #1: because a sample is not scientific does not mean it has no value.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1734 hrs
You mean they pay less for worse care and worse services???
No. I mean they pay a lot less for a system with fewer and less grievous problems than ours has.
Could not be further from the truth, Scott…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1737 hrs
Using the term ‘socialist’ in the discussion of insurance in general is a bit misleading. As I noted in another thread, the basic premise of any insurance, is to spread the risk over as large a pool as possible, so the the Law of Large Numbers can begin to operate with some sort of predictability. So yes, by definition, insurance is ‘socialist’ in that it spreads the cost to all.
That being said, there are concerns of ‘socialism’ coming into play when you start to talk about subsidizing the cost of premiums. If some in the coverage pool pay more for the same policy as others, and those differences are not related to chance of misfortune, but rather ability to pay, then yes we are talking about the socializing of the American health insurance industry. This has already happened, so it is a matter of whether or not to expand the program. To talk about Medicaid and Medicare as being successful programs depends on the definition of success, they cover those who might not have coverage otherwise, they make coverage affordable. In those respects, they are successful programs. They are not universally accepted, they undercut costs that are then transferred to other customers, they are fraught with waste and abuse, both by consumer and provider. In those respects they are failures. I cannot see how anyone who is trying to responsibly look at revamping a system that may or may not be broken (yes, the current system has problems, but is it irreparably broken?) would look at either of these programs as being a good model on which to base an expansion.
Even one of the most successful private, low-cost, high-quality care facilities in our country, the one held up most often as a shining example; Mayo; has reported that they do not see how they can be sustainable under current parameters. IMO, this is an issue that DOES need addressing, but through honest, qualified, non-partisan debate, not subject to some arbitrary deadline based on summer vacations. It also cannot be delayed through foot-dragging and stone-walling by those politicians who are beholden to the status-quo.
There are many reasons for the explosive increase in medical care costs; fraud, waste, and abuse; litigiousness; undocumented persons accessing care; extended life-expectancy and its concomitant increase in the need for expensive elder-care; the list goes on and on. We need to look at the whole picture, and be willing to address each and every part, no sector can be exempt if we are going to come up with a workable plan.
Normally, I would argue that it is better to make small changes, get something done knowing that more is coming. But, in this case, when we are talking about 20% of the economy and so many entrenched and intractable interests, I do not know that you can pull the trigger on just one part of a solution.
So, since there is not a ‘crisis’, in that the system currently in place is not in danger of collapsing under its own weight in the next 48 months, let’s discuss having our elected representatives sitting down for HONEST debate. Define what it is we want to accomplish first, then find an equitable solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1746 hrs
Wow - so much fodder, so little time…
Scott Says:
Gman, what you get if you have no insurance and can’t pay out of pocket is emergency care. You can’t go and get a mammogram. And if you did and it showed something scary, you couldn’t get treated for it. Nor could you get the prescription drugs prescribed for you by the doctor you haven’t seen.
If you are that poor then you have Medicare, Badgercare, Medicaid, and charity meds from the drug companies. I spent some time in hospital not so terribly long ago including the ER (it was a holiday), the ICU, regular room - 7 days total with another week of home care. There were many tests (blood work, xray, CT, nuclear, lumbar puncture, etc.) and then, of course all the meds (IV fluids, electrolytes, antibiotics). I was pretty sick. Due to the fast-moving nature of my illness, the typical 24 hour delay in the ER as described occurs regularly in Canada above would have killed me.
After adding up all the bills, it came to a little over $42K. A number my spouse heartily agreed we would have gone into debt for - even if it were a higher number - to save my life. I was fortunate and grateful that I had private insurance. But at the same time, I would have never dreamed of asking someone else to pay for it.
Both Scott and MoveForward have bought into the eeeeevvvviiiillll pharmaceutical straw man. As both of you are in some form of education/adademia, I realize it would be difficult for you to understand the costs, risks, and difficulties of bringing a new drug to market. As I have some experience and knowledge of the clinical trial aspect - it ain’t cheap to come up with the latest and greatest drug to cure (insert ailment here). It can take up to 20 years and a billion dollars for a single drug to make it to market. Most of them don’t make it past the Phase 2 trials. That’s a LOT of R&D money. The Phase 3 trial - of which I am most familiar - is a limited release for the public. It requires trial participants to come in regularly for medical checks including things like blood work and ECGs - all paid by the drug company.
For the sake of argument, say a drug - like Vioxx as an example - makes it through Phase 3 and the FDA approves it. Canada and Europe have price caps so if you want to make it available you have to agree to potentially sell there at a loss. In the US you need to convince insurers to carry it in their formularies and then price it to recoup costs and fund other R&D before your patent runs out and the generic becomes available. At best, the Phase 3 trial only had a couple thousand participants because of the cost, so maybe, like in the case of Vioxx when you get it out into a population of 10s of thousands you find that it can cause heart trouble in 1 of every 10,000 or so people. What happens then? The FDA pulls it off the market and you get sued by the families of the few people that had problems for billions of dollars even though you helped tens of thousands. Man those companies suck don’t they…
Even though I am one of the 83% of the population that is covered by some sort of insurance (private in my case), my parents are on Medicare and I don’t want to reduce the current standard of care for any of us. The US is ranked first in the world in both cancer survival rates (good news for my family member recently diagnosed) and being responsive for patient needs.
That said, our system is not perfect, and there are certainly areas for improvement to reduce costs, gain efficiencies, and to boost up the “safety net”. Standardizing codes and insurance forms for doctors and hospitals so that they can streamline billing. Actively going after Medicare and Medicaid fraud and severely prosecuting those that do it - including the participating doctors. i mean when is the last time you heard of someone doing 25 years for ripping off the taxpayer with Medicare fraud? Implement some tort reform (loser pays or caps on “pain and suffering”) to reduce the costs of medical malpractice insurance (estimated at about $100B annually). I also mentioned in a previous thread how it could help to give ERs/hospitals some tort reform cover if they set up triage areas and set up regular doctor or urgent care appointments for non-emergent patients instead of processing them thru the ER (i.e - not getting sued for discrimination or patient dumping).
I also don’t think that states should mandate coverage - people and families should be able to choose the coverage they feel is best for them - whether it be for autism, mental health, chiropractic, viagara, well-baby, etc. There is not a 1-size fits all policy and it should be more ala carte like car insurance is. Also on the insurance reform side, there shouldn’t be any “group” coverage. Costs of coverage should be based on actuarial data like life/car insurance coverage is and we should be able to shop our choices to get the best value for us. There should be no such thing as denying care for a pre-existing condition, but smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users, and the morbidly obese should pay a higher rate for their lifestyle choices. Yes, I realize this requires much more complete thoughts to work out the details - especially with employer-provided insurance. But its a start….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 1814 hrs
I still think it should be Mengele.
National Socialist Party—-Nazis.
Scott, you are not prepared for rational argumentation on the topic. Too bad you met people who ARE.
‘Salright, Scottie. After tonight, you’ll have more talking points from Dear Leader. They won’t be rational, of course, but try them out!
Posted by dad29 on July 22, 2009 at 2014 hrs
Scott admitted it was incrementalism when he agreed that the “government option” was the stalking horse for a one payer government run system.
Tort reform is the answer to fixing the medical system - not a take over by the government. Government is not capable of running anything efficiently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2009 at 2118 hrs
It seems scott and the other liberals believe in unicorns and a pot of gold underneath the rainbows. He offers no rational evidence to the real life, he just hope and prays for things to work. But life if is good in Teletubby land.
Posted by Dan on July 23, 2009 at 0115 hrs
Sovreign Immunity- ever hear of that? That means if the U.S. government doesn’t want to be sued, then you can’t. And there are almost no punative or pain judgements against it. So, if you or a relative has a problem with the government, then good luck getting the case resolved.
With private insurance, you can go ahead and sue the insurance company. You can get punative damages, you can have a class action lawsuit, you can sue for pain and suffering.
Another issue liberals keep quiet about.Posted by Dan on July 23, 2009 at 0449 hrs
I just don’t understand these arguments.
-Health care will be rationed!
The market and health insurance companies already do that.-It’s MY health insurance!
No it isn’t, it’s a benefit provided by your employer. They can and do take it away, switch providers, etc. on a whim.-I don’t want to pay for others!
Unless you pay all your own health bills directly, you already do that. That’s what health insurance is.-The government will deny care to save money!
Health insurance companies already do that for the same reason.-You already get care in the ER if you don’t have insuranace!
Great, you get help in the ER when your problem is severe at 5-10 times the price we would have paid for preventative care.-OMGZ!!Z!Z111Z!!!! SOCIALISM WHEREZ THE BIRTH CIRTIFIKATE?
Yeah, Europe, Bermuda, Canada, etc. are just such oppressive hell holes with no freedom at all. They spend less on health care and have better results.But, you know, as long as we do what’s in line with your ideology. That’s what’s important.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 0644 hrs
The market and health insurance companies already do that
So? You’re asserting that Obama & Co. will make better decisions—completely unfounded.
They can and do take it away, switch providers, etc. on a whim
So? WTF does that have to do with anything?
That’s what health insurance is.
Not exactly, Tosa. ObamaCare will include 15 million illegal aliens who are NOT insured at this time.
Health insurance companies already [deny care to save money]
So? Back to #1 above. Obama, Pelosi, and Obey is NOT the name of a medical practice.
you get help in the ER when your problem is severe at 5-10 times the price we would have paid for preventative care
And ER visits will decline by an offsetting amount, Tosa? You KNOW this exactly how? Further, you imply that adding 47 million people to coverage will REDUCE costs?
Maybe you were downwind from the MaryJane house that burned??
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 0718 hrs
I still think it should be Mengele.
National Socialist Party—-Nazis.
Scott, you are not prepared for rational argumentation on the topic.
This literally made me laugh out loud. Are there no conservatives in the house willing to tell one of your fellows to stfu already? Not an honorable one among you?
Scott admitted it was incrementalism when he agreed that the “government option” was the stalking horse for a one payer government run system.
Scott admitted no such thing. He simply said that he personally would like to see that happen.
Tort reform is the answer to fixing the medical system
I don’t agree, but I’d be willing to support such reforms if you were willing to couple it with some of the more meaningful reforms, like guaranteed issue, full participation and other cost reductions—such as the ones in the House bill.
Health insurance companies already [deny care to save money]
So? Back to #1 above. Obama, Pelosi, and Obey is NOT the name of a medical practice.
Neither is Blue Crosss/Blue Shield. Since we’re in agreement, though, that insurance companies do in fact deny care (and coverage) to save money, let me ask you this. Does Medicare do that? How about Veterans health insurance? No, they don’t. Everyone who is eligible gets covered and that coverage does not go away once the person becomes sick. That would be the answer to your “So?” Government care can in fact do better in this regard than private insurance does. We already have proof of that.
Besides, the reforms on the table are about providing a limited number of people a government-paid insurance plan. The rest of us will still have private insurance (although with reforms like guaranteed issue, etc.) Why is this debate about universal government health care versus a total private system? That’s not what’s on the table.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 0833 hrs
Veterans health insurance? No, they don’t
Yes, they do—unless you think a hospital with shockingly BAD sanitation, roofs, windows, etc., is “spending money on health care.”
Or unless you think that delay, delay, delay, is “good” health care.
We could discuss BIA’s “healthcare”, too, Scott.
Since we’re in agreement, though, that insurance companies do in fact deny care (and coverage) to save money
We do not so agree. Insurers typically do not cover ‘experimental’ coverage, nor will they issue a blanket OK to non-justifiable procs/tests, etc.
But they WILL pay—eventually—for licit procs/treatments. Your assertion that “they don’t pay” is silly and/or anecdotal.
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 1029 hrs
The VA is more highly rated in terms of satisfaction than private insurance.
And I guess you are denying the reports by customers that private insurance company found reasons to deny coverage that they thought they were entitled to, even to the point of combing back through their records to find some trivial and unrelated thing undisclosed on their initial application—even things they didn’t know about! Basically that never happens, in spite of what they say. And in spite of former insurance company employes who say it happens every day and that they’re paid big bonuses for doing it. And I suppose it never happens that if you’ve been sick you can’t find new insurance.
Come on. Silly? Anecdotal? Really?
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1042 hrs
Scott,
Read page 16 of the House bill - it pretty much makes writing any new private insurance policies illegal. Change jobs? Get Obamacare! Want to shop new carriers? Get Obamacare! Sneeze the wrong way? Get Obamacare!
Considering that about 85% of all insured folks (private and gov’t sponsored like Medicare) are pretty happy with their coverage (that would be over 215 million of us) I’d say the horror stories are yes, anecdotal.
Again, not saying some improvement can’t be made, and I believe that we should put measures in place to cover that 8-9 million folks that currently aren’t eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. But not at the expense of ruining it for the 215 million listed above.
One more thought - you can argue and fight an insurance company to cover treatment. Who do you call when the government decides that the test/procedure/meds aren’t cost-effective enough for you? Your Congressman? Ghostbusters? Think about it…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1216 hrs
it pretty much makes writing any new private insurance policies illegal.
That claim is “pretty much” bullshit. What the law does is make it so that only new policies have to adhere to the new regulations (guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusions, etc.) whereas existing policies do not.
I know that right-wing blogs have been making a huge deal out of this claim ever since Investor’s Business Daily printed an OP/ED that initiated the bogus charge. But you really should do your homework: it isn’t true.
I think you severely underestimate the problems in American health care and in the level of dissatisfaction with it. But tell me: what “measures” would you put in place to cover the uninsured? What measures would you put in place to reduce costs so that we are no longer the laughingstock of the free world, paying double what everyone else pays? What measures would you put in place to make sure sick people don’t have their insurance dropped just because they’re sick? What measures would you put in place to make sure that sick people can get affordable insurance?
You can fight and argue with an insurance company. We all know that because so many of us have to do it regularly. Do you think people do that in Canada to that same extent? I don’t think so. The person who decides what treatment or tests you get in Canada is, believe it or not, your doctor. Yes, there are certain treatments which are considered experimental or elective which may not be covered, but if your doctor says you need an MRI you get one. If your doctor says you need your tonsils out, they come out. Period. You think it works that way in the US? Puh-lease. It’s primarily your insurance company who decides what you get and what you don’t get, what they will cover and won’t cover.
You think 85% of Americans are in favor of preserving the status quo, or want only minor changes in health care policy? I think you need to do some more reading on the subject.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1354 hrs
about 85% of all insured folks (private and gov’t sponsored like Medicare) are pretty happy with their coverage
Very few businesses of ANY sort get 85% approval.
Like NeoMom, I agree that there are SOME problems with current situation.
But I have very good reasons to doubt that ObamaCare will solve all the problems. You think it will? You’re not too astute an observer of human nature.
The (R) plan, by the way, also eliminates pre-existings. At much less cost to the taxpayer (if any at all.) It preserves the good parts of the system, unlike FascistCare.
Your objections to the (R) plan are…........??
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 1407 hrs
I have very good reasons to doubt that ObamaCare will solve all the problems. You think it will?
No. I don’t. But I suspect the difference between your reasons and mine are that mine are rational.
But seriously. I worry that not enough people will be in the public plan for it to have enough impact on private insurance premiums. That is to say, it won’t be as aggressive at driving down costs as it could be. That’s what I worry about. What are you worried about? Marxism?
Guys, come on. The whole “85% of people are happy with the status quo,” “sure I think there’s SOME problems” meme isn’t going to cut it. Not with me and not with American voters. There’s big support for significant reform. People want some change. The status quo cannot remain. I don’t want to wake up a decade from now only to find that my premiums have doubled again and there’s now 80 million Americans with no insurance. Wake up already.
Either come up with some solutions of your own or get the hell out of the way. The time has long gone when you can derail this by minimizing the problem. They’re too big for that now.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1417 hrs
“Either come up with some solutions of your own or get the hell out of the way”
One of your top 10 stupidist comments ever, scott and you have so many stupid comments.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1428 hrs
Congratulations on your entirely content-free, yet personally insulting response!
Anyone else? Haven’t we moved beyond HSAs and other band-aid bullshit? Let’s hear the right’s answer to America’s health care problems. Sell it to me.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1430 hrs
Re-read Post #47 for a few ideas. I believe Owen also had an entire post on this just a week or so ago. More ideas in the (R) plan put forth and largely ignored by the media and the D’s.
The issue is that unless it screams Socialized/National/Single Payer, Scott does the blog equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and screaming LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
btw - I showed Scott’s comment about the satisfaction of the VA system vs. private insurance to the retired Army Vet I work with, who coincidentally, spent an hour dealing with the VA just today…. His response was “Has this idiot even know anybody who has dealt with the VA?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1620 hrs
What the law does is make it so that only new policies have to adhere to the new regulations (guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusions, etc.) whereas existing policies do not
Meaning, precisely, that one cannot replace like-with-like.
IOW, you may have this in any color you want so long as it’s black—at the price REQUIRED for black.
You People have not proposed anything
It is true that I have not proposed anything. However, Ryan has proposed a health plan, and in the near future, Senate Republicans will do the same. Speaking of “seriously,” perhaps you should be serious, too.
As to the “public plan” driving down prices—WTF do you think happens to supply when profits disappear? Perhaps you think that Gummint can also mandate certain people to become MD’s? Who will pay off their $200K school loans? The taxpayer?
Think rationally, Scott.
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 1622 hrs
Ryan Plan: http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/index.htm
“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.
That was introduced in Congress. For some reason, it has gone nowhere. Wanna debate REAL alternatives, Scott?
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 1627 hrs
Only 250 pages!!
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/HR2520.pdf
That’s because it doesn’t have all sorts of sneaky obfuscations, Scott.
Posted by dad29 on July 23, 2009 at 1632 hrs
To build further on dad’s point regarding the cost of medical school. Has anyone ever thought about WHY so many of the doctor’s here in the US are not US-born? I’ll give you a hint - its because the nationalized healthcare in their home countries. I have had the chance to speak with a couple of them. Whether its my friend’s father - the orthopaedic surgeon who brought his family here from Canada or my neighbor - the cardiologist who brought his family here from Denmark…. The reasons were the same, they had too heavy of a patient load because there weren’t enough doctor’s because the government “guldelines” hindered them in their ability to treat patients, and then didn’t pay them enough (to keep costs down) and taxed the bejeezes out of them (56% in Denmark) because they were too wealthy. Gee, that wouldn’t have any affect on the number of doctors at all would it? (sarcasm)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1634 hrs
Scott also said..
There’s big support for significant reform. People want some change.
That is somewhat true - you haven’t seen anyone here say nothing should change. But I think you are overestimating the support for the radical change that Obamacare brings. We don’t want THIS change.
On Monday, the Washington Post/ABC poll reported that 49% of Americans approve of his handling of health care while 44% disapprove. What many people missed is that those who strongly disapprove of the president’s approach on health care now outnumber those who strongly approve by 33% to 25%. That presages further decline. Already, 49% of independents disapprove of the president’s approach, up from 30% in April, a staggering shift in 11 weeks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1643 hrs
450,000 registered facebook users have voted on health care (in the form of two separate polls)... 73 per cent against…..
450,000 separate registered facebook users…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1644 hrs
smeety;
Before one of the vocal lefties blows your post all to hell, I need to point out that you cannot as with any amount of certainty that those figures represent 450,000 separate registered facebook users. Because it is 2 different polls, it is possible, indeed likely that some voted in both of them.
Ok, now ya’ll can chew him up for yet ‘another unscientific sample, which reflects absolutely nothing at all because it doesn’t say what we want it to say’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1659 hrs
Scott,
You said you would never post here again. What changed your mind? I would be lying to say I am glad to see you back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1825 hrs
Did I say that? I don’t recall it. But in any case, I probably should say it and stick to it.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1832 hrs
Same old scott…. 20 posts with nothing but opinion, and inunendo, oh and some attacks on “the mean, evil righties”.
I was even “EXTRA” nice with you, and tried talking with you, and all you did was ignore my main points, and move on to talk down to others. I think you should say it and stick to it, because no one in this crowd is going to extend you any more courtesy. You have done nothing to earn it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1841 hrs
Does anyone know of any local political blogs where debate and discussion can happen without wholesale demonization of one side?
Maybe I’ll go back to Plastic.com. It’s not local, but I had good experiences there in years gone by.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2009 at 1854 hrs
scott, when people make logical arguements against the government health insurance proposal, you either ignore it or dismiss the arguements. We have put many reasons why this is a bad idea. All you have to come back is a drooling response of “Either come up with some solutions of your own or get the hell out of the way” That is not a very intelligent, logical arguement. It actually is very childish and really shows you really don’t know what the hell are you are talking about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 1904 hrs
Elovrich,
Good point. Still probably the largest poll out there, scientific or not. I’d be curious to how ‘scientific’ it is….
350,000 in the one poll now…75.2 per cent against. I’ll keep posting that number as it seems to annoy Scott…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 2104 hrs
So therefore what we have now is fascist health care?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2009 at 2155 hrs
The whole “85% of people are happy with the status quo,” “sure I think there’s SOME problems” meme isn’t going to cut it.
Then provide evidence it isn’t true.
Does anyone know of any local political blogs where debate and discussion can happen without wholesale demonization of one side?
Oh, grow the @#$% up! You can’t build up a rep as a hypocritical, self-righteous ideologue w/ no regard for facts, or represent the lie-and-demagoguery fueled machine that is the modern American Left, and expect people not to react to you accordingly.
I too can attest to the VA note. At the Fond du Lac County Fair this past week, we met a veteran who, when asked if he uses the VA, chuckled and responded, “Hell no, I go with my wife’s insurance company.”
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 24, 2009 at 1133 hrs
Tort reform is the answer. The reason healthcare costs are so high is due to malpractice insurance, and also a doctor will order every test in the book so that no one can accuse the doctor, under oath, at a later date that he/she missed something.
Doctors don’t make money by ordering tests. It’s strictly a cover your ass move. What drives this are the huge lawsuits for even the tiniest mistake a doctor may make.
If you are going to demand perfection from every encounter with the healthcare system - then you better be ready to pay for it.
Without Tort reform nothing will change on the cost side.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2009 at 1228 hrs
Bill,
Interesting theory except the states that have enacted tort reform measures such as caps on non-economic damages have not seen a reduction in health care costs. Although
TheWeiss report concluded:
There is no doubt that the implementation of non-economic damage caps has resulted in lower claim payouts for insurers. For caps to be considered successful, however, the lower payouts would need to translate into lower med mal premiums for medical professionals. Unfortunately, that has not been the case
.
In other words, tort reform measures only benefit the insurance companies, not the doctors and not the patients. Thus, although tort reform may sound nice, it is not the answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2009 at 1654 hrs
Further refutation of the Medicare is AWESOME and should be the model for any reform (although the current bills do not do this)... From another statement from Mayo…
Under the current Medicare system, a majority of doctors and hospitals that care for Medicare patients are paid substantially less than it costs to treat them. Many providers are therefore already approaching a point where they can not afford to see Medicare patients. Expansion of a Medicare-type plan without a method to define, measure, and pay for healthy outcomes for patients will move many doctors and hospitals across this threshold, and ultimately hurt the patients who seek our care. We should not put more Americans into the current unsustainable system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2009 at 1751 hrs
Excellent article by Krauthammer - note his take on tort reform at the end of the article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI0ZWIxNjFjOGQ3ZGVkOGY3YmRkNmYzZWJhZmZjOWU=
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2251 hrs
Save billions for who?
That was my point: tort reform may enable insurerers to pay out less but they ain’t passing it on. And why would they, in most states there is only one or two med mal insurers, when you have a monopoly you don’t attempt to compete on price.
IMO, to lower healthcare costs we need a system that makes everyone accountable for their own health. Currently, we spend 147 billion every year on obesity related illinesses. It seems to me that a “fat tax” will be more effective than tort reform. Plus, reducing the number plus sized people will increase the asethics of our community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1550 hrs
Hey Super Id, what about the next great medical study that shows that we spend 150 Billion a year on those that don’t have blond hair and blue eyes? What then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1620 hrs
Jason,
Little sensitive about your weight? Remember, obesity is preventable and treatable. Call Jenny Craig and stop spending my tax dollars.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 2205 hrs
Super Id is the perfect example of the smiley-faced fascism encroaching on all of our freedoms.
The nanny-state progressives feel they can take over every aspect of our lives because they “know better” and that its “good for us” all because they will be “paying” for it through the socialist medical program dubbed Obamacare (or the medical equivalent of Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi”). Oh what a slippery slope of medical ethics we are on. Soon ethics will be a cost-benefit analysis.
Sorry your special needs child won’t be a productive enough member of society - No Care For You!! Sorry Mr SeniorCitizen, you simply won’t get enough use out of that hip/knee replacement and you don’t really pay taxes anymore anyway - No Care For You!! But here is your mandatory end of life counseling, please save us all some money and choose medical-assisted suicide. Sorry that breast/prostate cancer is stage 3 now, but those really promising drugs were just way too expensive and we can’t let those eeeevvvviiiiillll pharmaceutical companies have any profit to fund more R&D and we won’t pay them for the drugs anyway - No Care For You!!
Here is a slogan that every leftist can get behind….
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!
Stop Obamacare!
And before you go all personal attack - I don’t smoke and am not obese, nor do I have a special needs child or cancer. I don’t wan’t Obamacare for anybody. We all deserve better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0657 hrs
Little sensitive about your weight? Remember, obesity is preventable and treatable. Call Jenny Craig and stop spending my tax dollars.
Not at all. You want to keep your tax dollars? Stop supporting something as inane and nanny-statist as a “fat tax”. Boo Hoo Hoo.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0734 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 51
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 05:22 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).