Healthcare Bill

[JaggerPlate]

And you couldn't print the form off online?

It's really your responsibility to know what you need for X process. A lot of people who go to the DMV/SoS are NOT prepared and I've seen it many times.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have Stafford loans or not?

How can you seriously defend the DMV??? I'd rather register my car in Hell than at any of the friendly DMVs in my general area.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

However, my solutions probably seem pretty small, because admittedly, they are. I don't think it's the time for a huge health care/health insurance, whatever over hall. I think it's horribly timed and is going to drive us deeper into debt and economic depression. If people want changes, I'm all for small, reasonable changes, but I would really, really like Washington's focus to be on debt, the economy, and the unemployment rate. Don't know if that makes me a bad future doc, but I think it's a hell of a lot more reasonable in this current climate.

I disagree. 7 Presidents and 7 Congresses have tried and failed at what this administration is at the precipice of accomplishing. If it won't happen now, it won't in a very long time. Once only so often is there enough people thinking for the little guy to actually get something done for the little guy - and this time is now.

And it won't drive us further into debt, it will pull us OUT if anything. The non-partisan CBO estimated $100 billion in savings in the next decade, and $1 trillion in the next 20. Healthcare expenses are 1/5 of our economy; if nothing is done, it'll become 1/4. That leaves a lot of other programs and areas to bite the bullet for spiraling health care expenses everywhere else.

Also, a lot of the heat going against the DMV and Postal Service seem more due to incompetent WORKERS rather than the fact that the government is running it. I doubt it says anywhere in government protocol to ignore people waiting in line and file mail that won't be going anywhere anytime soon to become a model gov. employee. When it comes to "desk-jobs", people are just lazy/bored and so are inefficient (OFFICE SPACE lol)...I can say the same thing about a whole host of privatized businesses. Besides, I'm happy with the postal service - they never lose my mail and always get it there on time easy.

 

[morning]

How can you seriously defend the DMV??? I'd rather register my car in Hell than at any of the friendly DMVs in my general area.

It's not that I think the DMV is TOTALLY RAD!, I just don't think that "I had a bad experience at the DMV" is justification for "everything the government does is totally awful except I'm currently taking advantage of government services to fund my medical education so I'm basically a huge hypocrite." And 9/10 crappy experiences I've ever had standing in line ANYWHERE...were because of people who DID NOT come prepared.

 

[DoctwoB]

Couple things:

1. Medicare is currently the most efficient health "insurance" organization, as shown by its extremely high medical loss ratio (ratio of money spent on patient care to total money spent by the program), so saying Medicare = DMV is just plain idiotic. Its government financing of private care, not government provided care.

2. Does anyone know if the CBO's estimates for cost savings include actually allowing medicare cuts under the SGR formula that will almost definitely not pass? How much do the budget estimates change with no SGR cuts?

 

[bamtuba]

Because what SDN needs right now, no wait, WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW is another freakin' thread about nothing that boils down to one big "which party are you affiliated with" pi**ing match.

Way to go OP. Way to go.

 

[plauto]

It's not that I think the DMV is TOTALLY RAD!, I just don't think that "I had a bad experience at the DMV" is justification for "everything the government does is totally awful except I'm currently taking advantage of government services to fund my medical education so I'm basically a huge hypocrite." And 9/10 crappy experiences I've ever had standing in line ANYWHERE...were because of people who DID NOT come prepared.

how are we taking advantage of govt services to fund our education? you call 6.8% a good rate? You could buy a brand new Porsche 911 and get better interest than that.

 

[chessknt]

And you couldn't print the form off online?

It's really your responsibility to know what you need for X process. A lot of people who go to the DMV/SoS are NOT prepared and I've seen it many times.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have Stafford loans or not?

The form wasnt this issue, you HAVE to wait in line #1 to get to a # to have some monkey hit 3 keys to process your form. Its inefficient and stupid.

Whether I have stafford loans or not is completely irrelevant and I am not answering it because you will probably go off on some wild tangent.

 

[chessknt]

I just don't think that "I had a bad experience at the DMV" is justification for "everything the government does is totally awful except I'm currently taking advantage of government services to fund my medical education so I'm basically a huge hypocrite."

Ah there it is. The government sucks at running almost everything, from my state, to my city, to the postal service, to my UCI webmail. I am not an anarchist, I just firmly believe that when nobody is held accountable for quality/efficiency and there is NO RISK of losing your job because its unionized, then it is going to be run poorly.

Taking a loan out from the government is not a service, its an agreement one makes to pay back a sum of money + interest. If you cant see the difference between forcing me to stand in line for something that should have been automated during the industrial revolution and borrowing money, then I suggest you make another thread entitled "Please explain the difference between government services and a loan."

 

[morning]

The form wasnt this issue, you HAVE to wait in line #1 to get to a # to have some monkey hit 3 keys to process your form. Its inefficient and stupid.

Whether I have stafford loans or not is completely irrelevant and I am not answering it because you will probably go off on some wild tangent about how the government loans.

And mentioning the DMV was...what?

Taking a loan out from the government is not a service, its an agreement one makes to pay back a sum of money + interest. If you cant see the difference between forcing me to stand in line for something that should have been automated during the industrial revolution and borrowing money, then I suggest you make another thread entitled "Please explain the difference between government services and a loan?"

And buying insurance from the government is...what?

how are we taking advantage of govt services to fund our education? you call 6.8% a good rate? You could buy a brand new Porsche 911 and get better interest than that.

So, get student loans (with no credit check) from a private lender for less than 6.8%. Also, make sure they pay your interest while you're in school. I'm sure you have Stafford or Gradplus loans, though, so...damn that government waste (except when it helps you!)

 

[JaggerPlate]

I disagree. 7 Presidents and 7 Congresses have tried and failed at what this administration is at the precipice of accomplishing. If it won't happen now, it won't in a very long time. Once only so often is there enough people thinking for the little guy to actually get something done for the little guy - and this time is now.

And it won't drive us further into debt, it will pull us OUT if anything. The non-partisan CBO estimated $100 billion in savings in the next decade, and $1 trillion in the next 20. Healthcare expenses are 1/5 of our economy; if nothing is done, it'll become 1/4. That leaves a lot of other programs and areas to bite the bullet for spiraling health care expenses everywhere else.

Also, a lot of the heat going against the DMV and Postal Service seem more due to incompetent WORKERS rather than the fact that the government is running it. I doubt it says anywhere in government protocol to ignore people waiting in line and file mail that won't be going anywhere anytime soon to become a model gov. employee. When it comes to "desk-jobs", people are just lazy/bored and so are inefficient (OFFICE SPACE lol)...I can say the same thing about a whole host of privatized businesses. Besides, I'm happy with the postal service - they never lose my mail and always get it there on time easy.

You sound like an Obama ad campaign ... and I can't argue with that. You say he's sticking up for the 'little guy,' I say that the little guy is screaming in his face that he doesn't want this, and all he cares about is a victory, his legacy, and ego. Also, can you reference the CBO article?? I remember this one:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/...obamas-healthcare-reform-will-not-save-money/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html



from July where the CBO says it will NOT save money???

 

[morning]

You sound like an Obama ad campaign ... and I can't argue with that. You say he's sticking up for the 'little guy,' I say that the little guy is screaming in his face that he doesn't want this, and all he cares about is a victory, his legacy, and ego. Also, can you reference the CBO article?? I remember this one:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/...obamas-healthcare-reform-will-not-save-money/

from July where the CBO says it will NOT save money???

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...tion+poll&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=c5aa4278f68e4a4

Pick one or any.

 

[JaggerPlate]

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...tion+poll&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=c5aa4278f68e4a4

Pick one or any.

that's a google search for 'public option poll ?'

 

[morning]

that's a google search for 'public option poll ?'

Sorry, I had no idea you had no idea how to click Google links.

Here's one page with a crapton of polls on it, including specifics. Hopefully it'll be easier for you to comprehend:

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Favor - Oppose - Not Sure

"Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can't afford it"​

2/17-18/10​

59 36 5

"Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans"​

2/17-18/10​

50 42 8

"Do you think the government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with tax credits or other aid to help low-income people pay for it?"​

Should Should Not Unsure % % %

2/4-8/10​

56 43 2

9/06​

65 32 3

Oooh, here's another one!



Favor Oppose Unsure % % %

"Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies."​

1/28-31/10​

49 42 9

11/19-22/09​

52 36 11

10/29 - 11/1/09​

51 43 6

8/27-31/09​

49 41 10

 

[chessknt]

And mentioning the DMV was...what?

Illustrating an example where the government compeltely fails to run a fairly simple administrative body.

And buying insurance from the government is...what?

An exchange of money for a service (insurance). Insurance is not a loan.... A loan is not a service.

So, get student loans (with no credit check) from a private lender for less than 6.8%. Also, make sure they pay your interest while you're in school. I'm sure you have Stafford or Gradplus loans, though, so...damn that government waste (except when it helps you!)

Im sorry I dont see how this is relevant to the government running health care. The government is good at subsidizing some of the interest on loans it makes to a population crucial to its future, ergo it will be good at running healthcare? Please make another thread for this or make this point more clear, thanks.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Sorry, I had no idea you had no idea how to click Google links.

Here's one page with a crapton of polls on it, including specifics. Hopefully it'll be easier for you to comprehend:

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Favor - Oppose - Not Sure

"Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can't afford it"​

2/17-18/10​

59 36 5

"Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans"​

2/17-18/10​

50 42 8

"Do you think the government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with tax credits or other aid to help low-income people pay for it?"​

Should Should Not Unsure % % %

2/4-8/10​

56 43 2

9/06​

65 32 3

Oooh, here's another one!



Favor Oppose Unsure % % %

"Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies."​

1/28-31/10​

49 42 9

11/19-22/09​

52 36 11

10/29 - 11/1/09​

51 43 6

8/27-31/09​

49 41 10

Dude, again ... what????

The person I quoted said the Congressional Budget Office claims the bill will save 100 billion over the next decade. It had nothing to do with the public option (which isn't in the passed Senate bill), nor did it have anything to do with populous polls?????? I asked for the article where the CBO says it will save money.

 

[plauto]

So, get student loans (with no credit check) from a private lender for less than 6.8%. Also, make sure they pay your interest while you're in school. I'm sure you have Stafford or Gradplus loans, though, so...damn that government waste (except when it helps you!)

actually if it weren't for the govt involvement, we'd probably be experiencing lower interest rates right now (the interest rate from the feds is at historical lows) and there would be competition, rather than a flat 6.8%, which is an awful interest rate to be paying nowadays.

 

[morning]

Dude, again ... what????

The person I quoted said the Congressional Budget Office claims the bill will save 100 billion over the next decade. It had nothing to do with the public option (which isn't in the passed Senate bill), nor did it have anything to do with populous polls?????? I asked for the article where the CBO says it will save money.

I was quite obviously responding to this:

You say he's sticking up for the 'little guy,' I say that the little guy is screaming in his face that he doesn't want this, and all he cares about is a victory, his legacy, and ego.

Considering that this hullabaloo with Harry Reid/reconciliation is ABOUT the public option, you shouldn't be surprised that is what I'm focusing on. I don't know how much you follow the news or not, but in case you don't, that is what is going on. Mr. nude photoshoot senator from Massachusetts was elected and health reform appeared to be DOA. Reconciliation is the only way out. The Democrats in the Senate and House decided that if they're going to do reconciliation, they're going to go whole hog and get the bill they originally wanted, which includes the public option, which is quite popular.

 

[chessknt]

I was quite obviously responding to this:

Considering that this hullabaloo with Harry Reid/reconciliation is ABOUT the public option, you shouldn't be surprised that is what I'm focusing on. I don't know how much you follow the news or not, but in case you don't, that is what is going on. Mr. nude photoshoot senator from Massachusetts was elected and health reform appeared to be DOA. Reconciliation is the only way out. The Democrats in the Senate and House decided that if they're going to do reconciliation, they're going to go whole hog and get the bill they originally wanted, which includes the public option, which is quite popular.

~50% isnt "quite popular," its barely scraping the majority. The problem with the public option is that, while 1/2 may want it, EVERYONE has to do it for it to work. How would you feel if you were forced to participate in something forever because it got voted into existence during a year where it happened to be popular?

They need to do small pilot programs in select microcosms first, before they try to take over the entire system with no idea of what the consequences will be.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Considering that this hullabaloo with Harry Reid/reconciliation is ABOUT the public option, you shouldn't be surprised that is what I'm focusing on. I don't know how much you follow the news or not, but in case you don't, that is what is going on. Mr. nude photoshoot senator from Massachusetts was elected and health reform appeared to be DOA. Reconciliation is the only way out. The Democrats in the Senate and House decided that if they're going to do reconciliation, they're going to go whole hog and get the bill they originally wanted, which includes the public option, which is quite popular.

Well whatever about the fact that you interpreted the OP saying the 'little man' as OBVIOUSLY the public option ...

But if reconciliation is their only option ... they're still DOA. Furthermore, like someone else said, 50% isn't 'quite popular' and the public option isn't in the Senate or White House bill, so I don't know why they'd try to jam it through now.

 

[JaggerPlate]

ALSO ... according to Rasmussen on Feb 23, 2010 ... 56% oppose Obama's plan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So again ...

You: "He's sticking up for the poor, downtrodden souls. For the little man!"
The majority of the 'little men': "No thanks."

This doesn't even take into account that in his campaign speech version 2.0 (AKA state of the union address), he essentially said the average American is too stupid to understand Healthcare reform, and that is why they don't want it. Yeah ... what a crusader for the disenfranchised.

 

[armybound]

Just a pre-emptive note to keep it civil in this thread. No personal attacks or insults, please.

 

[zinciest]

High satisfaction with medicare??? Hmm. The VA? I've worked in one ... the patients were anything but happy. It was gross, really gross. And this was in a huge 'metropolis.' Again, if your evidence is n=? claims, then so is mine.

VA certainly has a high rate of satisfaction. The DOJ supports that.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

me =/= libertarian by any means.

My mistake, though I could've sworn that you said you were a libertarian in another thread.

You mistook my point on medicare. Given the opportunity between blowing it up and propping the rates up, I'd blow it up. I'd rather have a big non-profit or several private sector companies cater specifically to the medicare crowd and reimburse appropriately than a government funded/run plan. However, this isn't going to happen. Medicare is here to stay, and in driving its rates lower and lower ... it is demolishing the market (which is NOT a free market because it is driven by Medicare). So, because there is NOTHING I can do to get rid of it, and it does set the rates at which other PPOs pay out ... I'd rather not have them pay docs 21.2% less. Don't kid yourself that it's an example of a free market. If it was all private insurances competing ... it would be, but they are not, so it is not. It's a slightly varying market driven by medicare.

We'll have to agree to disagree, although it'd be nice if you supported your "big government is bad" claim with some sort of reasoning. Medicare has been a huge success, and you're not really saying why it would be good to replace it with private insurance companies, other than because it's your ideology and you're sticking with it. Why would you suspect that private insurance companies (who cater to extremely high risk individuals) would reimburse doctors any more? What's their incentive to do so?

If it makes you feel any better, I don't plan on my biz revolving around any sort of insurances, so any feelings I have towards specialists salaries are based on the fact that I know how hard these people bust their asses, the debt they do into, etc, and I think it's fair to reimburse them properly.

Good luck running a practice with no insurance. I hear Beverly Hills has a shortage of doctors, and that the rich people who want to pay cash for their checkups are going without any care at all!

However, my solutions probably seem pretty small, because admittedly, they are. I don't think it's the time for a huge health care/health insurance, whatever over hall. I think it's horribly timed and is going to drive us deeper into debt and economic depression. If people want changes, I'm all for small, reasonable changes, but I would really, really like Washington's focus to be on debt, the economy, and the unemployment rate. Don't know if that makes me a bad future doc, but I think it's a hell of a lot more reasonable in this current climate.

Read Conscience of a Liberal. It's by Paul Krugman (he just got the Nobel Prize a few years ago). He very cogently lays out why we need health care reform. He addresses everything you said in this paragraph.

Will eliminate unneeded care??? Did I ever claim that? If I did, show me, and I'll do my best to explain my logic.

Hrrm, I was kind of under the impression that eliminating unnecessary tests and procedures was the whole premise behind malpractice reform. If it isn't, how is that going to cut health care costs, or are you conceding that your only motivation for advocating it is to save the doctors some money on their insurance premiums (not that that's bad necessarily, but why bring it up in a health care reform thread?)

.

 

[yearn4ivy]

Just a pre-emptive note to keep it civil in this thread. No personal attacks or insults, please.

Pre-emptiveness is what got America into trouble in Iraq...

 

[JaggerPlate]

Zin ...

1. It's my belief (and others, might I add) that tort reform will cease the practice of defensive medicine. Frankly, I do think it will cut some of the unnecessary testing, treatments, etc ... but as far as data that supports this - I don't know if it exists. Maybe a big doctor survey? I don't know. However, the CBO states that tort reform in general will save 54 billion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html

If it increases care, takes stress off docs, and saves ... eh, seems good.

2. With regards to not taking insurance ... I'm not talking about concierge medicine ... kind of unique situation (hard to even call it a 'practice'), but more than I want to explain or divulge on SDN.

3. No not a lib ... hardcore fiscal repub, socially moderately conserv to independent.

4. I don't know if you really can just declare Medicare a success. Patients say they like it. Well, look at the patient base?? These are individuals who would be SOL otherwise, so yeah ... they are going to like it. However, Medicare spending reached $440 billion in 2007 and was responsible for 16% of national budget. Plus, in 08 the medicare board said it spends more than it brings in via taxes, and many sources say the spending is unsustainable. Now ... we want more government run insurance options?? Success can be measured many different ways. I don't see this (especially in this market) as successful. Furthermore, it reimburses poorly, but I guess that's where some money needs to come from to sustain it? I mean, how much can it be cut? How can private insurances do it better??? Well, they wouldn't bankrupt the government and make taxes unreal? I dunno, honestly I really don't want to get into Medicare that much.

As far as big government being bad ... yes, it's just an innate feeling, and it's something I seriously cannot see any other way. Government expansion isn't democratic in my eyes. We will have to agree to disagree on anything concerning this.

 

[chessknt]

We'll have to agree to disagree, although it'd be nice if you supported your "big government is bad" claim with some sort of reasoning. Medicare has been a huge success, and you're not really saying why it would be good to replace it with private insurance companies, other than because it's your ideology and you're sticking with it. Why would you suspect that private insurance companies (who cater to extremely high risk individuals) would reimburse doctors any more? What's their incentive to do so?

I dont know what sense of the word "success" you are using, but from a financial perspective medicare is one of the biggest disasters in US economic history.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/medicare_spending/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/inve...articles/entry/medicare_fraud_out_of_control/

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

Because what SDN needs right now, no wait, WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW is another freakin' thread about nothing that boils down to one big "which party are you affiliated with" pi**ing match.

Way to go OP. Way to go.

Hey, my bad, I didn't know we had a ton of health reform threads before this (though now what I think about it, a health forum like this obviously would ). I made this on impulse, after reading about this Thursday's summit, and figured pre-med folks would have great input/ideas/agreements/disagreements about the whole thing!

ALSO ... according to Rasmussen on Feb 23, 2010 ... 56% oppose Obama's plan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

So again ...

You: "He's sticking up for the poor, downtrodden souls. For the little man!"
The majority of the 'little men': "No thanks."

This doesn't even take into account that in his campaign speech version 2.0 (AKA state of the union address), he essentially said the average American is too stupid to understand Healthcare reform, and that is why they don't want it. Yeah ... what a crusader for the disenfranchised.

I heard Rasmussen is very conservative friendly, and words his questions to be anti-Obama:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/scott_rasmussens_conservative_friendly_question_wording.php

Other polls are also liberal-friendly as well. They don't LIE about their results, obviously not - that would defeat the point of polls; what they do do is WORD the questions in an anti/pro bias. The only one that I really trust fully is Gallup, since it's usually in the middle of the spectrum between liberal and conversative polling.

Also, I really do believe that most of the people like what's in the health care bill when they hear what's IN it, but the entire debate has turned the NOTION of the bill sour. Same thing with the stimulus Recovery Act: a lot oppose the "Recovery Act" but overwhelmingly support what it does (the individual aspects that it has funded). So ultimately I think the bills themselves are good, but they have been marred, losing their message in its entirety between promoting it and having it defaced.

 

[zinciest]

I dont know what sense of the word "success" you are using, but from a financial perspective medicare is one of the biggest disasters in US economic history.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/medicare_spending/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/inve...articles/entry/medicare_fraud_out_of_control/

Here are some links for you:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/22/2384

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/12/me...reform-opinions-contributors-mary-grealy.html

It's well established that it's more cost effective than private insurance. You can google that if you doubt it. Your links don't really say why it's bad, they're just saying that it costs a lot of money (well... duh!) One article saying that it won't be funded in 30 years is kind of old hat. People always say that the sky is falling with all entitlement programs, yet they continue on.

My definition of "success" is cost effectiveness and extremely high levels of satisfaction for those who use it, criteria that Medicare meets. If you think it's a failure, would you care to say how seniors who are living off of social security should pay for health care without it?

Here's a proposal you might like if you are afraid of the economic implications of Medicare:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/medicare-and-the-va/

 

[JaggerPlate]

Also, I really do believe that most of the people like what's in the health care bill when they hear what's IN it, but the entire debate has turned the NOTION of the bill sour. Same thing with the stimulus Recovery Act: a lot oppose the "Recovery Act" but overwhelmingly support what it does (the individual aspects that it has funded). So ultimately I think the bills themselves are good, but they have been marred, losing their message in its entirety between promoting it and having it defaced.

I've heard this argument before ... I've even seen polls where people are asked right before and then read a snippet of the bill and asked again right after. Personally, I can't imagine something more biased. If you hate something, and someone who is trying to convince you otherwise reads a small, probably biased tidbit (the actually bill is like what, 2k pages?) and then asks if you hate it less ... yeah, you probably will in that moment. Also, I can't speak for the rest of the country but I've researched them ... didn't like them before, didn't like them after. Furthermore, Obama has had plenty of time to explain it to us simple folk. Why hasn't he? According to his SOUA, we just don't get it, meaning he should explain it, but I never come across all this stuff that was supposed to be posted and explained online. I thought he posted the white house bill, but dunno. I'll hate any overhaul right now ... and according to Rasmussen (sorry you don't like the bias, I really like their format) 63% of Americans agree that small, universally popular changes are the best move right now. I just don't think that gives the dems the victory they want.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Here are some links for you:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/22/2384

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/12/me...reform-opinions-contributors-mary-grealy.html

It's well established that it's more cost effective than private insurance. You can google that if you doubt it. Your links don't really say why it's bad, they're just saying that it costs a lot of money (well... duh!) One article saying that it won't be funded in 30 years is kind of old hat. People always say that the sky is falling with all entitlement programs, yet they continue on.

My definition of "success" is cost effectiveness and extremely high levels of satisfaction for those who use it, criteria that Medicare meets. If you think it's a failure, would you care to say how seniors who are living off of social security should pay for health care without it?

Here's a proposal you might like if you are afraid of the economic implications of Medicare:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/medicare-and-the-va/

Wouldn't every PPO go belly up if it cost more than it brought in? Earlier I posted that in 2008, the Medicare board said they spend more than they bring in via taxes???

 

[morning]

~50% isnt "quite popular," its barely scraping the majority. The problem with the public option is that, while 1/2 may want it, EVERYONE has to do it for it to work. How would you feel if you were forced to participate in something forever because it got voted into existence during a year where it happened to be popular?

They need to do small pilot programs in select microcosms first, before they try to take over the entire system with no idea of what the consequences will be.

Everyone has to do what? The public option does not exist to wipe out private insurance. It's there to add more competition into a hermetic marketplace controlled by a few large corporations.

It's interesting that in ALL the polls I was reading at the link I posted here, a majority polled said the government should require all those who have no insurance to obtain it (and help them if they can't afford it), but when it comes to what that actually entails, they hate it with a passion. I personally don't like mandates either. I hope we can find another way to keep costs down.

This doesn't even take into account that in his campaign speech version 2.0 (AKA state of the union address), he essentially said the average American is too stupid to understand Healthcare reform, and that is why they don't want it. Yeah ... what a crusader for the disenfranchised.

Where did he say that?

Because the average American IS stupid (yes, yes, I understand the irony of calling the average under-average) and the average American DOES want health care reform, although not what the Senate is selling.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Everyone has to do what? The public option does not exist to wipe out private insurance. It's there to add more competition into a hermetic marketplace controlled by a few large corporations.

HAHAHA, yeah so let's take a few options battling it out in market competition and put in one super power to control everything. That will totally ramp up the competition. Let's give that one super power unlimited funds too and no consequences. You should take an econ class.

It's interesting that in ALL the polls I was reading at the link I posted here, a majority polled said the government should require all those who have no insurance to obtain it (and help them if they can't afford it), but when it comes to what that actually entails, they hate it with a passion. I personally don't like mandates either. I hope we can find another way to keep costs down.

Yeah, and then the government can force you to live in certain places, and then it can select what car you drive, and what job you have, and how many kids you can have! All (3) the polls I've read say this would be awesome. Why hasn't this system been tried before??

Hyperbole obviously ... but a dangerous path.

Where did he say that?

During the state of the union address.

Because the average American IS stupid (yes, yes, I understand the irony of calling the average under-average) and the average American DOES want health care reform, although not what the Senate is selling.

How long until you're seeing patients? The average American has plenty of intelligence. They aren't Harvard trained lawyers, but they seem to get by. They probably don't walk around all day eating poisonous berries and jolting out in front of cars. Like you said ... it's not that they don't want reform. Hell, everyone wants reform, from Palin to Pelosi, but people just don't want this huge, ill advised government overhaul. It's such a mess. Scrap it.

 

[morning]

HAHAHA, yeah so let's take a few options battling it out in market competition and put in one super power to control everything. That will totally ramp up the competition. Let's give that one super power unlimited funds too and no consequences. You should take an econ class.

I should take an econ class? Because "an econ class" is going to make me some sort of financial genius? Did you take an econ class and decide it makes YOU some sort of financial genius?

Have you ever taken a class in logic or rhetoric?

Yeah, and then the government can force you to live in certain places, and then it can select what car you drive, and what job you have, and how many kids you can have! All (3) the polls I've read say this would be awesome. Why hasn't this system been tried before??

You're right, it is hyperbole, as are all slippery slope arguments. They mean nothing. Everything is a slippery slope to something else. The government also mandates you to insure your car, receive education (including homeschooling) until a certain age and wear clothes in public. You may as well say all that stuff is just leading up to mandatory health insurance which is leading up to communism which is...ridiculous. You can't argue that "This is just one step away from That." This has to stand on its own and nevermind That.

During the state of the union address.

Quote?

How long until you're seeing patients? The average American has plenty of intelligence. They aren't Harvard trained lawyers, but they seem to get by. They probably don't walk around all day eating poisonous berries and jolting out in front of cars. Like you said ... it's not that they don't want reform. Hell, everyone wants reform, from Palin to Pelosi, but people just don't want this huge, ill advised government overhaul. It's such a mess. Scrap it.

Have you ever stepped into an emergency department?

 

[Perrotfish]

Everyone has to do what? The public option does not exist to wipe out private insurance. It's there to add more competition into a hermetic marketplace controlled by a few large corporations.

See, the problem is that the 'comptition' it's adding is forcing you to pay for a large portion of their operating costs through your taxes, which puts the insurance companies at an unfair disadvantage. For the insurance companies to continue to exist the government would need to be so bad at their job that people are willing to pay the full cost of insuring themselves through the private sector while paying some/most/all of the cost of insuring themselves (and half a dozen less fortunate Americans) through the government at the same time.

I suspect that, if this passes insurance will degenerate in the same way that our K-12 schools already have: the government option will drastically reduce the disparity between the middle class and the poor by giving the poor something they didn't have before while making yet another thing more expensive and low quality for the middle class. Meanwhile the truely rich will yet again widden the already grand canyon-esque gulf between themselves and the common folk because, since they'll have the money to pay for private insurance on top of their taxes, they will continue to enjoy the high quality health care that would be out of reach for the rest of us.

I think it's academic, though. I don't see this health care reform bill going anywhere. The polls are too bad and the election is too close

Because the average American IS stupid (yes, yes, I understand the irony of calling the average under-average) and the average American DOES want health care reform, although not what the Senate is selling

At it's most basic level, democracy is a theory that the people as a whole are more intelligent that the elite few. It is the theory that people are better at understanding what is best for them than those who were born into better circumstances and provided with more opportunities. I think it's a good theory, and I think the death knell of any political party is when they forget that and begin to patronize their constituents.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I should take an econ class? Because "an econ class" is going to make me some sort of financial genius? Did you take an econ class and decide it makes YOU some sort of financial genius?

Have you ever taken a class in logic or rhetoric?

Lol financial genius, me, very, very far from it. It's just not hard to see that even if you have several corrupt companies competing in a market, it's better than the government controlling everything. Also, like I said earlier, the market is far from free. Medicare sets the rates.

You're right, it is hyperbole, as are all slippery slope arguments. They mean nothing. Everything is a slippery slope to something else. The government also mandates you to insure your car, receive education (including homeschooling) until a certain age and wear clothes in public. You may as well say all that stuff is just leading up to mandatory health insurance which is leading up to communism which is...ridiculous. You can't argue that "This is just one step away from That." This has to stand on its own and nevermind That.

You can break it down all you want, but it's just one more government intrusion which isn't aimed at protecting innocent people or living within the means of a functional society.

Quote?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html

Have you ever stepped into an emergency department?

Worked in one for two years ...

 

[JaggerPlate]

I thinkI don't see this health care reform bill going anywhere.

Yup.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

I should change the title of this thread to "Morning Jaggerplate Showdown: It's on!"

Also, it seems like reconciliation through the senate will likely happen. Reid just announced it, adding Republican's should "stop crying" over its use, since they have used it 21 times since the 1980's to pass major legislations (Bush tax cuts are the only ones that come to mind for me).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dems.health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

To be perfectly honest guys, I don't think this bill will be as GOOD as Obama and the supporters are saying, and it won't be as BAD as McConnel and those against it are saying. It'll be reform that will help, not as amazingly as the preachy words have put it, but it won't spiral the country into hell as some are saying.

EDIT: By the way, does the House have a reconciliation measure THEY can employ also? CNN quotes:

House Democrats indicate they are also preparing to use reconciliation to pass health care

What's this all about?

 

[Perrotfish]

Also, it seems like reconciliation through the senate will likely happen. Reid just announced it, adding Republican's should "stop crying" over its use, since they have used it 21 times since the 1980's to pass major legislations (Bush tax cuts are the only ones that come to mind for me).

He can announce it all he wants, but several of the most principled democratic senators have already indicated that they won't support any bill that goes through this process, and I suspect some of the most politically threatened will be willing to latch on to any excuse not to support an unpopular bill. It will be interesting to see if Reid can drum up 51 votes.

What's this all about?

Reconcilliation is more complicated than just skirting the filibuster. It's supposed to be targeted at budget issues, and has several legalistic requirements that try and prevent social legislation from going through the process. Pushing a bill through the reconcilliation means that both the house and Senate bill need to be written in such a way that they comply with the rules.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I should change the title of this thread to "Morning Jaggerplate Showdown: It's on!"

Also, it seems like reconciliation through the senate will likely happen. Reid just announced it, adding Republican's should "stop crying" over its use, since they have used it 21 times since the 1980's to pass major legislations (Bush tax cuts are the only ones that come to mind for me).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dems.health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

To be perfectly honest guys, I don't think this bill will be as GOOD as Obama and the supporters are saying, and it won't be as BAD as McConnel and those against it are saying. It'll be reform that will help, not as amazingly as the preachy words have put it, but it won't spiral the country into hell as some are saying.

EDIT: By the way, does the House have a reconciliation measure THEY can employ also? CNN quotes:



What's this all about?

Harry Reid acknowledged Tuesday that he may use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to bypass GOP opposition and pass a bill.

Perrot beat me too it, but like he said ... go ahead and announce it (remember the source for the story too), doesn't mean it's gonna work. This is probably some smart ploy to nudge the GOP into a reaction. My guess is that there are more demos who will not support this than will. It's political suicide ...

 

[JaggerPlate]

Reconcilliation is more complicated than just skirting the filibuster. It's supposed to be targeted at budget issues, and has several legalistic requirements that try and prevent social legislation from going through the process. Pushing a bill through the reconcilliation means that both the house and Senate bill need to be written in such a way that they comply with the rules.

Agree with all your points ...

 

[chessknt]

I should change the title of this thread to "Morning Jaggerplate Showdown: It's on!"

Also, it seems like reconciliation through the senate will likely happen. Reid just announced it, adding Republican's should "stop crying" over its use, since they have used it 21 times since the 1980's to pass major legislations (Bush tax cuts are the only ones that come to mind for me).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/dems.health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

To be perfectly honest guys, I don't think this bill will be as GOOD as Obama and the supporters are saying, and it won't be as BAD as McConnel and those against it are saying. It'll be reform that will help, not as amazingly as the preachy words have put it, but it won't spiral the country into hell as some are saying.

EDIT: By the way, does the House have a reconciliation measure THEY can employ also? CNN quotes:



What's this all about?

I saw that earlier too. It is a shame that grandstanding a bloated ineffective bill has superseded the will of the American people.

If they go through with this they will be decimated in the elections this year, I can guarantee it. The republicans will have months to pick apart the bills flaws (not that it is nit-picking either, the house bill is trash) and use them to devastate incumbent dems and capitalize on angry populist sentiment.

This is a nuclear option and while it has been used before, I dont think it has ever been evoked on something as sweeping as a healthcare "reform." I honestly hope they take a breath and ask themselves if their government-knows-best ideology is worth crapping on the near 50% of the US against their bill. If not, maybe their sense of political survival will save them.

 

[chessknt]

Everyone has to do what? The public option does not exist to wipe out private insurance. It's there to add more competition into a hermetic marketplace controlled by a few large corporations.

It's interesting that in ALL the polls I was reading at the link I posted here, a majority polled said the government should require all those who have no insurance to obtain it (and help them if they can't afford it), but when it comes to what that actually entails, they hate it with a passion. I personally don't like mandates either. I hope we can find another way to keep costs down.

I will admit I had it mixed up with single payer (which is what the public option leads to eventually). You are right, we dont all have to participate (although they will use our tax money as the seed funds, so you will fund it whether you want to or not).

The problem with the government "competing" with private insurance is that the government gets to cheat--they dont have to pay taxes, turn a profit (there is actually no penalty to anybody if it goes red, the taxpayers will pick up the bill), or follow other rules that private companies do. Its like saying the unarmed mall security force can compete with the army for personal protection employment--umm no, because the mall cops cant buy M16s and grenades.

I am not sure, but I think I remember them saying they would utilize some sort of pro-rated medicare formula to pay providers (because it would be impossible for them to bargain across the entire US). I imagine they are going to have a hell of a time finding enough providers willing to accept their payout rates for the expected 30M customers. What happens when you get on the public option and find out your wait time is worse than Canada?

 

[mechanictodr]

If he passes the Senate bill and medicare reimbursement still gets cut by 21% in March ... we should all seriously take a step back and re-analyze this situation.

I would imagine that reimbursment will continue to go lower and lower as the failed medicare system gets worse no matter what gets passed. There are some small local clinics that, from what I understand, are contemplating billing medicare as "supplemental" insurance or just not accepting it at all anymore and sending those patients elsewhere for care. Not a surprise really...

As far as going $200k+ into debt, I figure it won't be a problem if you work for a larger hospital that gives a fixed pay per procedure or work for a group that does not deal often with elderly or does not accept medicare as payment. Otherwise, it will be a huge problem. My cousin quit working for the hospital a couple years back as a GS and opened up his own practice becasue of medicare reimbursment. He now gets most of his business from the local fed and state pen and they pay the full amount every time on time.

 

[Parts Unknown]

How can you seriously defend the DMV??? I'd rather register my car in Hell than at any of the friendly DMVs in my general area.

I do love how you guys refer to the DMV as if it is some monolithic Federal entity. The simple fact is there are 50 DMVs (well, some are DMVs, others are MVAs and DPSs, etc.), and some are friendly and efficient, and others are nightmarish. The former are well funded and administered, the latter are poorly funded and adminstered. No surprise, and not exactly something the corporate world is immune to.

Let's look at the inherent inefficiencies of our system. Well, it's really a pile of subsystems, each targeted towards different segments of the populations. From birth to young adulthood we are covered under our parents or one of the public childrens insurance programs. All care is administered privately. During our working years, when we are collectively health and earning money, we enter the labyrinth of private insurers, which nationwide amounts to hundreds of companies, each with its own forms and fee schedules, providing a massive web of redundant services.

I will ignore Medicaid.

Eventually we hit 65 and are no longer profitable consumers of health insurance. In an actuarial sense, we are so lousy that no private insurer will touch us with anything but a gap policy. So who is going to pick up the tab for our inevitable medical needs? That's right, the only game left in town: Uncle Sam. The good old Federal Government is the only entity who by this point has a stake in keeping us from dying in the streets. So Uncle Sam does this, he subsidizes the providers who care for us when no one else will. Well, maybe our kids would... does that sound appealing?

Now, bearing all this in mind, could a single government payer manage insuring the entire populace more efficiently than this cobbled-together mess does? I vote yes.

Not that it matters, this country won't see such a system in our lifetimes. The best outcome from any legislation now on the table will be coverage expansion (which will help physicians' bottom line), ending certain insurance abuses (which will help patients and physicians' practices), and bending the cost curve of Medicare (which is inevitable).

Enjoy the summit.

 

[ucsfstudents]

We will always have to address the issue of limited resources.

 

[Parts Unknown]

See, the problem is that the 'comptition' it's adding is forcing you to pay for a large portion of their operating costs through your taxes,

...if the public option were written as Jacob Hacker envisioned, but it wasn't. The public option as written in the House bill was limited to premiums as a source of funding, not tax dollars. They even went so far as to preclude a bailout should the program become insolvent. Entry would be limited to those who are eligible to join exchanges (estimated 30 million, 10% of the population). Of them, only 6 million (2% of the population), were estimated to sign up for the public option. In fact, public option premiums were predicted to be higher than its private competitors, as it would attract less healthy enrollees. Under an insurance mandate this would actually drive more people into private plans.

Source: A Public Option Primer (CBS News, with links).

 

[JaggerPlate]

Now, bearing all this in mind, could a single government payer manage insuring the entire populace more efficiently than this cobbled-together mess does? I vote yes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


I knew it. I knew it, I knew it!

 

[chessknt]

...if the public option were written as Jacob Hacker envisioned, but it wasn't. The public option as written in the House bill was limited to premiums as a source of funding, not tax dollars. They even went so far as to preclude a bailout should the program become insolvent. Entry would be limited to those who are eligible to join exchanges (estimated 30 million, 10% of the population). Of them, only 6 million (2% of the population), were estimated to sign up for the public option. In fact, public option premiums were predicted to be higher than its private competitors, as it would attract less healthy enrollees. Under an insurance mandate this would actually drive more people into private plans.

Source: A Public Option Primer (CBS News, with links).

How are they handling pre-existing conditions for these 30M people? Do they have any idea of the usage mix they are going to get?

And do you honestly think politicans are going to let their insurance option fail? The political blowback of that would be akin to murdering a bus of schoolchildren with a IED they bought from Al Qaeda. Once it comes into existence and people start (over)using it, it is NEVER going to be able to be dismantled.

 

[Parts Unknown]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


I knew it. I knew it, I knew it!

Knew what? That a single bureacracy could operate with greater overall efficiency than 1,000 competing players? That shouldn't come as a surprise. If you prefer, replace "single government payer" with "single private payer" and you'll get the same result. The only substantive difference between these two hypotheticals is whether the payer is beholden to the voters or its shareholders.

If you would like to read an interesting debate on Medicare overhead, try this.

If you would like to read a 2003 comparison of administrative overhead between the US and Canada (published in the NEJM), try this.

Happy reading.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Knew what? That a single bureacracy could operate with greater overall efficiency than 1,000 competing players? That shouldn't come as a surprise. If you prefer, replace "single government payer" with "single private payer" and you'll get the same result. The only substantive difference between these two hypotheticals is whether the payer is beholden to the voters or its shareholders.

If you would like to read an interesting debate on Medicare overhead, try this.

If you would like to read a 2003 comparison of administrative overhead between the US and Canada (published in the NEJM), try this.

Happy reading.

No, I knew you were an elitist liberal. Cracks me up. They are the most "open-minded" people on the planet, unless you disagree slightly with their ideology. Then you're a racist, homophobe, sexist, ignorant, etc.

 

[Parts Unknown]

How are they handling pre-existing conditions for these 30M people?

How are they handling them now?

And do you honestly think politicans are going to let their insurance option fail?

How could it have failed? It was going to be so successful that it would drive private insurance out of business. At least that's the argument that comes out of one side of the mouth.