The Battle for Healthcare Begins

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>we'd be going from a dysfunctional two tier system with the bottom
>rung run by the government . . .

Right now there's no "run by the government." No one runs it. People just don't pay, and hospitals close down as a result. Not a great result.

I'm sorry - I was under the impression that Medicaid / Medicare were government programs. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>And it works dam well for a lot of working Americans! Why can't we have both?

I agree! I'd definitely support an official two-tier system to replace the dysfunctional one we have now.

You mean like one where the federal government (and/or the states) pay the bills for those who can't afford to pay, and those with private insurance (or the means to pay) cover themselves (or are covered by their insurance)?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

"Who is John Galt?"

aaahh, another ayn rand freak

If half the doctors here change occupations and our health care collapses, that won't effect you, since you don't live in the US.

But it will be quite bad for the people who do live here. Even a relatively small loss of doctors (say 5%) could have a huge impact on health care wait time and quality.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

How nice to support a government policy whose goal is not to actually help anyone but to destroy others.

It's why I describe socialism as "equal misery for all."

Let us not bring up the poor. Bring down the rich. Nobody can complain is they are all in the gutter.

Myself - I'd like to see the market get away from oberinsuring everyone for everything at every time. Instead, that health insurance be available for extraordinary events.

Treat health insurance like all other insurance instead of treating it like auto insurance paying for gas and car washes.

If we had "food insurance" like we have health insurance people would be more obese and bitch that it is now a $5 copay for a bean burrito from Taco Bell. It would cost that much simply because of the back-office work that it needed for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

While there would be some benefits, there's no way to derail the current train onto a new track without spending a buttload of money to get it going. And that money isn't here right now.

No money hasn't stopped Barry, Harry & Nancy so far. Why will this be different? Just pull out Uncle Sam's credit card and let's get going.

The banks and auto companies are at risk of collapse, and taking the rest of the economy with them. It's also bipartisan - following the steps of the GOP leadership last fall.

Our health care system, otoh, is a slowly burning bomb, like Social Security. There is not the same pressing need to do something when for most people (and nearly all voters) it is working reasonably well. So, no, it's not at all the same and there is no blank check to do something about it.

If you prefer to scream about the black boogieman in the White House, feel free, but political reality is greatly different.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

While there would be some benefits, there's no way to derail the current train onto a new track without spending a buttload of money to get it going. And that money isn't here right now.

No money hasn't stopped Barry, Harry & Nancy so far. Why will this be different? Just pull out Uncle Sam's credit card and let's get going.

The banks and auto companies are at risk of collapse, and taking the rest of the economy with them. It's also bipartisan - following the steps of the GOP leadership last fall.

Our health care system, otoh, is a slowly burning bomb, like Social Security. There is not the same pressing need to do something when for most people (and nearly all voters) it is working reasonably well. So, no, it's not at all the same and there is no blank check to do something about it.

If you prefer to scream about the black boogieman in the White House, feel free, but political reality is greatly different.

Valid points to be sure, but there is also a window of opportunity here that may never happen again and I think Barry & Co. will use that opportunity to cram as many socialist programs through while they can.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

If you prefer to scream about the black boogieman in the White House, feel free, but political reality is greatly different.

Again, I don't see anyone else invoking skin color.

I am amazed that despite his being the most powerful man in the world, people are resorting to labeling those who oppose any action, policy or idea of the Obama administration as some sort of racists.

It's not about skin color. Crying "racism" merely because people have honest policy disagreements is disingenuous at the very least.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If you prefer to scream about the black boogieman in the White House, feel free, but political reality is greatly different.

Again, I don't see anyone else invoking skin color.

I am amazed that despite his being the most powerful man in the world, people are resorting to labeling those who oppose any action, policy or idea of the Obama administration as some sort of racists.

It's not about skin color. Crying "racism" merely because people have honest policy disagreements is disingenuous at the very least.

Quote the Bard, I think thou dost protest too much.

I threw it in intentionally. I think racism does factor into some of the irrational fear of Obama. But there are a lot more to my posting than the word 'black.'

It boggles me that so many people think the rest of DC is no longer relevant and he has full power to do whatever he wants. You need only look at the failure to even try to do something with gun control to see that this is false.

The GOP had the WH and both sides of Congress for 6 years, and while they put through the Patriot Act (which Clinton/Reno would have supported anyway) and tax cuts that lead to our current deficit, they didn't really get much of their long standing agenda through. Clinton couldn't in 93-94. Obama won't right now either.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm. And sexism and elitism had a lot to do with the dislike of Palin, right?

Come one, dude. Has Obama had it nearly as bad a Clinton?

Is Obama hated by the right nearly as much as Dubya is hated by the left?

You'd rather see skin color. Or, you would prefer that the opponents see skin color.

It makes it easier for supporters to cope with the attacks on his policies by claiming they are racist attacks on him. The race card is still going strong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I think racism does factor into some of the irrational fear of Obama.

My fear is neither racist or irrational. I fear socialism. Barry & Co. are taking us in that direction...and quickly.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I fear socialism.

this is the thread for you
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3559404;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[winsor 236]

"Universal Health Care" - like all buzzword issues, the quick fix is guaranteed to be "eine Schlimmverbesserung" (literally "bad improvement" - it doesn't translate well into English).

As H. L. Mencken said, "for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong."

There are a couple of flaws to the proposed solution to the "Health Care Crisis" that are immediately apparent to me.

First, we have an organization that is almost completely comprised of Attorneys (the Legislature) that wishes to define the standards by which Physicians ply their trade. This is akin to having wolves establish the rules by which a flock of sheep shall be managed. Does anyone else note the smallest conflict of interest?

The fact that medical care costs orders of magnitude more than its nominal value is largely due to legislation and litigation. The staggering cost of Malpractice Insurance is compounded by the resultant tendency to use every diagnostic in the book at every turn - to the detriment of clarity. Having to wade through a stack of test results that resembles a small phone book makes it hard to find any relevant data. so the quality of care becomes inversely proportional to its cost.

The second thing that leaps out at me is the concept that, given a service that is too expensive for someone to afford, by providing a lesser amount of money to the most inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy one might imagine, this officious, ponderous and bloated bureaucracy will somehow provide the desired level of service.

The law of unintended consequences applies to most novel tax schemes. In the case of "Universal Health Care," it is assumed that "the Rich" will pay for the whole thing. Unfortunately, most rich people did not get that way by being stupid, or by sitting around while people tried to separate them from their money.

By and large, "the Rich" are the ones that can afford to leave at their leisure, and go somewhere that the Government is not trying to turn them into "the Poor." Witness Zimbabwe, where they found out that "the Rich," far from keeping "the Poor" down, were responsible for a better quality of life for a large part of the population than was possible after their removal; in fact, the overall health of the economy was contingent upon the efforts of "the Rich" in the first place.

We somehow view the Legislature as Santa Claus, who knows whether we've been naughty or nice but never does anything about it, and will somehow come down the chimney with all sorts of gifts with no strings attached. We cherish this fantasy while willfully ignoring the fact that they screw up damned near everything they touch, and overlook the fact that not one in 100 has the background to understand the technical ramifications of the issues they seek to address - even if they actually had the time to read the details of the legislation itself.

It is said that a people get the Government they deserve. If that is so, I suppose we must largely consist of morons who glory in mediocrity. As Ron White observed, "you can't fix stupid."


Blue skies,

Winsor

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Has Obama had it nearly as bad a Clinton?

Which Clinton?

Quote

Is Obama hated by the right nearly as much as Dubya is hated by the left?

Easily

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[alge 0]

Quote

In the case of "Universal Health Care," it is assumed that "the Rich" will pay for the whole thing.

Far from it. It is assumed that everyone who can will pay for the whole thing. That would be something like the "top" 90% of US households sorted by income. Contrast that to "the Rich", where people in the highest 5% have been claiming to not be "rich" on this very board.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

I fear socialism.

this is the thread for you
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3559404;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

#17 in the Official Leftwing Elitist Handbook

You have to believe that the only reason socialism and communism haven't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. You must also vociferously deny the fact that "Nazi" is an abbreviation for Adolf Hitler's Nationalsozialist party, because Hitler makes socialism look bad, unlike humanitarian socialists like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez and a host of other socialists who raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered their own people in the name of "income redistribution" [ala Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Lyndon Johnson and Barack Hussein Obama], political and economic advancement for the "plight" of the downtrodden.

http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the case of "Universal Health Care," it is assumed that "the Rich" will pay for the whole thing.

Far from it. It is assumed that everyone who can will pay for the whole thing. That would be something like the "top" 90% of US households sorted by income. Contrast that to "the Rich", where people in the highest 5% have been claiming to not be "rich" on this very board.

You do know that aprox 40% of the people in this country do not pay income taxes today dont you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

The Nazis were no more socialist than the communist nations were democratic. Just because its part of the name doesn't mean it's true.

[alge 0]

Quote

You do know that aprox 40% of the people in this country do not pay income taxes today dont you?

There's a slight difference between households and people. I don't expect your babies to pay much income taxes, nor your gramps. (:

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

You do know that aprox 40% of the people in this country do not pay income taxes today dont you?

There's a slight difference between households and people. I don't expect your babies to pay much income taxes, nor your gramps. (:

40% of workers pay no income taxes.

The average income tax rate in the bottom two quintiles is negative. For 2007, the first quintile averaged -5.0% and the second -2.8%. The middle quintile was slightly positive at 2.8%.

[pirana 0]

Quote

What I find curious is that no one talks about it being a state issue. In Canada there is a constant struggle to shift power between local hospital boards and health authorities on one hand, and the provincial governments on the other. The local boards and authorities are more attuned to the particular vagarities of the delivery environment, whereas the province tends to be a little more hard-nosed about costs. NO-ONE wants the feds to run it.
If Governor Dean wants this, why doesn't he legislate it for his state?

One essential part to any solution for it to have half a chance at success is to move away from state run and state regulated programs. One of the big problems is that there are 51 sets of regulation in place in the USA. One set of rules is a must for health care financing to be truly effecient.

I'm not advocating a federal plan, or the government as insurer or even administrator; but for the feds to act as the sole regulatory body and a single set of rules for all.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

When so many people who have paid and paid and paid into their "health insurance" find its time to use it.. and thier wonderful insurance provider willnot pay the bills... you realize that SOMETHING IS FUCKING WRONG.. and the crooks perpetrating this need to go to FUCKING JAIL.


Its broke for a hell of a lot of working americans....

In about 2/3rds of the cases, that would be your employer going to jail. That is about the ratio of insured Americans in which the insurance company is only serving as administrator; the employer is calling the shots (but does not want you to know that in most cases). It's called self-insured, and is the largest market segment by far. The employer decides the benefits, can grant the exceptions, and for the most parts answers to nobody because of the loopholes available to them by law. Self-insured is one of the loopholes that needs to be eliminated to get health care financing on the right track.

But yeah, if your employer decides a service should not be covered then the Prez of the insurance company should go to jail. Makes perfect sense.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Good post winsor.

Especially salient is that most of our legislators know very little about the topic. But in their desire to answer to the emotional fears of their constituents (fears flamed by emotional rhetoric from lobbyists on all sides of the issues); we will probably end up with some real shit before it is over.

It is unfortunate that so few lawmakers (or their constituents) know much of anything on the topic, outside of emotional pleas and anecdotes, and the pablum shoveled by the lobbyists.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Don't Fall for the Health Industry Barons' Empty Promises

Obama is welcoming the health care lobby's Trojan Horse -- a pledge to cut the growth of costs to "only" 4.7 annually.

I am awed at people's capacity for self-deception. On Monday, the Obama administration and SEIU joined with Big Health lobbyists to trot out a six-month old, non-specific, non-binding "promise" to cut the rate at which health care costs grow to "only" 4.7 percent annually.

This is very simple: the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical devices industries see the writing on the wall -- American health care puts an unsustainable economic burden on families and employers, leaves 47 million people without coverage and results in some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. Fearful of a growing movement towards real, substantive reform, they are trying to co-opt the process under the guise of "getting a seat at the table."

There's no news here -- "voluntary" codes of conduct, self-regulation and industry-driven initiatives for the private sector to address complex policy issues have long been a standard tactic for heading off real regulation, real accountability measures, systemic reforms.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) -- the insurance industry group descended from the organization that aired the infamous "Harry and Louise" campaign during the Clinton health care wars -- first trotted out this proposal 6 months ago. It wasn't big news then, but with Obama's nod and one of the major, ostensibly progressive players in the health care debate getting on board, it is now.

Earlier this month, AHIP also "surprised" more credulous observers by calling for more regulation of the health care industry! At the time, Congressional Quarterly noted the obvious:

Part of the reasoning behind the industry’s push for regulation may be that, with the momentum Democrats have built for a health care overhaul, private health insurers face two choices: change the way they do business, or face competition from a government-run insurance plan that many say would eventually run them out of business...

And with support building for a government-run insurance option with some limits on how it operates, [AHIP CEO Karen] Ignagni appears to be offering concessions: dodging the government-run plan in return for regulation that would more strictly guide how her member companies operate.

Surprisingly, many otherwise bright progressive minds are hailing this latest move as some sort of breakthrough in the fight for health care reform. Paul Krugman called it "some of the best policy news" he's heard in a long time. Bill Scher at Campaign for America's Future said the insurance industry is ready to "play ball" with the administration, even though the outlines of the proposal preceded Obama's inauguration by two months.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/139954/don%27t_fall_for_the_health_industry_barons%27_empty_promises/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I wonder how you would feel if some Americans started pushing for changes in your government over there? Wouldn't that be arrogant and imperialistic?

Why the double standard?

Quote

The US healthcare establishment has launched a series of television attack adverts using tragic stories from Britain's National Health Service to contest Barack Obama's plans to contain the escalating cost of treatment and make it more accessible to the poor.

In the broadcasts, by Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), Britons complain about waiting times, restrictions to operations and access to life-saving drugs on the NHS. A top British cancer specialist, Dr Karol Sikora, dean of the University of Buckingham's medical school and former chief of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme, also appears, warning that a state-run system strips patients of control over their healthcare. "They lose control over their own destiny in the health system," he says in the advert.

Supporters of reform have accused CPR of conducting a scaremongering campaign on behalf of the medical establishment similar to one that sank the last attempt at reform by the Clinton administration 16 years ago.

The latest campaign is being co-ordinated by the same public relations firm that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks by President Bush's campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 election.

CPR says that Obama's plans to control costs, while widening access to care for some 45m people without health insurance, means that the US will introduce rationing of treatment and drug supplies which is similar to that overseen by the UK's National Institute for Healthcare and Clinical Excellence (Nice).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/13/advertising-campaign-nhs-us-healthcare-reforms

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[pirana 0]

Quote

CPR says that Obama's plans to control costs, while widening access to care for some 45m people without health insurance, . . .

Another piece of misinformation that has become so often mentioned that even some of those in the know, or who should know better, are starting to believe it.

The number of US citizens without insurance of some form, excluding those that can afford it and choose not to buy, is 10 to 12 million. Granted, that was before the current economic downturn, but the 40 to 45 million figure has been getting tossed around for at least a couple years and is BS.

I did notice they have revised the wording lately to make it less of a lie. The statement used to always include "Americans." (About 25% of the larger figure is made up of illegal immigrants).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley