quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
So today was a busy day for the health care debate. President Obama posted his version of a compromise between the Senate and House health care bills. According to the New York Times it generally sticks pretty close to the Senate version. Apparently he promised he would do this ahead of Thursday's planned all-day televised debate between Obama, the leaders of the Democratic Caucus and the leaders of the Republican Caucus.

Five Republican leaders wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today, detailing their views and making their suggestions.

The Wall Street Journal focused a little more on the cost of the plan $950 billion over 10 years.

I haven't had time to read the proposal or to thoroughly read the articles yet. But what do people think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
Socialized medicine is what I have a problem with. How would taxes work? What would coverage be like?

It is true taxes would rise. What kind of tax are we talking about? Would the amount of the tax depend on how many dependants you have? Or would it depend on how much you make? A single man making $50,000 should not have to pay more than a family of 4 making $40,000. I don't want to live with the fear that if my wife and I make $100,000 a year together that we have to pay $500 a month in health insurance taxes, especially when I pay $220 per month right now.

If it were fair I would be more apt to buying into it. I have a feeling though that all I would be stuck with is paying more for what I have now, just so I can pay for someone else.

Mucus, as far as I know, how it works is that congress has to vote to end debate on a bill. If there are not enough votes to do so (60) then the cloture motion cannot pass, and debate continues. If the Majority Leader decides to set the bill aside and bring it back up later he may do so. Budget bills however only require a simple majority (50) for the cloture motion to pass. If congress attaches the health care bill to the budget bill then they can pass it with a simple majority.

The problem is the outrage that would follow, not to mention the precedent it would set. Essentially every piece of legislation that the controlling party wanted to pass could then be placed on a budget bill. Republicans, if they ever gained controll of the senate or house, could use the same tactics to force legislation through. You can see how this could become dangerous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
All I want is a plan where other people pay for my health care and I don't have to pay for other people's health care. Is that too much to ask?

---

quote:

---

The problem is the outrage that would follow, not to mention the precedent it would set. Essentially every piece of legislation that the controlling party wanted to pass could then be placed on a budget bill. Republicans, if they ever gained controll of the senate or house, could use the same tactics to force legislation through. You can see how this could become dangerous.

---

quote:

---

There was some discussion last year of using reconciliation to pass the entire health care bill and avoid the filibuster. This ran into technical difficulties -- reconciliation can only be used for measures that principally effect revenues or outlays. So instead the Democrats passed a health care bill through the Senate using regular order.

Now, of course, the problem is that they can't mesh the Senate bill with the House bill using regular order, because Republicans will filibuster it. But most of the points of negotiation between House and Senate concern taxes and spending -- exactly the kinds of things that reconciliation is designed for. So it's fairly easy to just have the House pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation to eliminate the Nebraska Medicaid subsidy and change the mix of taxes that pay for new coverage.

---

quote:

---

Are they still punishing people who choose not to get it with a fine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
I have a feeling though that all I would be stuck with is paying more for what I have now, just so I can pay for someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
I'm a little unclear about the whole reconciliation/filibuster thing. So without a supermajority (or something) senators can filibuster and hold up the legislation by giving a long speech.

But eventually don't they still have to stop if only due to fact that people cannot talk indefinitely? Why is this 60 vote thing so important?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
I have a feeling though that all I would be stuck with is paying more for what I have now, just so I can pay for someone else.

---

Many people have a 'feeling' or a 'gut instinct' assuring them that this would be the case, based on their preconceptions and default mentality involving government.

Yet when one substitutes empirical study and expert analysis if the system in place of anecdotal and ideologically cultured 'gut' impressions, the data is stark. It is difficult to find any metric under which the current actuarial model is favored. The mountains of evidence show that a switch to a public model will be both cheaper and more effectual in all circumstances except those where truly compromised legislation is passed. Even that is difficult to achieve. The current bill, while hardly ideal, still manages to be vastly superior to the status quo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Stephen, yes. But right now, we all pay higher costs in order to cover the uninsured. And we spend more for less health care than countries with national health care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
... The Senate has changed its rules so that you no longer actually have to filibuster to filibuster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
Its not a gut instinct for me. Its 5 years in the insurance business. Companies that take higher risk people charge higher rates across the board, plain and simple.

---

quote:

---

Here’s the story: About 800,000 people in California who buy insurance on the individual market — as opposed to getting it through their employers — are covered by Anthem Blue Cross, a WellPoint subsidiary. These are the people who were recently told to expect dramatic rate increases, in some cases as high as 39 percent.

Why the huge increase? It’s not profiteering, says WellPoint, which claims instead (without using the term) that it’s facing a classic insurance death spiral.

Bear in mind that private health insurance only works if insurers can sell policies to both sick and healthy customers. If too many healthy people decide that they’d rather take their chances and remain uninsured, the risk pool deteriorates, forcing insurers to raise premiums. This, in turn, leads more healthy people to drop coverage, worsening the risk pool even further, and so on.

Now, what WellPoint claims is that it has been forced to raise premiums because of “challenging economic times”: cash-strapped Californians have been dropping their policies or shifting into less-comprehensive plans. Those retaining coverage tend to be people with high current medical expenses. And the result, says the company, is a drastically worsening risk pool: in effect, a death spiral.

So the rate increases, WellPoint insists, aren’t its fault: “Other individual market insurers are facing the same dynamics and are being forced to take similar actions.” Indeed, a report released Thursday by the department of Health and Human Services shows that there have been steep actual or proposed increases in rates by a number of insurers.

But here’s the thing: suppose that we posit, provisionally, that the insurers aren’t the main villains in this story. Even so, California’s death spiral makes nonsense of all the main arguments against comprehensive health reform.

For example, some claim that health costs would fall dramatically if only insurance companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines. But California is already a huge market, with much more insurance competition than in other states; unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most. And competition hasn’t averted a death spiral. So why would creating a national market make things better?

More broadly, conservatives would have you believe that health insurance suffers from too much government interference. In fact, the real point of the push to allow interstate sales is that it would set off a race to the bottom, effectively eliminating state regulation. But California’s individual insurance market is already notable for its lack of regulation, certainly as compared with states like New York — yet the market is collapsing anyway.

---

quote:

---

But right now, we all pay higher costs in order to cover the uninsured. And we spend more for less health care than countries with national health care.

---

quote:

---

The status quo cannot fail to be improved. It is the absolute worst, by far, in the modern world. We pay over twice as much into a system that delivers us less and leaves thousands to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, the reconciliation process can't be used for everything.

---

quote:

---

Our health care system is the absolute worst in the world? By far? Who are these thousands being left to die? Are you suggesting that someone seeking treatment is not treated or able to be treated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

The status quo cannot fail to be improved. It is the absolute worst, by far, in the modern world. We pay over twice as much into a system that delivers us less and leaves thousands to die.

---

Our health care system is the absolute worst in the world? By far?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
All you people who are asking for "socialized" health care, is that what you really mean or are you talking about single payer because there is a big difference.

In a socialized health care system, all the doctors and other health care providers are employed by the government. In a single payer system, everyone has health insurance from the government but hospitals are still privately owned and health care workers are still privately employed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
All you people who are asking for "socialized" health care, is that what you really mean or are you talking about single payer because there is a big difference.

In a socialized health care system, all the doctors and other health care providers are employed by the government. In a single payer system, everyone has health insurance from the government but hospitals are still privately owned and health care workers are still privately employed.

---

quote:

---

Okay, DK. This is getting ridiculous. You should not have such a consistent problem with reading comprehension, especially not when you actually have the portion of my post quoted which shows clearly that you aren't reading what I actually wrote.

you do this all the time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Supplementary to Lyrhawn: Alternatively, you can also equate that to the developed world which would also throw in countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. (Or the OECD which would add Japan and South Korea)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
]Again, we are the worst in the modern world? As in Europe and Canada as Lyrhawn suggested? is that your assertion?

---

Yes. ALL of the high income nations have systems which work better, have higher efficiency, do more good, and are currently considered more sustainable than our system. They create a more significant healthcare-related boost to national health, and each and every one of them costs at least HALF of what ours does per capita while covering EVERYONE and keeping the countries more managed for the event of epidemic health risks.

The only way anyone can suggest that we're better than <insert middling-high income nation here> is by cherrypicking data that doesn't incorporate full metrics. Which is what I assume you're getting ready to do.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Lyrhawn: Meh. No apologies required
I just bring it up to broaden the scope of the comparison and also because these additional countries do show up a decent amount in articles and statistics on the subject.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
All you people who are asking for "socialized" health care, is that what you really mean or are you talking about single payer because there is a big difference.

In a socialized health care system, all the doctors and other health care providers are employed by the government. In a single payer system, everyone has health insurance from the government but hospitals are still privately owned and health care workers are still privately employed.

---

This is not correct. Both a single-payer and a fully nationalized health care system fall under the purview of being considered "socialized," because either one uses a social payment model. Single payer systems are considered 'socialist' or 'socialized' or 'social' health care systems, regularly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Lyrhawn: Meh. No apologies required
I just bring it up to broaden the scope of the comparison and also because these additional countries do show up a decent amount in articles and statistics on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I guess that depends on who is doing the "considering".

---

quote:

---

Yes. ALL of the high income nations have systems which work better, have higher efficiency, do more good, and are currently considered more sustainable than our system.

The only way anyone can suggest that we're better than <insert middling-high income nation here> is by cherrypicking data that doesn't incorporate full metrics. Which is what I assume you're getting ready to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

The status quo cannot fail to be improved. It is the absolute worst, by far, in the modern world. We pay over twice as much into a system that delivers us less and leaves thousands to die.

---

Our health care system is the absolute worst in the world? By far? Who are these thousands being left to die? Are you suggesting that someone seeking treatment is not treated or able to be treated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Incorrect. You made the assertion so it is up to you to provide independent data that the US is the worst.

---

quote:

---

Senator John McCain has joined President Bush in declaring that we have “the best system in the world.” A recent survey found that this view is shared by 45 percent of the population and fully 68 percent of those who identify themselves as Republicans. But any mention of “the best” begs the old Borscht Belt question of “Compared to what?”

The fact is that — by practically any measuring stick other than how much money it spends — the United States is lagging compared not only to most major industrialized countries, but also to some developing countries. Different organizations and researchers have devised a variety of ways to measure how United States the is faring vis-à-vis the rest of the world. These provide a sobering and humbling appraisal of health care expenditures and what they buy us.

There are three usual ways to measure health services. We can look at structure, the ingredients that go into providing care; at process, the way services are linked to ensure access and accountability; and at outcome, or health status, most often summarized as the five D’s: disease, death, disability, discomfort and dissatisfaction.

Structure

Because structure refers to the country’s medical endowment in terms of personnel and facilities, at first glance the United States would seem to rank high in terms of its health labor force and clinic and hospital infrastructure. Still, the United States does not have more resources available than the average for the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2004, the United States had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1000 population, while the average for OECD countries was 3.0. Moreover, and most importantly, the country is in the midst of a contracting supply of primary care specialists, and that is expected to worsen in the next decade.

In the absence of a point of entry such as a primary care physician and a source of continuing care, many Americans lack a medical “home.” The result is fragmented care, uneven responsibility and higher expenses, all of which affect the process of obtaining services. Not surprisingly, a cross-national study of seven developed countries found that U.S. respondents reported the highest overall medical error rate of those studied.

Process

The process also leaves a lot of people out, with almost 50 million uninsured and an equally large number having skimpy or inadequate coverage. This means that approximately 100 million people, one-third of the U.S. population, is uninsured or underinsured. And even those “covered” with Medicaid and Medicare cannot count on complete coverage, having to deal with gaps, co-pays and “doughnut holes” that act as barriers to health care. Those without coverage tend to receive fewer preventive services, get late or no care, lack continuity in the treatment they receive and have worse outcomes.

Outcome

It is therefore not surprising that the United States has worst indicators of health status than many other countries that have fewer resources to spend on medical care. A study published earlier this year ranking 19 industrialized nations in terms of preventable deaths found that the United States was the worst. The top three ranking countries were France, Japan and Australia. While France had 64.8 deaths deemed preventable for every 100,000 inhabitants, the United States had 109.7 deaths. If the United States could reduce these “excess deaths” to the average of that of the three top-performing countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year by the end of the study period.

Public Opinion

Even when patients are unaware of data such as discussed above, they manifest their dissatisfaction with the system. One 2007 study surveyed 12,000 adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. This found that adults in the United States reported high rates of coordination problems and billing hassles. Moreover, one-third of U.S. respondents said that the health system needed to be rebuilt completely, the highest rate of any of the seven countries.

The Best Health Care System?

What, then, do politicians mean when they say the United States has the best health care system in the world? They are probably referring to the abundance of resources (however poorly distributed) and the intensity and variety of technology (however ineffectively or unnecessarily used). While the United States is a significant leader in medical research, medical education and in the application of new methods of diagnosis and treatment, the benefits of these accrue primarily to selected medical enclaves: those who are better educated, live in metropolitan areas and have generous insurance coverage.

---

quote:

---

A new report by a US health foundation has found that Americans get the worst deal in terms of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations.

The report is published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs and is the work of researchers sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund, which is based in New York.

The authors found that while other countries dramatically reduced deaths preventable by effective health care between 1997-8 and 2002-3, the US did so only slightly. If the US had performed as well as the top ranking countries, 101,000 fewer deaths per year could have been prevented, wrote Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee, who are based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The best performers were France, Japan, and Australia.

To arrive at the figures, Nolte and McKee compared trends between 1997-8 and 2002-03 in deaths of people under 75 years of age whose cause of death was "considered amenable to health care". They called this figure "amenable mortality" and included the US and 18 industrialized nations in their analysis.

The authors wrote that amenable mortality accounts, on average, for about 23 per cent of all deaths under the age of 75 in men and 32 per cent in women, and it declined by an average of around 16 per cent in all countries over the period they studied.

However, the United States was an "outlier", they wrote, in other words it was far below the average, showing a decline in health care amenable deaths of only 4 per cent.

---

quote:

---

"By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the US lagging in health outcomes."

"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," she explained.

---

quote:

---

The idea that if the United States joins the rest of developed nations and finally adopts a universal health care system it will bankrupt itself is not based in reality. The reality is that the US spends a larger proportion of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than any other developed nation. By far. Not even close. CDC has just documented it from data collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in its 2008 health data yearbook (statistics and indicators for 30 countries). It suggests we are being bankrupted by our lack of a universal health care system:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

Yes. ALL of the high income nations have systems which work better, have higher efficiency, do more good, and are currently considered more sustainable than our system.

The only way anyone can suggest that we're better than <insert middling-high income nation here> is by cherrypicking data that doesn't incorporate full metrics. Which is what I assume you're getting ready to do.

---

Incorrect. You made the assertion so it is up to you to provide independent data that the US is the worst.

---

code:

---

	    Life Expectancy  	Infant Mortality
       
Japan	        82.4	                    2.6
Switzerland	81.7	                    4.4
Italy	                81.4	                   3.7
Iceland	        81.2	                   1.4
Australia	81.1	                   4.7
Spain	        81.1	                   3.8
Sweden	        80.8	                   2.8
Canada	        80.7	                   5.0
France	        80.7	                   3.8
Norway	        80.5	                   3.2
New Zealand	80.1	                   5.2
Austria	        79.9	                   3.6
Germany	79.8	                   3.8
Ireland	        79.8	                   3.7
Netherlands	79.8	                   4.4
Greece	        79.6	                   3.7
Belgium	        79.5	                   4.0
Finland	        79.5	                   2.8
UK	                 79.5	                   5.0
Luxembourg	 79.4	                   2.5
Korea	         79.1	                   4.1
Portugal	         78.9	                   3.3
Denmark	 78.4	                   3.8
United States	 78.1	                   6.7  

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... The US is at the absolute bottom of the list both in terms Life expectancy and infant mortality. We spend more than twice the average as a percent of GDP and 3 times the average per capita as the other developed countries ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Psst, Rabbit, you have to use & n b s p ; (with out the spaces) to create a space that Hatrack will print. Like this:

With 5 normal spaces: . .
With 5 encoded spaces: .     .

---

code:

---

column 1     column 2
item         note
items        note
more items   note

---

 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
^^ Better idea. Thanks Lisa
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Well, DK, you asked for data. It has been presented to you. A lot of it. What say you?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:
Actually, for a chart of the type Rabbit posted, the best thing is to use the "code" tag. It'll preserve formatting. For example:

code:

---

column 1     column 2
item         note
items        note
more items   note

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephan:
Premiums will rise if they can't turn down pre-existing conditions. I fully support socialized care. Its this in between stuff I can't stand. You can't force insurance companies to take higher risk people, and expect rates not to rise.

Are they still punishing people who choose not to get it with a fine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

The status quo cannot fail to be improved. It is the absolute worst, by far, in the modern world. We pay over twice as much into a system that delivers us less and leaves thousands to die.

---

Our health care system is the absolute worst in the world? By far? Who are these thousands being left to die? Are you suggesting that someone seeking treatment is not treated or able to be treated?

---

Typically you aren't addressing what's being said. First of all, the "modern world" which is being referred to is the developed world. According to a long list of reliable metrics, the American system *is* the worst in the developed world. And yes, thousands of people die every year in America because of the problems associated with our system, who would otherwise not die.

Do you actually believe that there are not people who seek treatment and are unable to get it? Do you think cancer, heart, and diabetes patients who cannot afford their treatment receive effective care in America? Do you think that care measures up in any way to the care provided such people in other developed countries? If so, how have you come to believe these things? Honestly, you've been posting on this subject for how many years, and you're still incredulous about the most basic established facts involved. It's like you're walking into a high school algebra classroom, and proclaiming that it is impossible to determine the length of one side of a triangle if you know the lengths of the other two sides. I'm so sick of this willful ignorance on the part of conservatives: "It's cold so there's no climate change!" "I haven't read about anybody dying so it isn't happening!" "My friends says they have to wait in line for the flu shot in France!" "I haven't seen Barack Obama's birth certificate so he's not really an American!" It's all really so pathetic.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
My uncle died because he was unable to get medical treatment. He was middle class America. After he ran into medical problems, he lost his job and insurance. He then tried to get on medicaid. He died while waiting on the paperwork, so he could have the tests he needed. Of course, we didn't realize that waiting for the paperwork would cost him his life, otherwise we would have gotten him the money, somehow, someway. But he said that medicaid would be covering him soon and everything would be ok. Not something we are vocal about and a lot of people who knew my uncle probably didn't know those facts about his death, but maybe we should, since people seem to think people like him don't exist. Except it still hurts and politicizing a family member's death is not an easy thing.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Is it obvious the tests would have saved him? Perhaps they would have told him "You have two months to live. Sorry."
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
KofM- that is a possibility. We don't really know. Once dead, beyond ruling out homicide, they weren't that interested in figuring out what went wrong. So, I guess we have to technically say there is an unknown statistical probability that the denial of health care factored in to his death.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I'm sorry for your loss, scholarette. Things like that shouldn't happen.
 

---

Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
scholarette, I am so sorry for your loss.

Thank you for sharing his story here.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
scholarette, I'm sorry to hear about your uncle.

I know we've gotten beyond this point a bit, but I had a question about this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
All you people who are asking for "socialized" health care, is that what you really mean or are you talking about single payer because there is a big difference.

In a socialized health care system, all the doctors and other health care providers are employed by the government. In a single payer system, everyone has health insurance from the government but hospitals are still privately owned and health care workers are still privately employed.

---

quote:

---

Is there a large hurdle beyond the obvious money outlay to creating a health insurance company?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
I get what you're saying about the difference here, but if there is only one insurance company paying the many hospitals, doctors, etc. for their work, then how marked is this difference, really? In one case the government is the boss, in the other case the sole customer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
Health insurances need regulation, but I wonder if there's a way to allow for more competition.

---

quote:

---

Alcon: I would never suggest that there is one problem to solve and health care would be fixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
Health insurances need regulation, but I wonder if there's a way to allow for more competition.

---

The US has the most market driven competitive health care system in the world and it costs us more than double the amount others are paying with worse outcomes. Why in the world would we want to make it more competitive when competition is working so much worse than more cooperation oriented health care systems?

All the evidence suggests that competition in health insurance and health care makes it more expensive and less effective and not vice versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:

quote:

---

Alcon: I would never suggest that there is one problem to solve and health care would be fixed.

---

I completely believe you, that wasn't directed at you so much as the world. I've seen way too many people suggests that the be-all end-all solution to everything (but especially our health care system) is getting rid of all regulatory barriers to competition.

I know way too many people, particularly of the Objectivist or Libertarian persuasion or are convinced that more free market competition is the silver bullet to all our problems.

---

quote:

---

To which I can only point at the computer sector. Microsoft and Intel established their monopolies with little help from government regulations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
Honestly I think health insurance companies cover too much and distance the prescriber and patient from the true costs of health care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
You're misreading me. I'm not saying that the patient needs to pay out of pocket or bear more of the cost. The costs need to be more transparent. Preventative care is very important. However medications (for example) are most frequently regulated by the insurance company because the provider and the patient have no idea what the cost of that medication is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
I think it's too late once you've already picked up your medication to find out how much it would cost by cash.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A third of young U.S. adults -- nearly 13 million people -- had no health insurance coverage in 2008, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

---

quote:

---

More findings from 2008 National Health survey:

* Although 58 percent of those surveyed had private health insurance coverage, men with insurance were less likely than women to seek medical services.

* Young adults with no insurance were four times as likely as those with private insurance and two times as likely as those with Medicaid to have unmet medical need.

* Uninsured young women were almost twice as likely as uninsured young men to have had unfilled prescriptions in the past year.

* 10 percent of young adults needed medical care in the past year but did not get it due to cost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Well, DK, you asked for data. It has been presented to you. A lot of it. What say you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Well, DK, you asked for data. It has been presented to you. A lot of it. What say you?

---

Data's not his strong suit. Try some BS. He's got skills in that area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
If anyone wants to write encouraging notes to my Senator, here is his website.

I suggest you write to yours as well.

http://durbin.senate.gov/index.cfm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Hmmm...I write to Senators from all over. I have no idea if they pay attention or not - even the ones from my state as I usually get a canned response. How do you know the the ones from your state are paying any more attention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
... The person just knows that the US is number one and statistics don't mean anything.

---

Kinda self-defeating, why point out that the US is number one if statistics don't mean anything?
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Well, I think she meant other people's statistics, not her own made up ones.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
AAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHH!! I just spent an hour arguing someone over healthcare. The most frustrating part- they refused to believe the US was anything but number one in life expectancy. I was like, where are you getting that from? The person just knows that the US is number one and statistics don't mean anything.

Also covered, rich people only come to the US for health care (no rich people go to say India or anywhere else) and China is communist (China is not communist under the traditional definition of communist).

---

 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
Well, I think she meant other people's statistics, not her own made up ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

Yes. ALL of the high income nations have systems which work better, have higher efficiency, do more good, and are currently considered more sustainable than our system.

The only way anyone can suggest that we're better than <insert middling-high income nation here> is by cherrypicking data that doesn't incorporate full metrics. Which is what I assume you're getting ready to do.

---

Incorrect. You made the assertion so it is up to you to provide independent data that the US is the worst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
... The person just knows that the US is number one and statistics don't mean anything.

---

Kinda self-defeating, why point out that the US is number one if statistics don't mean anything?

---

quote:

---

Statistics require, you know, research and data and facts and sciency mathy stuff.

---

quote:

---

Rush is threatening to leave the country if the bill passes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Rep. Grayson Introduces Bill to Allow Anyone to Buy Into Medicare at Cost

This looks promising, or least inspires some mild hope, however soon it might be quashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I keep trying to do a long post but I keep timing out as I can only work on it periodically.
Here is one article about comparing infant mortality rates:
Behind the Baby Count

---

quote:

---

Even granting variations in definitions of live birth, I did some back-of-the envelope calculations during my last go-round on this topic and determined that ignoring the deaths of all infants below the cutoffs used for "live birth" by other nations, the US only climbs into the middle of the rankings.

---

quote:

---

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

---

quote:

---

"About average" is a stronger endorsement than "at the bottom", but it's still not a point from which one can argue the superiority of our most-expensive-by-far system.

---

quote:

---

Plus, Matt, that's only 1 variable in multiple that were pointed out on previous pages. Changing the baby number by a small percentage is not suddenly going to vault up the US health system's place in the civilized world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
The middle of the rankings which is not the worst.

---

quote:

---

I have not argues the superiority at all. I am arguing against the aforementioned United States being the worst in the modern world.

---

quote:

---

We're not calculating 'worst' based on that single piece of data. You could move our infant mortality rate up to the top ten and it would not change the overall ranking of our care system based on the incorporation of assessment metrics.

---

quote:

---

Ours is still the most expensive with the least tangible benefit and the most issues among all other high-income nations.

---

quote:

---

why does the US have higher numbers of preemie birth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Personally, I find the lifespan statistic FAR more compelling than the IMR one. The fact that lifespans in this country are middle of the pack while spending is anywhere from 4 to 7 times as much suggests VERY strongly to me that our health care system simply fails.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I find the lifespan statistic FAR more compelling than the IMR one. The fact that lifespans in this country are middle of the pack while spending is anywhere from 4 to 7 times as much suggests VERY strongly to me that our health care system simply fails.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Personally, I find the lifespan statistic FAR more compelling than the IMR one. The fact that lifespans in this country are middle of the pack while spending is anywhere from 4 to 7 times as much suggests VERY strongly to me that our health care system simply fails.

---

Well it might also be indicative of many other factors more directly tied to lifestyle choices. Our diet for one thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

Personally, I find the lifespan statistic FAR more compelling than the IMR one. The fact that lifespans in this country are middle of the pack while spending is anywhere from 4 to 7 times as much suggests VERY strongly to me that our health care system simply fails.

---

I agree with Backblade. The general US lifestyle cannot be overcome by spending enormous amounts of money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well it might also be indicative of many other factors more directly tied to lifestyle choices. Our diet for one thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... Life style differences between the US and Canada are generally negligible (in my experience) ...

---

I agree with you on the larger point. But I remember this exchange

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Wow, I would not have thought there would be such a large difference between the US and Canada. Canada has a higher marrying age than the UK, German, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and basically any where in the world except Chili.

---

quote:

---

Many who "can't afford health care" smoke more, drink more, are obese and pay hundreds a month on car, internet, cable tv, cellular phones with bling on their feet, neck and grill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
You're a racist for considering "bling" a black thing.

---

Uh, where did he say it was a black thing? Why did you think that?
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
He didn't say it was a black thing but he characterized my statement as racist. I had to revisit my statement for racial connotations.
The only other characteristics I used for American's who can't afford insurance were car payments, internet, tv, alcohol, cigarettes, cellular phones and obesity. All characteristics common to all populations. I had to put myself into the mindset of an overly sensitive liberal. The kind of person who questions whether the term "black magic" is racist since it insinuates black is bad. Of course, the young and hip white people don't think "bling" is a black term just as I don't perceive rock'n roll as negro music...we show our age. I deduce I'm dealing with an out of touch, overly sensitive, slighty older white person. The kind of person who might make a statement about gays with a quick disclamer...."not that there's anything wrong with being gay."
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
You're a racist for considering "bling" a black thing.

---

quote:

---

You're a racist for considering "bling" a black thing.

---

quote:

---

He didn't say it was a black thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The only other characteristics I used for American's who can't afford insurance were car payments, internet, tv, alcohol, cigarettes, cellular phones and obesity. All characteristics common to all populations. I had to put myself into the mindset of an overly sensitive liberal. The kind of person who questions whether the term "black magic" is racist since it insinuates black is bad. Of course, the young and hip white people don't think "bling" is a black term just as I don't perceive rock'n roll as negro music...we show our age. I deduce I'm dealing with an out of touch, overly sensitive, slighty older white person. The kind of person who might make a statement about gays with a quick disclamer...."not that there's anything wrong with being gay."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I had to revisit my statement for racial connotations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
IE Elvis was negro music to the liberals of 50 years ago. Today, it's rock and roll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I was accused of racism for saying many people who can't afford health care have cable tv, car payments, smoke cigarettes, are obese, drink alcohol heavily, are obese and wear "bling".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malolanthrop:
Another great contribution to our nation of today's blacks. IE Elvis was negro music to the liberals of 50 years ago. Today, it's rock and roll.

---

I want what you're smoking
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
If you think "bling" only pertains to blacks, you live in an area that is predominately white. The fifteen year old white boy on the corner speaks ebonics and hangs with the black kids and there's nothing wrong with it. Most white guilt liberals live in wealthy white areas. I love living in a working class diverse neighborhood and my kids attend an extremely diverse school. It's easy to sit in white suburbia or in a college dorm with your white guilt and elitist judgemental attitude. There isn't a single word I've written on Hatrack I wouldn't let my minority neighbors and friends read. Many of you wouldn't even consider buying a house where I live. You'd see to many blacks mowing their lawns.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Many of you wouldn't even consider buying a house where I live. You'd see to many blacks mowing their lawns.

---

quote:

---

Only a racist/sexist would consider a minority female disadvantaged. What's so disadvantageous about being a female and a minority?

---

quote:

---

You may consider me to be insensitive because I am not sensitive to the liberal defined categories and I know conservatives in every category you can imagine.

---

quote:

---

Conservatives view murder as murder and rape as rape. The punishment should fit the crime not the protected status of the victim and hiring should be based upon qualifications not preference points for being a paralyzed, blind, retarded, minority female.

---

quote:

---

I believe there are only two kinds of people.

---

quote:

---

People who believe in the individual and people who believe in the society. Liberals believe in society's responsibility to the individual, conservatives believe in individual responsibility to society.

---

quote:

---

Liberals see categories of people. Women, men, asian, old, young, black, white, gay, lesbian, christian, atheist, etc.

---

quote:

---

Liberal ideals have created the concepts of hate crimes and affirmative action. The more disadvantaged you are the more preference you deserve. The penalties for crimes against you depend upon your "protected class" status.

---

quote:

---

Conservatives view murder as murder and rape as rape. The punishment should fit the crime not the protected status of the victim

---

quote:

---

just as legal immigrants are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty.

---

quote:

---

Only a racist/sexist would consider a minority female disadvantaged. What's so disadvantageous about being a female and a minority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sinflower:

quote:

---

just as legal immigrants are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty.

---

This is interesting. I've found it to be true among many of the legal immigrants I know; the viewpoint that they respected and followed the laws of the country they were immigrating into, and illegal immigrants hadn't, so they don't deserve equal treatment to legal immigrants.

---

quote:

---

We could open our borders to all South American immigrants and our population would double or triple in short order yet our nation would collapse under the weight of the uneducated and poor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
I believe there are only two kinds of people. People who believe in the individual and people who believe in the society. Liberals believe in society's responsibility to the individual, conservatives believe in individual responsibility to society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
You may consider me to be insensitive because I am not sensitive to the liberal defined categories and I know conservatives in every category you can imagine. Conservative homosexual female minorities are more readily accepted by me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
There are only two kinds of people. Those who believe in the the individual and those who believe society owes individuals something based upon their pigeon hole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Only a racist/sexist would consider a minority female disadvantaged. What's so disadvantageous about being a female and a minority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
As someone who has lived as both a legal and illegal immigrant, I can tell it sounds like a whole lot of crap to me.

The reason many people are illegal is because they are poor and desperate. They can't wait years to enter the US and may not have the resources or education necessary to find a place to live and a job that will satisfy the immigration people. That has even been hard for me where I live now, and I'm well educated, and do have resources.

So go and ask someone who entered the US legally, and you're probably talking to someone who had at least the luxury of some financial resources, education, etc. Would it surprise you that these people would look down on a despised class of working immigrants with no papers? Do you think they would be proud of that association?

---

quote:

---

You say that like there's some inherent right to immigrate. And that if you can't do it legally, well, by damn, you're entitled to do it illegally, because who has a right to tell you you can't immigrate.

That's a funny way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
As someone who has lived as both a legal and illegal immigrant, I can tell it sounds like a whole lot of crap to me.

The reason many people are illegal is because they are poor and desperate. They can't wait years to enter the US and may not have the resources or education necessary to find a place to live and a job that will satisfy the immigration people. That has even been hard for me where I live now, and I'm well educated, and do have resources.

So go and ask someone who entered the US legally, and you're probably talking to someone who had at least the luxury of some financial resources, education, etc. Would it surprise you that these people would look down on a despised class of working immigrants with no papers? Do you think they would be proud of that association?

---

You say that like there's some inherent right to immigrate. And that if you can't do it legally, well, by damn, you're entitled to do it illegally, because who has a right to tell you you can't immigrate.

That's a funny way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:
You say that like there's some inherent right to immigrate. And that if you can't do it legally, well, by damn, you're entitled to do it illegally, because who has a right to tell you you can't immigrate.

That's a funny way of thinking.

---

You've never immigrated illegal. I know you well enough to know you would chafe at being told there was something you couldn't do, without being giving a decent reason why that was.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
According to my dad, who grew up on a farm, once upon a time there were migrant work visas, and those who wanted to cross the border to work on farms then go back home could do so freely and have enough money to send to their families and live out the rest of the year. PLUS they were protected by law because they were here under the law. We don't have to have extra immigration. Just more open borders for work purposes.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Considering the current state of affairs is a situation that bleeds money into useless enforcement of obtuse laws, while actually *promoting* the abuse of workers who contribute to the American economy through their work and what taxes they pay (mostly sales tax), I'd say that's a plum idea. There are millions of illegals in America already, so whatever your ideology, enforcement of the current scheme is right out. It has never even been convincingly shown that such immigration patterns hurt our economy in the long run. Two centuries of history tell us that it's not likely.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Nice to see you around, Amka
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dabbler:
Nice to see you around, Amka

---

Definitely.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Fact Check: Premiums would rise under Obamacare
EDIT:
I think the article is saying the premiums will go up but for most households they will receive tax credits to offset the cost.

[ March 17, 2010, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
DarkKnight, I think the critical bit of information that the headline and your post are missing is that premiums have already been rising. The way it is stated makes it seem like premiums would rise because of the new healthcare reform instead of rising more slowly and leveling off.

Do you see how this is misleading?
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
The numbers I read indicated that within a few years, without reform they would go up some huge amount, but with reform, they would go up like half that huge number. So, it isn't a question of will they go up, but how much.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I deem Obamacare to be a Very Bad Thing.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Canadians respectfully disagree.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yes, Lisa, but you would say that for Obama-puppy-rescue or Obama-ice-cream-for-orphans, so it's not like your opinion carries much weight.

---

From what I understand, we're looking at our current health care system going from broken to explosive collapse some time in next 15 years if drastic steps aren't taken. The way it works now, costs are pooled together, so that, essentially, low risk healthy young people are subsidizing everyone else. However, as we've seen in isolated cases due to the recession, there comes a point where the healthy people who don't use the system that much stop buying insurance or go for catastrophic coverage only. So, in order to cover costs, the insurance premiums shoot up on the more risky people who are left.

Right now, if nothing else changes, people are projecting insurance rates to continue inflating way out of proportion to monetary inflation, which makes it look like at some point along the line, even the healthy who can afford it are going to find not paying for insurance a more cost-effective option. If we don't work something out reasonably soon, the next time this comes up, we'll be less in a health care crisis and more in a post-apocalyptic health care situation.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Hey, thanks guys.

I would like to see some reform that give those who can't afford it better health care. My dad (with a heart problem and some back/hip pain) is self employed, working as hard as he can. My mom has some auto immune diseases and is also taking care of my granddad, so she can't go to work. I wish there was something to help them out a little, you know? And if someone had to be hospitalized, it would devastate their economics.

But I really don't like the reform I'm seeing. Though there is a lot of hoo and ha about how terrible insurance companies are, this health care reform is not about getting people health care, but about getting them insurance.

Weird. You know, actual costs of medicine has not gone up nearly as much as insurance premiums have.

The opinion of the ones that we actually pay to take care of us is being largely ignored. Medicare doesn't pay primary care doctors enough as it is, and now it is being cut, and Obamacare will make that even worse. It will be nearly impossible to be a practicing primary care physician under Obamacare. They will be forced, for the sake of making a living, to quit.

So... pushing doctors out and adding patients in is going to increase the quality of America's health care? Strange idea, that.

I'd really like to see more accountability from the insurance companies - both health care and malpractice. I think that, and tort reform, are the first steps. THEN we can see what else is appropriate for the government to fix.

And here is a tangent idea: get rid of the idea that corporations have the same rights as human individuals do.

And I'm angry about this "deem and pass" thing being pulled and these private conversations Obama is having with those who oppose. Sorry, but it is really creepy.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

It will be nearly impossible to be a practicing primary care physician under Obamacare. They will be forced, for the sake of making a living, to quit.

---

quote:

---

And I'm angry about this "deem and pass" thing being pulled and these private conversations Obama is having with those who oppose. Sorry, but it is really creepy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

And I'm angry about this "deem and pass" thing being pulled and these private conversations Obama is having with those who oppose. Sorry, but it is really creepy.

---

It's just a method of bundling two bills into one vote and it's nothing new. Its an up or down vote on two bills structured so that it's not possible to pass one bill without passing the other. I don't see why that should be creepy. If a legislator doesn't like either bill they are free to vote no and neither will pass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Yes, Lisa, but you would say that for Obama-puppy-rescue or Obama-ice-cream-for-orphans, so it's not like your opinion carries much weight.

---

quote:

---

Yes? How many votes are needed to pass it now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

And I'm angry about this "deem and pass" thing being pulled and these private conversations Obama is having with those who oppose. Sorry, but it is really creepy.

---

It's just a method of bundling two bills into one vote and it's nothing new. Its an up or down vote on two bills structured so that it's not possible to pass one bill without passing the other. I don't see why that should be creepy. If a legislator doesn't like either bill they are free to vote no and neither will pass.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps one silver lining of all this is that the public will become more aware of the messy nature of legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:
Hey, thanks guys.

I would like to see some reform that give those who can't afford it better health care. My dad (with a heart problem and some back/hip pain) is self employed, working as hard as he can. My mom has some auto immune diseases and is also taking care of my granddad, so she can't go to work. I wish there was something to help them out a little, you know? And if someone had to be hospitalized, it would devastate their economics.

But I really don't like the reform I'm seeing. Though there is a lot of hoo and ha about how terrible insurance companies are, this health care reform is not about getting people health care, but about getting them insurance.

Weird. You know, actual costs of medicine has not gone up nearly as much as insurance premiums have.

The opinion of the ones that we actually pay to take care of us is being largely ignored. Medicare doesn't pay primary care doctors enough as it is, and now it is being cut, and Obamacare will make that even worse. It will be nearly impossible to be a practicing primary care physician under Obamacare. They will be forced, for the sake of making a living, to quit.

So... pushing doctors out and adding patients in is going to increase the quality of America's health care? Strange idea, that.

I'd really like to see more accountability from the insurance companies - both health care and malpractice. I think that, and tort reform, are the first steps. THEN we can see what else is appropriate for the government to fix.

And here is a tangent idea: get rid of the idea that corporations have the same rights as human individuals do.

And I'm angry about this "deem and pass" thing being pulled and these private conversations Obama is having with those who oppose. Sorry, but it is really creepy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

It will be nearly impossible to be a practicing primary care physician under Obamacare. They will be forced, for the sake of making a living, to quit.

---

That sounds like wildly inaccurate fear mongering to me. Where are you getting that from?

---

quote:

---

As part of a final push to enact health care reform legislation, AAFP President Lori Heim, M.D., of Vass, N.C. has issued a Speak Out alert to AAFP members asking them to phone their congressional representative to rally support for the health care reform bill pending in the House of Representatives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, (at the THOMAS Web site, type H.R. 3590 in the search box after selecting "Bill Number") would strengthen the nation's primary care infrastructure and end many of the worst practices by the nation's health insurance industry, according to the alert, but it needs 216 votes to pass in the House.
--Health care reform

---

quote:

---

The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget would provide funding increases for a number of primary care-related programs and, thus, would enable the U.S. health care system to take steps toward offering a high-quality, efficient and accessible health care system, according to AAFP President Lori Heim, M.D., of Vass, N.C.
--Budgetary changes

---

quote:

---

[For context]
According to plans, the House Budget Committee will begin action today, approving changes to the Senate healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3590) by way of the budget reconciliation process. These corrections will largely follow the outline put forth by President Obama in late February.
--Lexicology

---

quote:

---

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which represents 60,000 pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and surgical specialists, applauds the United States Senate for its vote to pass its health reform agreement, embodied in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Academy supports the legislation, and applauds the Senate for its tireless efforts to pass a health reform agreement out of its chamber this year.

While final health reform legislation will be shaped by a conference committee melding the Senate’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the House of Representatives’ Affordable Health Care For America Act (HR 3962), the Senate’s agreement includes several components that take significant steps toward achieving the Academy’s highest priorities for health reform, including a provision that immediately grants all children comprehensive preventive services.
...
The Senate’s historic vote was a necessary and important step toward passing comprehensive health reform legislation in 2010.
--Dec 2009 Press Release

---

quote:

---

The American Academy of Pediatrics—a non-profit professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults—is pleased to stand here today alongside Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other child health advocates to urge Congress to finish the job on health reform.
--March 15, 2009 Press Release

---

quote:

---

The American College of Physicians, representing 129,000 internal medicine physicians and medical student members, believes that President Obama’s health insurance reform proposal, released February 22, has many of the key policies needed to make health insurance coverage available to all Americans, to ensure that patients have access to a primary care physician of their choice, and to reform payment and delivery systems to achieve better value. Such policies, we believe, can provide a strong foundation for reaching agreement on a legislative pathway to enact comprehensive health reform without further substantial delay.

We remain hopeful that despite strong philosophical disagreements on some issues, members of Congress from both political parties will be able to find common ground on policies sufficient to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care.
--Feb 2010 Statement of the ACP On President Obama’s Health Insurance Reform Proposal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:
The opinion of the ones that we actually pay to take care of us is being largely ignored. Medicare doesn't pay primary care doctors enough as it is, and now it is being cut, and Obamacare will make that even worse. It will be nearly impossible to be a practicing primary care physician under Obamacare. They will be forced, for the sake of making a living, to quit.

---

As noted above, I think think the opinion of primary care providers is actually the opposite. The main organizations representing family medicine practitioners, pediatricians, and internists have gone out of their way explicitly to support this legislation. There is still advocacy for fine-tuning the details, but the support is clear. These are not physicians who believe themselves to be in dire risk of losing their jobs -- and believe me, if they were, their professional organizations would not waste time mincing words about their opposition.

[ March 17, 2010, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I think another consideration for this bill is that should it pass I think that it will follow the same pattern other healthcare based bills have set, in that it will become politically untouchable.

No amount of fiscal conservative appeal could convince seniors to surrender medicare. In Great Britain any attempt to simply privatize the whole health care industry would be met with the other party being shoved into office en mass.

Once the system is in place it is political suicide to remove it. Reform is of course on the table, but I think Republicans realize that if the bill squeaks in, it's there for good. If it settles in, any attempt to shrink it will be met with the obvious shout of, "You're attacking my health!"
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Amka -- welcome back! I just realized it was you writing.

I hope things get better soon for your folks, and I hope you are doing well.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think another consideration for this bill is that should it pass I think that it will follow the same pattern other healthcare based bills have set, in that it will become politically untouchable.

No amount of fiscal conservative appeal could convince seniors to surrender medicare. In Great Britain any attempt to simply privatize the whole health care industry would be met with the other party being shoved into office en mass.

Once the system is in place it is political suicide to remove it. Reform is of course on the table, but I think Republicans realize that if the bill squeaks in, it's there for good. If it settles in, any attempt to shrink it will be met with the obvious shout of, "You're attacking my health!"

---

quote:

---

'Remember the $400 hammer? How 'bout that $600 toilet seat?" asks a Conservatives for Patients' Rights TV commercial criticizing President Barack Obama's health-care plan. "Seems when Congress gets involved, things just cost more."

As it happens, I do remember the incident of the $436 hammer, the one that made headlines back in 1984. And while it may "seem" in hazy retrospect as though it showed how "things just cost more" once those silly liberals in Congress get started, what the hammer episode actually illustrated was a very different sort of ripoff. The institution that paid so very much for that hammer was President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon. A private-sector contractor was the party that was pleased to take the Pentagon's money. And it was a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, also known as "Congress," who publicized the pricey hardware to the skies.

But so what? Myth is so much more satisfying than history, and with myth the competence of Washington actors from 25 years ago doesn't matter any more. Nor does it matter which arm of the federal colossus did what. Republican or Democrat, White House or Congress, they're all part of a monolithic, undifferentiated "government" that acts according to a money-burning logic all its own.

The myth has been getting a lot of play from conservatives in recent weeks as the debate over health care has heated up. The message, as always, is that government can't do anything right.

Where the conservative mythologists show their hand is when they use their own monumental screw-ups, committed during conservatism's long years in charge of the government, to prove that government in general is a futile proceeding, and that Democratic health-care plans, in particular, can't possibly succeed.

---

quote:

---

A government that works, some conservatives fear, is dangerous stuff. It gives people ideas. Universal health care isn't just a bad idea for their buddies in the insurance business; it's a gateway drug to broader state involvement in the economy and hence a possible doomsday scenario for conservatism itself. As two fellows of the Ethics and Public Policy Center fretted in the Weekly Standard in May, "health care is the key to public enmeshment in ballooning welfare states, and passage of ObamaCare would deal a heavy blow to the conservative enterprise in American politics."

On the other hand, government fails constantly when conservatives run it because making it work would be, for many of those conservatives, to traduce the very laws of nature. Besides, as we can now see, bungling Katrina recovery or Pentagon procurement pays conservatives huge dividends. It gives them potent ammunition to use when the liberals have returned and are proposing another one of their grand schemes to reform health care.

This is the perverse incentive that is slowly remaking the GOP into the Snafu Party. And in those commercials and those proclamations we should also discern a warning: That even if Democrats manage to set up a solid health-care program, conservatives will do their best, once they have regained power, to drop it down the same chute they did the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Maybe they will appoint a tobacco lobbyist to run the thing. Maybe they will starve it for funds. Or antagonize its work force. And as it collapses they will hand themselves their greatest propaganda victory of all. They will survey the ruins and chide, "You didn't really think government could work, did you?"

---

 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Blayne,

The interesting thing about Canada and the US Armed Forces, and other universal health care states I'm aware of, is that there is no private insurance middleman. This health care reform bill doesn't propose something similar. Instead, it wants to make sure everyone is insured. In fact, it mandates that every lawful resident is insured, or they face a fine of $750. Keeping the middle man in there, (by law, no less) with it's overall price markup to access health care (because insurance companies exist to make a profit), is going to drive up costs. Not reduce them.

Mr. Squicky and CT,

Like me, I think most physicians want health care reform. But it is this particular bill that seems to bother them.

Here is the survey:

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform

A lot of people don't get that opposing this bill isn't the same as opposing health care reform. There are a lot of good ideas in that bill. But there is also a lot of crap.

Here are two summaries of it:

http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill45.pdf

The rpc one is more thorough.

There are better solutions out there. I say trash this one and start over with some of the other solutions and be completely transparent about it. No more behind closed doors business.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
When polled, primary care physicians are vastly, vastly, vastly in favor of this reform. Can't find the links (still at work) but if anyone can thump down THA POLLZ I would be grateful.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
And ClaudiaTherese! Thank you so much for the welcome back.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Amka, on the one hand you have a poll done by a private firm with its own conflict of interest, using an ill-defined and unrepresentative subgroup. This is in contrast to the formal statements of the professional organizations representing that population as a whole.

Do you really think the [former] is more reliable? Paints a more accurate picture? It doesn't, and it should be clear why. If it isn't, I can go into more detail about selection bias, generalizabilty, sample size, biased reporting, and the like. In more general terms, though, this site offers a pretty good critique, including a refutation of the claim that this was a "New England Journal of Medicine" survey. It wasn't. It was a deeply flawed survey by a private group with vested interests.

And -- as I'll point out again -- the findings are in direct opposition to the formal statements of the professional groups representing those physicians. Those professional groups are in direct opposition to dismantling their own profession, obviously.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hey, it's so great to see you.

(Kind of weird to be debating at the same time, but I can't think of someone I'd more appreciate sharing a discussion with.)
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
CT: former
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks, fugu13. I corrected that and another spelling typo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:
A lot of people don't get that opposing this bill isn't the same as opposing health care reform.

---

quote:

---

Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so.

---

[ March 17, 2010, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Last post from me for awhile. My apologies for the incessant updating.

I just want to be clear about this: I care very deeply about my profession being represented accurately and with integrity. Sometimes I disagree with my professional colleagues, but in this case, I think the medical profession as a whole is doing a great job of being clear, thoughtful, and responsible. That just mustn't be misrepresented.

Sometimes I disagree with my friends here, too, but I have no doubt we are all trying to be clear, thoughtful, and responsible as well. We may have different sources of information, different short-term goals or values, and certainly different perspectives, but I can acknowledge both of those positions simultaneously. They don't cancel out.

So please take my disagreement, such as it is, as a passionate searching for making sense, not as a critique of any individuals here. I am still convinced my friends and I are working toward the same eventual ends: better lives, better care, better medicine. Disagreement about how to get there does not negate that.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Well, I went and read the critique.

In fact, I had clicked through to the survey through the NEJM website because I was verifying things, but I understand one no longer can. I certainly concede that it wasn't published in the NEJM. But the critique simply detailed how it was reported. It also talked about where the sample came from. I'm not sure how I see how that particular sample would be biased, except for self selection bias. But self selection bias could also be present in the NEJM survey as well with response rate of 43.2%. Of course, we don't even have the response rate of the other survey.

There is actually a lot of other data we'd need to do a good comparison of the two, and the question is in fact only about a public option.

As for professional organizations, statements are usually drafted by a board of directors (that may or may not be practicing, that may or may not have industry connections) and aren't always indicators of how the individuals part of that organization feel.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
And I think, CT, that we disagree on particulars and not in general. Because the truth of it is, I really do want a lot done to fix health care. In fact, I would like some form of universal health care. Health care is as much a right as education is.

Still, there are problems with the public education system. I wonder if, in implementing a true universal health care, we could learn from the mistakes in public education?

But this just doesn't do it well in my opinion. Please note my earlier objections that this bill doesn't resemble health care in the army or VA, or Canada. It is about making sure everyone is insured by (mostly) private corporations seeking profit.

But even if we did disagree in general, that's okay. I agree with you that we're both just searching for the right way to make sure everyone gets what they need.
 

---

Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:

But this just doesn't do it well in my opinion. Please note my earlier objections that this bill doesn't resemble health care in the army or VA, or Canada. It is about making sure everyone is insured by (mostly) private corporations seeking profit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:
I would rather be patient, and I would rather do it piece by piece.

---

quote:

---

But if this past year has proven anything, it has proven that piece by piece is not going to happen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amka:
Now, if it doesn't pass, (and y'all can tell by now I hope it doesn't) then that is the time to put forth something better. Not give up. There are other options out there. And there are pieces of the bill that are pretty decent. Please, can't we just break it down into more manageable bills?

---

quote:

---

How has this year proven that exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

How has this year proven that exactly?

---

The Republicans in congress have shown that they are willing to form a united front against virtually anything that Obama and the Democrats try to pass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
The other problem is that some pieces don't work without other pieces. You can't eliminate pre-existing conditions clauses unless you simultaneously add a mandate. Those two pieces represent the majority of the impact of the current bill. Much of what's left is noncontroversial issues like plans to evaluate quality and improve efficiency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Much of what's left is noncontroversial issues like plans to evaluate quality and improve efficiency.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't it makes sense to pass that first so it happens regardless?

---

quote:

---

Trying to convince us to change stuff we already like because people we don't know got screwed doesn't sound like a very psychological argument to me.

---

This is, of course, an argument from political convenience and not one that speaks to the utility of the bill.
 

---

Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
 
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few. The fact that *you* like the current system is immaterial to the millions of people who don't. And since they are majority, and they are duly represented in government by the current majority party, whom they voted for, they get a say, and it's an important say. Since when did citizens of democracies gain individual veto powers? Since when exactly did the Republicans actually start believing that the will of the majority could not be served by a majority of votes in congress? There exist checks against the majority- and they are fair and usually very effective. You, individually, are not one.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
this year has proven outside of the healthcare debate that the filibuster is broken and is being used (successfully!) to game the system.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Obama's Waterloo

Bear in mind this is way back in July of 2009. As soon as Obama got serious about Health Care, the Republicans started talking to their strategists who said in essence, "Hey remember when Bill Clinton was saying this stuff, and how we totally stopped him and gained a butt load of seats in the house and senate? Why can't we do it again?"

The Republicans as well as Democrats both know the American people don't like one party in control of two branches of the government. Instead of being genuinely forthright and cooperative, the Republicans decided to sulk because they don't have their super-majority anymore, and dug in, stopping everything they could until the American people equalized the equation.

Here's a pretty good summation of what went on when Clinton took a stab at health care. My favorite part if true,
"April 30, 1993 - Hillary Clinton meets behind closed doors with Republican and Democratic senators. She implores them to tell her what she is doing wrong and tells them she is having trouble meeting with Republicans. It is common knowledge among many of those present that the staff of Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole has told Republicans they are not to meet with the First Lady."
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Bah, Waterloos are overrated.
I drive to and from Waterloo everyday
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few. The fact that *you* like the current system is immaterial to the millions of people who don't. And since they are majority, and they are duly represented in government by the current majority party, whom they voted for, they get a say, and it's an important say. Since when did citizens of democracies gain individual veto powers? Since when exactly did the Republicans actually start believing that the will of the majority could not be served by a majority of votes in congress? There exist checks against the majority- and they are fair and usually very effective. You, individually, are not one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few. The fact that *you* like the current system is immaterial to the millions of people who don't. And since they are majority, and they are duly represented in government by the current majority party, whom they voted for, they get a say, and it's an important say. Since when did citizens of democracies gain individual veto powers? Since when exactly did the Republicans actually start believing that the will of the majority could not be served by a majority of votes in congress? There exist checks against the majority- and they are fair and usually very effective. You, individually, are not one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few.

---

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard anyone say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
Avid, we would not be any sort of democracy if the needs of the many did not weigh upon the actions of the few.

---

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard anyone say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So...do you folks think the Democrats have the votes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So...do you folks think the Democrats have the votes?

---

Eh, I'd be surprised if this didn't get pulled through some way or another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So...do you folks think the Democrats have the votes?

---

Eh, I'd be surprised if this didn't get pulled through some way or another.

---

I dunno, they still need to get some affirmatives from Democrats in the House. Those hold outs have immense bargaining power.

---

quote:

---

A year later, though, it's worth more of my time to say what many resist: The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches. On Saturday, as a small group of protesters jammed the Capitol and the streets around it, the movement's origins in white resistance to the Civil Rights Movement was impossible to ignore. Here's only what the mainstream media is reporting, ignoring what I'm seeing on Twitter and left wing blogs:

Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis was taunted by tea partiers who chanted "nigger" at least 15 times, according to the Associated Press (we are not cleaning up language and using "the N-word" here because it's really important to understand what was said.) First reported on The Hill blog (no hotbed of left-wing fervor), the stories of Lewis being called "nigger" were confirmed by Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones and Democratic Rep. Andre Carson, who was walking with Lewis. "It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a former police officer. "He said it reminded him of another time."
Another Congressional Black Caucus leader, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, was spat upon by protesters. The culprit was arrested, but Cleaver declined to press charges.
House Majority Whip James Clybourn told reporters: "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus."
There were many reports that Rep. Barney Frank was called a "faggot" by protesters, but the one I saw personally was by CNN's Dana Bash, who seemed rattled by the tea party fury. Frank told AP: "It's a mob mentality that doesn't work politically."
Meanwhile, a brick came through the window at Rep. Louise Slaughter's Niagara Falls office on Saturday (the day she argued for her "Slaughter solution" to pass health care reform, though it was rejected by other Democrats on the House Rules Committee).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rollainm:
So...has there been a huge to-do here over this violation of the 10th amendment stuff yet? I'm surprised it doesn't have its own thread.

---

quote:

---

There was video of the whole thing, and there's no question but that we'd be seeing video of them shouting those things if they really had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisa:
It's a claim that's being made with no substantiation whatsoever. There was video of the whole thing, and there's no question but that we'd be seeing video of them shouting those things if they really had. This is a bunch of bull.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Humean316:
Since the campaign, the hatred and virulence of parts of the tea party movement and the far right wing have well been on display. From a group that proudly rallies behind signs that threaten physical violence,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
At this point, I think that would actually come as something of a surprise. I don't think Pelosi would have scheduled the vote if she didn't have an ironclad promise from Senate Dems to pass the reconciliation fixes.

On the other hand, maybe it's not so much of a surprise. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they didn't pass the fix. But I think it would suck too, as the fixes appear to be good ones.

As an exercise in rhetoric, I find the grandstanding on both sides, but especially the Republican side, fascinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It passed, narrowly.

Next up is the reconciliation bill. I wonder if the vote totals will be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
They are now voting on whether to reconsider the bill, Republicans want to send it back to committee so as to include abortion language in the bill, the Democrats are calling it a ploy to stall the bill and prevent it from ever taking effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Something else to consider; some fairly significant reform for student loans was included in this health care bill.

---

Mazel tov! We're been waiting on SAFRA for almost a year now. I have to look and see which provisions actually made it into final reconciliation; that was being debated last week, last I heard.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
The good news: Congress has done something.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
So, FFELP is history. Anyone who hadn't realized that for at least the last 3 months had their head in the sand. What I'm not sure is the timeframe on that.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Is this something that is generally favored amongst financial aid types?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I'll get more data tomorrow -- the major sources of FA news don't work weekends.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Is this something that is generally favored amongst financial aid types?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of, among people who do this for a living, is this generally seen as something that is good or bad?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I guess that assumes that financial aid people have some sort of positive interest in the strengths and weaknesses of the system, and positive intent towards reform that helps students.

---

The ones I know all do. Doesn't mean they agree on what should be done. The "is FFELP better or is Direct better?" has been an ongoing argument for years. Even among those with strong opinions in favor of Direct, many did not favor eliminating FFELP altogether.
 

---

Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So, has anyone gotten their death panel notices yet?
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Yeah. I'm scheduled for 2014 unless I attend a state-mandated pilates class. I think I'll choose death.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Now that the healthcare bill is out of the way, i think it's time for a dialogue on how scary broken our legislative system is.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that this has been a good education about lawmaking for many of us. Compromise and backroom deal making and back scratching have been a part of the process since the beginning, I think.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Compromise and backroom deal making and back scratching have been a part of the process since the beginning, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Now that the healthcare bill is out of the way, i think it's time for a dialogue on how scary broken our legislative system is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
I read somewhere that the Student Loan reform in the bill bans all banks save one from making student loans and puts the responsibility solely on the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think a huge obstacle in reforming the legislative process is that if the Democrats attempt to remove say filibustering (something I support) the Republicans will call it a move to open the flood gates of pure socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
I read somewhere that the Student Loan reform in the bill bans all banks save one from making student loans and puts the responsibility solely on the government.

The one bank that is still allowed to make student loans? Owned by a member of the House.

---

quote:

---

Before passing the final reconciliation bill the House adopted a substitute bill that eliminated a provision the would have allowed the Bank of North Dakota to continue to make loans. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) had fought to include a provision that would allow the Bank of North Dakota to continue to make federal student loans after FFELP was eliminated, but then asked that the provision be removed because of the significant controversy it caused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
This looks like a decent summary of the impact on student aid.

---

quote:

---

Private lenders have conducted an all-out lobbying effort against the bill, arguing it would cost thousands of jobs...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think a huge obstacle in reforming the legislative process is that if the Democrats attempt to remove say filibustering (something I support) the Republicans will call it a move to open the flood gates of pure socialism.

---

Which will be more than a fair bit of hypocritical irony (see: "Nuclear Option" followed by completely unheard of levels of vote obstruction)

---

quote:

---

From what Republicans were claiming last night, they already had commitments with 30+ states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Reconciliation passes. So now Obama should sign the senate plan into law, and reconciliation will proceed to the Senate for passage.

---

Woo
Progress and some of this aforementioned change!
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ten states are filing suits over the legislation.

Link.

---

quote:

---

I’ve been silent here about the health care issue since this entry on January 20, primarily because I didn’t have a thing to add to it, in particular this portion:

"…contrary to apparently popular opinion, health care isn’t quite dead yet. Now the real interesting thing is to see what the Democrats do next — whether they curl up in a legislative ball, moaning softly, and let their health care initiative die, or whether they double down, locate their gonads and find a way to get it done (there are several ways this can be accomplished).

From a purely strategic point of view, I’m not sure why they don’t just ram the thing through the House as is, fiddle with it a bit during reconciliation and get to Obama to sign it. To put it bluntly, the Democrats will look better by flipping the GOP the bird and then using the ten months until the 2010 election to get voters back on their side than showing to the voters that despite a large majority in both houses, they collapse like a flan in the cupboard at the first setback. We’ll see what happens now, and I suspect what happens in the next week or so will make a significant impact on what happens in November."

---

quote:

---

That said, the Democrats were magnificently fortunate that, as incompetent as they are, they are ever-so-slightly less incompetent than the GOP, which by any realistic standard has been handed one of the largest legislative defeats in decades. The GOP was not simply opposed to health care, it was opposed to it in shrill, angry, apocalyptic terms, and saw it not as legislation, or in terms of whether or not health care reform was needed or desirable for Americans, but purely as political strategy, in terms of whether or not it could kneecap Obama and bring itself back into the majority. As such there was no real political or moral philosophy to the GOP’s action, it was all short-term tactics, i.e., take an idea a majority of people like (health care reform), lie about its particulars long enough and in a dramatic enough fashion to lower the popularity of the idea, and then bellow in angry tones about how the president and the Democrats are ignoring the will of the people.

---

quote:

---

While I think it’s likely the Democrats will lose seats this election cycle (as often happens to the party of the president — any president — in mid-term elections), I think the idea that the GOP is going to retake either the House or Senate (or both) is optimistic at best, and the idea that they would be able to retake both with the majorities needed to overcome a presidential veto is the sort of magical thinking that usually indicates either profound chemical imbalances in the brain or really excellent hashish. So Americans will have two and a half years to get used to their new-found health care rights and benefits, most of which in the real world are perfectly sensible, beneficial things, before we all get to vote on who is going to be the next president. Now, perhaps Obama will be voted out of office and perhaps he won’t, but if whomever is the GOP candidate in 2012 plans on running on repealing the health care laws, well, you know. Good luck with that. I’m sure Obama would be delighted for them to try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Discussion of Obama's speech

---

quote:

---

And in case you're keeping track, not a damned teleprompter in sight.

---

 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Ok, let's do some post-op.

I devoted a pretty serious amount of my sociological study towards why the difference between socialized medical systems (which includes all other modern countries) and our actuarial model (of which ours is effectively the last in high income nations) is so stark, and why ours performs so poorly by all viable metrics despite costing about two and a half times the developed world's median per-capita spending on healthcare.

It adds up to a few billion gallons worth of sperging and graphs and whatever, but I can mill it down to two points.

1. If your concern is waste and inefficiency, then you can do no worse than what we have. The optimal situation is the gradual adoption of Wyden-Benett / single payer (which, by all accounts, is practically inevitable over the medium term), and the absolute worst situation is the maintenance of current system, which is experiencing a classic death spiral as we speak.

2. If your concern is managing debt, you again cannot do worse than what we have. The current and past CBO tabulations speak stronger to that fact than any other independent analysis I could name.

Fact of the matter: the ugly political process aside, this bill is effectively permanent. In much the same manner as medicare/medicaid became a politically untouchable juggernaut despite the apocalyptic doomsaying of Reagan et. al (who famously claimed that the project would doom america's finances and end american freedom), the changes in this bill will become political suicide to try to repeal, since the acrimonious campaign against it will have folded, the misinformation will have faded (of which there has been a prodigal amount), and the changes will stand on their own and nobody will really want to repeal them except the diehards in conservative/libertarian camps. People will remember the pre-reform era unfondly — 'there was a time where you could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and some people were effectively uninsurable, it was a mess, there were almost 50 million uninsured in this country ...'

The next question for me relates to how, according to what I've seen, I feel that the progression to single payer is also inevitable. The only thing I can only guess at is the timeframe. 10 years? 20? It relates mostly to our economic future. And some are surprised to hear that I think that the worse off we are economically, the sooner the change will come, as opposed to the other way around.

Another thing (and this I did not expect) was that the republicans tooled themselves by acting in terms of vehement obstruction in order to try to create a 'waterloo moment' for Obama. They put themselves on the wrong side of history AGAIN.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Honestly, I expect the GOP is going to realize that they are not going to be able to repeal much of anything in the new health care bill and are instead going to try to sabotage it in other ways. They've invested way too much in opposing an obviously very good thing for the country to just give up, but I think most of them are going to realize that they can't directly oppose most of the things in the bill.

Instead, if they get the power, I believe they will try to cut funding, introduce onerous and cumbersome regulations and hoops for people to jump through, and do whatever else they can so that the health care system will break down.

I very much doubt that they will let the fact that this would grievously hurt the country effect their actions. I'm just hoping that they don't gain enough power to do this, because I fully expect them to try to damage the country so that they can say that they won this one.
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
George R.R. Martin.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
I'm not sure the Republican Party is that farsighted. Their strategy throughout this whole debate has, roughly, boiled down to "misdirect and demonize." In other words, avoid discussing the substance of the bill and focus instead of painting it with as broad an ideological brush as possible. Then, once you have the media in a furor over the suitably hot-button phrases you've seeded ("government takeover," "death panels," etc), use that (in)famous party discipline to hammer it home at every opportunity, using language designed to provoke fear and anger rather than rationality and discussion.

It's the same tactic the GOP employed against Obama during the campaign. And I don't necessarily see them deviating from it, even if the legislative reality of the situation is that repeal is nigh-impossible. Because ultimately the Republican Party is not terribly interested in the policy - they have made clear that their priorities are political rather than legislative. They would rather take the hardline stance in a losing battle, as long as it improves the chances of Democratic electoral losses in 2012, than make any attempt to meet their Congressian counterparts halfway and work to improve the policy under discussion. If spending the next nine months impotently screaming about repeal nets them more seats in Congress than reaching across the aisle to craft feasible alternatives or improvements to the existing policy, then they'll take the former option, thank you very much.

IOW, to today's Republican Party, health care (and immigration, and gay rights, etc) is nothing more than a convenient lever they can use to manipulate Americans into returning them to power. They could care less about the actual governance. And nobody should be more frightened by this than conservatives.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
They could care less about the actual governance. And nobody should be more frightened by this than conservatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
People tend to grow more conservative as they age, and a lot of the '08 youth vote went blue because of the Obama/Biden presidential ticket.

---

quote:

---

People tend to grow more conservative as they age

---

nope

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0560526320080306
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I think that the Republicans have found themselves riding a tiger with their embrace of the most radical Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Fox News/Committee for Progress section of their base. I think they consciously fostered this as the primary demographic that they would play to (although not necessarily legislate for) and are starting to realize that this isn't a decision that they can really back away from. The entertainers are becoming the most influential people in the Republican party and they care about making themselves money a lot more than they care about the power of the Republican party or the well-being of the people who consume their entertainment.

Besides them losing control over their own party, I think this is putting Republican politicians in a spot where they have to fight with the Democrats and anyone else who doesn't agree with the often crazy and/or stupid things that this base wants. When you and the talking heads have been pushing the message that other side is made up of Nazi, socialist, baby killers, you don't have much leeway to then compromise or work with them. I don't know if they've really gotten there yet, but I think that the GOP is coming to realize that that isn't a place that they want to be.

I think that as the reality of the health care reform bill disseminates to the general public, this is going to become more evident to them. Even with the inept and condescending handling of this by President Obama and the congressional Democrats, I think the Republicans treating such an obviously good thing as something that no matter what, you are going to try to defeat so as to hurt your opponents, and the vast amount of dishonesty and sheer insanity of their campaign against it is going to hurt the GOP.

And for people like myself who hold complex beliefs of which many align with conservative principles, it's very distressing to see these complex, valuable conservative ideas disappearing from not just public discourse, but also even the conception of what it means to be conservative in favor of these shallow, stupid, usually emotionally driven ones.

[ March 23, 2010, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Using Microcase, I once ran a graph to see if people in the US when divided into age groups became more conservative as they got older. Initially it looked like there might be some correlation, but when I controlled for education, i.e going to college, the relationship evaporated.

edit:

MrSquicky: At least though, that radicalization can often act as a harbinger of a return to moderation. The Democrats experienced something similar when it imploded after Johnson's administration, and over the next few decades it pieced itself together again.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I've gotten more politically liberal as I've gotten older.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Number of states filing suit up to fourteen.

I am so disappointed (though not surprised) that Utah is up there. Time to write the attorney general.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
None of the state passed laws will do anything. The Supremacy Clause ensures that much.

As for the lawsuits challenging the bill...I really don't see those going anywhere either. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are on the books and weren't struck down, so I don't see this being killed either. A lot of it is probably grandstanding by Attorneys General who want to be governor some day.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Correct pluralization!

<3 <3 <3


 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I don't know, I've always liked the idea of attorneys in three-piece-suits commanding platoons and wearing medals...
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
I'm reposting rivka's healthcare implementation timeline here.

This is a summary of some of the big changes that was emailed to me. I checked it against the house of reps list, and it looks accurate to me.

quote:

---

WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.

*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012

*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013

*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.

*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Where can I find a video of the speech?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
None of the state passed laws will do anything. The Supremacy Clause ensures that much.

As for the lawsuits challenging the bill...I really don't see those going anywhere either. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are on the books and weren't struck down, so I don't see this being killed either. A lot of it is probably grandstanding by Attorneys General who want to be governor some day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Number of states filing suit up to fourteen.

I am so disappointed (though not surprised) that Utah is up there. Time to write the attorney general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sinflower:
Can someone explain to me what the provisions for funding this will be?

---

All of the money you make in this lifetime, and your children's, and your children's children's. It says so in the legislation.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
You also have to sell your first-born to the Middle East and your second-born to China. Mormons get dibs on your third child.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Visiting a Chinese hospital often feels like an experiment in free-market fundamentalism. Everything is for sale.
...
Bad as it is, however, as Chinese health-care reformers looked for ways to repair their system in recent years, they glanced at the American status quo and recoiled. “The United States,” as one typically bewildered piece in the Chinese press put it, “is the strongest of the developed countries, but its record on health care is, in fact, extremely bad.” China has long peered over at the United States with a deep, if grudging, respect for American institutions. But, over the winter, as Chinese observers watched the prospects for American health-care reform begin to crumble, they seemed to regard it as another bleak measure of a superpower past its prime. It was time to look to Europe for ideas and to “give up on America as a teacher.”

On Monday, China awoke to discover that the U.S. had found the will to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. The U.S. and China don’t see eye-to-eye on much these days, but, for a brief moment, China seemed to glimpse the old teacher again. Zhao Haijian, a commentator in Guangzhou Daily, wrote today that, as China looks at its health-care reform plans, “paying attention to the health care reforms in the U.S. just might provide some reference and inspiration.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

---

quote:

---

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

---

quote:

---

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
No no no, Lisa, Took, stop it. The only conceivable reason any conservative could object to this bill is because they're all obstructionist hatemongers who want to sabotage Obama.

Duh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
This decreased sick time as people take care of minor problems before they are major is also good for businesses, schools etc, as people take less time off.

---

I was with you right up to there. I want more time off-not less.

Darn it. Scrap the whole thing. It was a bad idea after all.


 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoolishTook:
Well, at least China likes the plan.

---

quote:

---

David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.

“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,” Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.”

“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,” he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.”

Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate. Closing out the floor debate on Sunday night, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the legislation would be “the last straw for the American people.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, proclaimed several hours earlier, “Freedom dies a little bit today.”

Yet there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular, and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition. Indeed, most Americans with insurance are unlikely to see any immediate change in their coverage, and several Republicans warned that the party could pay a price for that.

“When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,” Mr. Frum said.

He warned that the energy Republicans were finding now among base voters would fade.

---

quote:

---

The president signed the bill with 20 pens, writing a small part of the letters of his name with each. He gave the pens to supporters onstage, including Pelosi and John Dingle, the longest serving member of the House of Representatives.

---

That is silly and probably looked silly too.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

That is silly and probably looked silly too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Bush actually killed the tradition for awhile, and it has seriously come and gone. Some presidents have only signed with one or two pens, Kennedy once used so many pens he added flourishes, and spelled out his middle name, which normally isn't done. Bush only used one pen for his whole name most of the time. He would generally then give out regular pens afterward that hadn't been used, as a thank you.

---

Well, there's little enough I agreed with him about, so I'll give Bush props for what I did. It's historic and all, I get that - but surely there's plenty more on a President's plate that could use the extra time saved by not stopping for the pen parade.
 

---

Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
Yeah, those 5 minutes will surely go down in infamy.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
GOP senators now refusing to work past 2pm in retaliation for healthcare reform. Multiple committee meetings have been canceled, some have been cut short. Nope, no obstructionism here.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
If they keep this up, it's really going to backfire.

Being obstructionist is one thing. Acting like petulant children who take their ball and go home whenever they lose is on another level.

And you know, beyond the political posturing. That's pathetic. Are Republicans really such sore losers that they refuse to participate in ANY governing just to spite Democrats because they lost on a single issue, regardless of how big it is? I mean come on. They can't be thinking that shutting down the Senate is really going to play well in the press. They gambled that people won't like the Democratic plan. If they don't, then Republicans get back in office, just like they planned. And if people do like it, then this will look even WORSE in hindsight. I don't see what they think this is going to accomplish. And I think it's a gift to Democrats.

But beyond all that, I think this is incredibly immature and irresponsible. They need to grow up.
 

---

Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
I'm trying to come up with some defense for their actions now, simply because I cannot imagine any politicians acting like this.

Is there some sort of political strategy here? What are they thinking?
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
I wonder: Many companies only hire on a part time basis so they don't have to pay for health insurance benefits. Does anyone have any feeling for whether the new law will make it more or less likely that companies will hire full time employees?
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
Well, companies with over 50 employees have to pay a fine now if they don't provide insurance for them. Two part-time employees count as one full-time, so I would guess it would be neutral at best. If I were hiring under those conditions, I think I'd lean toward hiring full-timers because there's no reason not to, and one person is easier to keep track of, to pay, and to hire.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
GOP senators now refusing to work past 2pm in retaliation for healthcare reform...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
Twenty nine amendments were offered by the GOP, and some of them were good ideas. One of the was a ban on government money paying for viagra for repeat sex offenders. One would force members of Congress and the White House to participate int he same exchanges as every other American. One would have gotten rid of the sweetheart deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback." The Democrats shot every single one of them down. They probably didn't even read them. So who are the obstructionists now?

Hint: Both Parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
Thing is, 90% of this bill will not go into effect until 2014. Why is there this huge rush right now to just get it all done? Why not get the fixes right, discuss them, vote on them, and do it right?

---

quote:

---

One of the was a ban on government money paying for viagra for repeat sex offenders.

---

quote:

---

..force members of Congress and the White House to participate int he same exchanges as every other American

---

quote:

---

One would have gotten rid of the sweetheart deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback."

---

quote:

---

I stand by my earlier statement that both parties have been obstructing the entire process.

---

quote:

---

amP: I will admit I did phrase the obstructionist argument poorly in referring to the amendment process. What I don't understand is your blind support of anything "NOT GOP." You ignore the possibility that maybe the republicans actually want to improve the bill because there are things that should not be in there. It almost seems like you have Hatrack open on one tab and DailyKOS open on another.

---

quote:

---

If a positive change is made, why should we look over it just because it would require another vote? What is the problem with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
As I stated before, 90% of it doesn't go into effect until 2014.

---

quote:

---

As far as your statement "If amendments are added now (rather than when they should have been added, before the Senate passed it) it will have to be voted on again in the House." is concerned...Isn't that what the fixes are? Call it what you will, but making a change to a bill is an amendment is it not?
...
Edit: Mr Squicky, how could the GOP block the bill now? From what I understand, if the fixes need to be voted on and it lacks the votes in the House, the only thing that would happen is that the original bill would be untouched and enter law. Am I misunderstanding this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Geraine, perhaps my tone was unclear. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps you were just missing some information instead of deliberately asking questions that should be pretty clear if one understands the suggestions.

As for having to pass things again in the House, perhaps the GOP is hoping that the death threats they are making against House members will be sufficient to change their votes.

---

quote:

---

But, I think you would agree with me that there was absolutely no chance of any of the amendments ever getting to that stage and that, introduced at this time and as amendments, there was no way that they would be approved by either Senate or House. Is that correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Geraine,
You may have missed it. I think this is a pretty important question to answer that would aid in explaining why I (and I think others) see things the way they do.

quote:

---

But, I think you would agree with me that there was absolutely no chance of any of the amendments ever getting to that stage and that, introduced at this time and as amendments, there was no way that they would be approved by either Senate or House. Is that correct?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.

---

Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.

I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
I was just coming here to post that, BlackBlade. Considering it's OSC, I was actually pleasantly surprised by it
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.

---

Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.

I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.

---

Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.

I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.

---

Yeahhuup, that failed to live up to my predictions in most ways.

---

quote:

---

And it's passed the House and going back to the Senate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.

---

Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.

I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Senate Gives Approval. But now the reconciliation bill has to go back to the house because of two minor changes regarding pell grants, that should bring it back in line with reconciliation protocol. The stuff that went on in the Senate prior to the vote is so ridiculous, but then again, they don't exactly work all year long.

I would expect the House to revote on the reconciliation bill by this evening, it should be on the president's desk tomorrow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

And it's passed the House and going back to the Senate

---

Isn't it the other way around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Any word on what these Pell grant changes are? I hate it when things like that get dropped into a story but aren't elaborated on.

---

quote:

---

One provision would have protected Pell Grants from shrinking if their appropriations decrease. The provision would not have affected the grant program until 2013, and Democrats are confident they can address the issue before then.

---

quote:

---

The other provision would have eliminated obsolete language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Senate Gives Approval. But now the reconciliation bill has to go back to the house because of two minor changes regarding pell grants, that should bring it back in line with reconciliation protocol. The stuff that went on in the Senate prior to the vote is so ridiculous, but then again, they don't exactly work all year long.

I would expect the House to revote on the reconciliation bill by this evening, it should be on the president's desk tomorrow.

---

Any word on what these Pell grant changes are? I hate it when things like that get dropped into a story but aren't elaborated on. I feel like it's always the rare time when legislation has a direct impact on me. The news is out to get me!

---

Link.
It appears one cut was a provision ensuring that students won't see their pell grants decreased even if congress does not appropriate funds, and another was "mundane language." So I hope that was nothing important.

edit: beaten by rivka, I suppose that comes as no surprise.
 

---

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
No, Mal. Look it's not a matter of opinion what happens because of illegal immigration. Immigrants do not "take" jobs from citizens, they do jobs that citizens will not do, at wages that citizens will not accept. They add tremendous value to the American economy in the places where they are found. The idea that they hurt the economy is totally preposterous. They simply don't.

quote:

---

We could open our borders to all South American immigrants and our population would double or triple in short order yet our nation would collapse under the weight of the uneducated and poor.

---

It would be helpful if you would be willing to stop playing so fast and loose with virtually any piece of actual data you might be even passingly familiar with. South America has a total population of less than 400 million. That means in order to double our population "in short order" 3/4 of the entire south American population would have to move to the US. You find this likely? Even if you include all of Latin America, including Mexico, central America, and South America, you get a little over double our own population. That means in order to "triple" our population, ALL latin American peoples would have to immigrate to the United States.

So stop, for the upteenth time, spewing mindless garbage out of your mouth hole.

---

quote:

---

My uncle owns a roofing company. It's name is "my last name" roofing. He used to employ my other uncle, a couple of my cousins and at times, me. He had to let the rest of our relatives go or cut their pay. He could no longer bid low enough to compete against the other companies that had one licensed, bonded, legal roofer supplemented by three illegal alien "laborers".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also as an aside I totally can't wait for OSC's next article to come out and be a basic demonstration of so much of the self-defeating apoplectic doomsaying that we're already talking about here.

---

Not trying to rub your face in it but I was quite impressed with his response.

I'm sure I'll find additional essays down the road where I completely disagree or even get frustrated with Mr. Card's tone, but he is still quite capable of writing things that are worth reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The only difference is, I'm telling the truth. I understand anyone can say anything online.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
Bush should be tried for war crimes. The plane that crashed into the IRS was piloted by a universal healthcare supporter. It was a Republican's office that was riddled with bullets today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The plane that crashed into the IRS was piloted by a universal healthcare supporter. It was a Republican's office that was riddled with bullets today.

---

quote:

---

It was Sarah Palin, the Eva Peron of the tea party crowd, who used Facebook to target 20 Democrats who voted for health care reform, indicating their districts' locations on a map with the crosshairs of a rifle scope. It was Palin who wrote on Twitter: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page."

---

quote:

---

At least 10 House Democrats have had to request additional security following Sunday's health care vote. Someone left a coffin on the lawn of Rep. Russ Carnahan's home in Missouri. Glass doors and windows were broken at the district offices of Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. Vandals have damaged Democratic Party offices in Wichita, Rochester, N.Y., and Cincinnati.

And Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose last-minute compromise on abortion funding guaranteed final passage of the reform act, has received a flood of abusive phone calls at his office and home. Someone faxed him a drawing of a noose. One voice mail, subsequently posted on the Internet, was left by a woman who wanted Stupak to know that "there are millions of people across the country who wish you ill." Another caller was more direct: "You're dead. We know where you live. We'll get you."

---

quote:

---

Some of the vandalism appears to have been inspired by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who trumpeted the bright idea that opponents of health care reform should throw bricks at Democratic headquarters across the country. After someone did just that in Rochester, a reporter from the Democrat and Chronicle called Vanderboegh for comment. "I guess that guy's one of ours," Vanderboegh said. "Glad to know people read my blog."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The left-wingers have deluded themselves that they are pressing on to "victory," and when conservatives bring reality crashing down on their heads with widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November), there will be factions among the left-wingers who will refuse to accept this reversal peaceably, and will take up arms and resort to fatal force directed first at key conservative targets. The left will stage its Krystalnacht. Whether President Obama approves of this or not, it will likely be done in his name. This will have to be opposed, of course, as the majority defends itself against the blatant lawlessness of the would-be tyrants of the left. The right will ultimately win. Unfortunately, having had to defend itself by force of arms, the right will be looking for vengeance and will take pro-active measures to ensure that the left can never rise again in violent revolution. Thus in over-reaction, the right will create the very tyranny that the left thought they were preventing. In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
... In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ron, have you ever once been right? I just tried to think of a time, and couldn't.

---

quote:

---

widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November)

---

quote:

---

Republicans now have about a 10 percent chance of taking an outright majority of Senate seats, according to the model, up slightly from before -- and about an 18 percent chance of getting to at least a tie. Democrats still have about an 8 percent chance, on the other hand, of recovering a 60-seat majority -- although obviously this would require a substantial shift in the national political environment. None of our analysis directly reflects any potential impact from the Democrats' passage of their health care bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
I'm actually anticipating public support at or around 60% by the time we hit the polls. The majority of the institutions of the bill become politically untouchable the second they're instituted as law, the current bubble of non-support is due to the massive wave of FUD appeals relied upon to try to sink the bill (and Obama), and now that it failed, only the most ridiculous politicians are going to want to be known as the guys who worked really hard to bring back things like exclusion for pre-existing conditions.

Oh, and remember the Sensible Conservative? he got fired.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/26/frum_aei

---

Not to say that liberals are above selling their moderates out, but National Review did that to Christopher Buckley (The son of the father of modern conservatism who founded the magazine no less.) after Buckley wrote a piece saying he was voting for Obama over McCain.

Link. <---Buckley's own words.
 

---

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
Ron, do you frequent conspiracy websites like Illuminati.net or the Coast 2 Coast AM website?

The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay. Since pre-existing conditions and no dropped coverage are a reality now, the payouts will be higher, thus the rates are going to go up. These go into effect almost imediately, while the exchanges and such will go into effect in 2014. This creates a 3 year gap in which the insurance companies are going to have to come up with the money to cover claims.

What I am afraid of is when these rates go up, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will feign suprise and outrage. "We passed healthcare reform so costs would go down! The evil insurance companies are taking advantage of the people and raising rates! We must do something about this! PH3AR US!" Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.

I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing. The massive taxes we have on alchohol and cigarettes already scare me. I don't want to be taxed an extra dollar on my double cheeseburger from McDonalds.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink.

---

quote:

---

I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Mmmmmmmm, Quebec Poutine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
American exceptionalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
Ron, do you frequent conspiracy websites like Illuminati.net or the Coast 2 Coast AM website?

The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay. Since pre-existing conditions and no dropped coverage are a reality now, the payouts will be higher, thus the rates are going to go up. These go into effect almost imediately, while the exchanges and such will go into effect in 2014. This creates a 3 year gap in which the insurance companies are going to have to come up with the money to cover claims.

What I am afraid of is when these rates go up, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will feign suprise and outrage. "We passed healthcare reform so costs would go down! The evil insurance companies are taking advantage of the people and raising rates! We must do something about this! PH3AR US!" Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.

I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing. The massive taxes we have on alchohol and cigarettes already scare me. I don't want to be taxed an extra dollar on my double cheeseburger from McDonalds.

---

You could always move to every other country in the world... oh snap they all also have single payer systems.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
rivka: You've sold me on your expertise on bad drinks

BB: Well, a whole bunch shouldn't. Mexico and China for starters, ironically.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
rivka: You've sold me on your expertise on bad drinks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
rivka: You've sold me on your expertise on bad drinks

BB: Well, a whole bunch shouldn't. Mexico and China for starters, ironically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The White Whale:

quote:

---

Some of the vandalism appears to have been inspired by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who trumpeted the bright idea that opponents of health care reform should throw bricks at Democratic headquarters across the country. After someone did just that in Rochester, a reporter from the Democrat and Chronicle called Vanderboegh for comment. "I guess that guy's one of ours," Vanderboegh said. "Glad to know people read my blog."

---

---

quote:

---

According to the Post, he lives off his wife, who works at a forklift company -- and also gets a monthly disability check from our "Marxist" federal government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The left-wingers have deluded themselves that they are pressing on to "victory," and when conservatives bring reality crashing down on their heads with widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November), there will be factions among the left-wingers who will refuse to accept this reversal peaceably, and will take up arms and resort to fatal force directed first at key conservative targets. The left will stage its Krystalnacht. Whether President Obama approves of this or not, it will likely be done in his name. This will have to be opposed, of course, as the majority defends itself against the blatant lawlessness of the would-be tyrants of the left. The right will ultimately win. Unfortunately, having had to defend itself by force of arms, the right will be looking for vengeance and will take pro-active measures to ensure that the left can never rise again in violent revolution. Thus in over-reaction, the right will create the very tyranny that the left thought they were preventing. In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago. Sadly, I am more convinced than ever that my predictions will come true. My advice: Keep your head down.

---

Ron oh your so adorably crazy, don't ever seek psychotherapy! What would I do for entertainment without your deluded stupidity taking up space?

Hey Ron, here's a website for you...

www.abovetopsecret.com a bunch of people there think the same way you do!
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
--j_k, who saw that coming

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geraine:
The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay...Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The United States was founded roughly 1776, the modern conception of 'China' predates that by about 3000 years.

Prior to the United States were British/French colonies, prior to that was the Indian Confederacy.

Parliamentary democracy was developed during the English civil wars and spear headed by Oliver Cromwell.

So how about shutting you goddamn mouth until you actually complete a college education or read some of those evil books on history that you claim were revised by the evil left.

Also the modern concept of nation-states doesn't really come into play until around roughly the Treaty of Westphalia in 1653(~) prior to that the 'kingdoms' and republics of various 'states' weren't really 'nations' as nations then didn't really diplomatically recognize each other as 'equal' states but simply as land to be eventually inherited and that they're family had a right to rule. The pope had an overwhelming amount of control over the domestic politics over most of europe until the reformation.

Your post is mindless non substantial assertions of grossly incorrect ignorant view of history easily correct with a 5 minute search of wikipedia.

You also contradict yourself, how can democracy predate theocracy as the oldest government and yet only 'come after' the theocracies fail.

Your a bot.

---

quote:

---

Also as to why you have to pay a fine- you are leaching off the system. Right now, you are healthy and can afford to get away with it. Let's imagine there is something that feels minor that is wrong with you. You don't go to the dr. That minor thing becomes major. Now, it is an emergency. Society pays tens of thousands to fix you- esp since you can qualify for say medicaid because your boss fired you and you lost everything.

---

The problem with this scenario is that I do go to the doctor and pay out of pocket for all the blood tests, X-rays, etc.

I also research my symptoms ahead of time, keep a health diary, and ask the doctor questions. I'm pretty dogmatic about being healthy.

The problem of people with no insurance is a very real problem--which is why I'm in support of high-deductible catastrophic care, made affordable to those who can't afford it.

I think everyone assumes those of us who don't support this bill don't want poor people to have health care. That's not true. I just don't want it to become a system where people abuse it--which is often the case when it comes to that which we perceive to be "free."

Also--make what you will of this--but I have a friend who lives in the U.K. His father needed a pace-maker. He was put on a 12 month waiting list. He had a stroke while waiting for that pacemaker and has now lost mental function. He will spend the rest of his life in a hospital bed.

On the other hand, my Dad needed a pacemaker. It took exactly two days for him to be admitted and receive the treatment he needed. He's 71-years-old and completely independent. (He fixes up his kids' house during his spare time.)

All those countries with public health care...they're not exactly utopias. Rather than follow in their footsteps and make all the mistakes they've made, why don't we learn from their mistakes and be the first country to offer excellent, affordable, non-rationed care?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Neither.
It's also worth noting that you sort of missed part of his point: that while the "country" of China may be over 3000 years old, its government is younger than our own. In fact, as he notes, the American government is older than almost all the other governments on Earth.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

All those countries with public health care...they're not exactly utopias. Rather than follow in their footsteps and make all the mistakes they've made, why don't we learn from their mistakes and be the first country to offer excellent, affordable, non-rationed care?

---

quote:

---

Also--make what you will of this--but I have a friend who lives in the U.K. His father needed a pace-maker. He was put on a 12 month waiting list. He had a stroke while waiting for that pacemaker and has now lost mental function. He will spend the rest of his life in a hospital bed.

On the other hand, my Dad needed a pacemaker. It took exactly two days for him to be admitted and receive the treatment he needed. He's 71-years-old and completely independent. (He fixes up his kids' house during his spare time.)

---

quote:

---

The problem of people with no insurance is a very real problem--which is why I'm in support of high-deductible catastrophic care, made affordable to those who can't afford it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

I'm fed up with all the side issues and distractions. Big government vs small government, federal vs. local are all beside the point. I think what very nearly every American wants is high quality affordable health care, we only disagree about how to get that.

The plane fact is that the US market driven system is doing a worse job of that than any of the "socialized" approaches out there. And you know what, Canadian, Norwegians, Danes, Germans and the rest don't seem to be struggling under horrible oppression in exchange. Certainly not anything that is worth the 3-5 years of life we loose and 2-3 grand extra we each pay per capita annually for medical care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Neither.
It's also worth noting that you sort of missed part of his point: that while the "country" of China may be over 3000 years old, its government is younger than our own. In fact, as he notes, the American government is older than almost all the other governments on Earth.

---

quote:

---

But in the long run, it costs us all because people don't get diagnosed early when treatment is least expensive and most effective.

---

quote:

---

The plane fact is that the US market driven system is doing a worse job of that than any of the "socialized" approaches out there.

---

quote:

---

We do not have a 'market' driven system as the markets as designed differently in each state and health insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. The 'market' is whatever the state politicians decide they want it to be and is not driven by what the end consumers want.

---

quote:

---

But any way you look at it, the US system is much more market driven than any other system in the world, and its both more expensive and less effective.

---

quote:

---

Give me one reason that we should try a true free market health care system rather than the alternatives that have proven efficient and effective around the world.

---

quote:

---

What would make that worth gambling human lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

But any way you look at it, the US system is much more market driven than any other system in the world, and its both more expensive and less effective.

---

I don't know how all of the rest of the world's health systems work, but we are not using any market forces at all.

---

quote:

---

Look at what you just wrote VERY CAREFULLY and then confirm for us that you actually believe this.

---

quote:

---

If market forces aren't at all in play, why do health insurance companies and hospitals advertise?

---

quote:

---

Why not remove them from your health insurance and allow people to buy the health insurance they want instead of what politicians and special interest groups think they need? I am not saying zero regulation as I know that is the next straw you will reach for.

---

quote:

---

. The government (federal and state) has created a mess and now they want more control over it. Why not remove them from your health insurance and allow people to buy the health insurance they want instead of what politicians and special interest groups think they need?

---

quote:

---

I am not saying zero regulation as I know that is the next straw you will reach for. The question remains...Why is competition across state lines such a bad thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:
The only reason healthcare was passed is they realize this is their one and only chance. Even if it didn't pass, they would still be voted out of office in November. Pelosi understands that this is their one and only chance to control all branches of government. Even if they didn't pass healthcare, Pelosi, Reid and Obama know they will lose complete power in a few months. Liberalism is about feelings, not logic. They aren't representing the people, they have an agenda. Watch out for what else they will try to ram through prior to November. Cap and trade and amnesty are next. Elections are close in this country. Amnesty will create 20 million new voters. Of course, they'll vote for the party that legalized them.

The most dangerous enemy a man can face is the one who knows he's already dead. The Democrats know they are going to lose power in the fall. Watch out for what they will try to do in the meantime.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how all of the rest of the world's health systems work, but we are not using any market forces at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
[QUOTE] You think the Republicans are fighting this so hard because they believe it won't work? If they believed it wouldn't work, they'd let the dems do it. They don't seem to care whether whatever happens bankrupts us or not. They've been bought.

---

quote:

---

You are against regulation, and in favor of an unregulated market.

---

quote:

---

But you are in favor of *some* regulation. Well I think the internal flaw in your position is that you show no faith in the government to regulate only when necessary, and yet you admit that some regulation *is* necessary.

---

quote:

---

Essentially this is the Republican credo that government doesn't work, full stop, but that it is necessary to some extent.

---

quote:

---

Well, then, where exactly are we? Because we have a system that is loosely based on the idea that the markets should drive themselves, but that *some* government regulation is necessary.

---

quote:

---

But you yourself admit that government is *not* good at deciding how much that necessary amount really is, and in fact I think the present state of affairs bears that out, whether you believe the government does too much or not enough, it clearly isn't doing much that has been very effective thus far.

---

quote:

---

So you want to dial back a failing strategy to a more tolerable level, but with the same built in flaw, while at the same time ignoring the measurable and real successes of systems where the opposite approach has been taken.

---

quote:

---

But right now where you are is basically a weak admission that the current system isn't working

---

quote:

---

and a proposal that we sort of make it work a little better- despite the looming presence of hundreds of millions of dollars in the political spectrum that has been keeping it the way it is, or making it worse, for 30 years.

---

quote:

---

That's the thing I think your side of the argument chooses to ignore, and which is the death blow to it

---

quote:

---

The government taking a hands off, "sensible" approach to regulation is right out. And that's because a market driven system bleeds money and corruption. You want to attract sharks- put blood in the water, and see who gets elected. It won't be people into "sensible" regulation, it will be people into making lots of money and getting re-elected, and then getting "consultancy" jobs after their terms. But if we regulate more heavily and more actively, the built in incentive for washington to become an arm of the corporate interests is diminished.

---

quote:

---

You think the Republicans are fighting this so hard because they believe it won't work? If they believed it wouldn't work, they'd let the dems do it. They don't seem to care whether whatever happens bankrupts us or not. They've been bought.

---

quote:

---

Because, as has been exhaustively detailed over the course of this and other threads, it is the actuarial non-social models and the lack of regulation pertaining to these affairs that ensure that the system remains inefficient, neglectful, and prone to poor sustainability through sustained double-digit inflation.

---

quote:

---

Your side is taking a bad system and making it much much worse by terrible legislation.

---

quote:

---

"Essentially this is the Republican credo that government doesn't work, full stop, but that it is necessary to some extent."

Was your opinion of the effectiveness of government the same when Bush was in office? I am not speaking for all Republicans but by and large, politicians attempt to spend as much as they can because that is how they can show their voters that they are working for them. They place all kinds of mandates on health insurance carriers so they can show the people how they are protecting them.

---

quote:

---

Your initial assumptions are flawed. We do not have 'a' system. We have 50 different systems. The health care insurance I have now cannot be sold in any other state except this one.

---

quote:

---

So if you agree that the government is doing a poor job so far, why would you want to give the government 100% control over health care?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand your position of wanting the government to take over when you agree that the current system, run by rules, regulations and mandates from the government (federal and state), is not effective.

---

quote:

---

Your side is embracing the painful expensive demise of the health care system that your side helped set up. Remember when HMO's were the answer? (Thanks, Ted Kennedy). Your side is taking a bad system and making it much much worse by terrible legislation.

---

quote:

---

Just like the Democrats allowed Bush to pass every single item he wanted, and never voiced an opposition?

---

quote:

---

Democrats are owned every bit as much as Republicans.

---

quote:

---

Your initial assumptions are flawed. We do not have 'a' system. We have 50 different systems. The health care insurance I have now cannot be sold in any other state except this one.

---

quote:

---

The republicans, today, are far worse. That is my opinion, and it is not a crazy one nor delusional, nor do I put such stock in it that I will be as offended by your rebuke as you will probably be by mine.

---

quote:

---

I think your hysterics are a disproportionate, but understandable, reaction to the situation you have been placed in, and I find that unfortunate. I find so much about your camp to be unfortunate, I can't even tell you.

---

quote:

---

I imagine it is possible for a health insurance company to come up with plans that would favor preventative medicine, but right now, most plans do not.

---

quote:

---

I imagine it is possible for a health insurance company to come up with plans that would favor preventative medicine, but right now, most plans do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

I imagine it is possible for a health insurance company to come up with plans that would favor preventative medicine, but right now, most plans do not.

---

My plan provides for a free, no copay, yearly physical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I wasn't being hysterical but thank you for pitying the unfortunate people who disagree with your point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

I imagine it is possible for a health insurance company to come up with plans that would favor preventative medicine, but right now, most plans do not.

---

Mine does. Annual checkups, teeth cleanings, routine lab work is all free to me, not even a copay. Maintenance pills, including birth control, is cheap - I pay $10 for a four-month supply. They track my health for me, allow me to track all my appointments and prescriptions online, and they harass me into getting a well being check up once year. There is a small subsidy for gym memberships and discounts on reputable diet plans.

There is a higher charge for emergency services and for other things, but as far as supporting preventative things to make me a cheaper patient for them in the long run, I think Kaiser does a pretty good job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
2) It is less expensive to deal with small things than large. Yet most small things can be ignored. So when I get a cough I don't spend my money going to the doctor--but if it leads to pneumonia, that gets expensive.

---

quote:

---

Kaiser is what I have as well, as they started in and are based in California. In many ways I think they are the future of American medicine, but comparing them to most health insurance is comparing apples to rutabagas -- they're not remotely comparable. Kaiser pays their doctors a salary, not a per-service charge. They own the labs, radiology departments, etc. -- they're not contracting with outside agencies (with few exceptions). In those cases (like emergencies) that Kaiser is paying outside people, they are a huge PITA.

That said, I think the Kaiser model is a good one, and I'm glad it is growing.

---

quote:

---

No, I don't pity you, especially. You're ignorant because you want to be, which is despicable, and laughable considering what you are actually trying to argue (because you've gotta love an answer to a basic question about European systems being: "I don't know anything about them, but listen to what I have to say about why they won't work"). Your fault, completely. Still unfortunate though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I stumbled on it accidentally because I wanted a cheaper insurance. Kaiser is cheaper than what I had before and much, much better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I've heard some horror stories for Kaiser.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

Does that make it less despicable and laughable for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Orin, to whom are you speaking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
You gotta learn sometime that Michael Moore is not a credible source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
She also said that doctors know more about the bill than we do

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
She also said that doctors know more about the bill than we do

---

Nonsense.

Sounds like the doctor is either having issue with the primary insurance company (-ies) they deal with, or looking for an excuse and blaming something they are politically against. I have looked at a lot of analyses of the bill, and have seen NOTHING like price setting. Now, insurance carriers have been forcing prices for years, and some may be using the new bill as an excuse to lower their payment rates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:

The more I read your reply the more I think you're a huge idiot. Get some reading comprehension before you start thinking you know what I stand for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
I was wondering if the insurance company she deals with most often had cut her rates. I know that my doctor gets a lower rate when treating me because I'm in a PPO. If the insurance cut that rate (which I believe is negotiated with the doctor), he would be making even less, and that's bad for him.

---

quote:

---

You still deflected the challenge from a position of ignorance, which is the key thing. I'm well aware you know something about these systems- your claiming ignorance of them in order to bolster your own point, or avoid defending it properly, is still laughable.

---

quote:

---

Because *anyone* can say they don't know *everything* about every other system- using that as a reason not to broach subjects that you can't handle well because they don't lend themselves to your position is not fair. Going further and accusing me of the same sin- well that just isn't cool.

---

quote:

---

All this revolves around the main problem with the conservative approach to this problem. Because it is approached either from a position of ignorance, or with an arsenal of superficial anecdotes.

---

quote:

---

The conservatives come off, to me, as a pack of superstitious natives when they talk about health care, either too timid to engage with the core economic issue (because they lose that fight hands down)

---

quote:

---

or shriekingly bombastic about superficial aspects of either our own fledgling plan, or those of existing systems.

---

quote:

---

Those graphs and tables that demonstrate very, very clear correlations between social medicine and actual average health outcomes are worth nary a bother, apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The White Whale:
Let's use this wonderful thing called "30 seconds on Google", shall we?

Factchecking Capitalism, A Love Story

His track record for some of the major claims in that movie: False, Barely True, True, Mostly True, False, and Mostly True.

His overall record on Politifact: 1 True, 4 Mostly True, 2 Barely True, 3 False

So, kat, he's not all hot air. I've learned a good deal from his movies. And Blayne, I don't think "credible enough" is a good description either, since he certainly doesn't distinguish very well between what is true and what is heavily spun.

---

quote:

---

Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
He's not worth the bother, DK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
He's not worth the bother, DK.

---

Hey there scrappy. Feel like being a part of the discussion? No? Didn't think so. Oh but not, give us another one liner, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Mal jumps down many rabbit holes. It is not necessary for you to follow him. Especially when it appears that his main pattern is: bring up as many random anecdotes and tangents as possible to get a rise out of people and confuse the issue

---

quote:

---

ATT is telling the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malanthrop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Mal jumps down many rabbit holes. It is not necessary for you to follow him. Especially when it appears that his main pattern is: bring up as many random anecdotes and tangents as possible to get a rise out of people and confuse the issue

---

It has been a fortunate week for my "anecdotes". How many companies this week have followed the law by making quarterly cost projections to their stockholders? It's unfortunate that ATT (and dozens of others) have announced the healthcare bill will cost them a Billion dollars. Which will result in either: layoffs, higher healthcare premiums or the cancellation of benefits for their employees and retirees. Of course, only anecdotal.

Major corporations are required by law to reveal these projections. For doing so, they are being subpoenad to testify before congress. Liberal politicians that have never ran a business know better than the CFO's of a corporation. The CFO will be thrown in prison for not stating the truth. Pelosi and Reid can say the healthcare bill will reduce the defecit???????? ATT CFO would end up in prison for such creative book-keeping. ATT is telling the truth. The bill will reduce coverage and increase the cost.

The witch-hunt trials are about to commence. How dare the Chief Financial Officers of dozens of corporations disagree with the financial projections of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. A congressional peer of theirs argued against an Admiral this week, marines might capsize Guam.

Congress knows best. They can legislate the cost of a good.

---