Healthcare Bill

[7starmantis]

Well yes. It'd be taxpayer funded.....

Maybe we have different definitions of the word.

Normally I find the word used as by this definition:
Government funds issued to certain individuals because of a prescribed need. Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and food stamps are examples of entitlement programs.
In this case, a ban on specific action by insurance companies wouldn't really be an entitlement. Thats like saying a law baning embezzlement is an entitlement. I dont think you could find many people who oppose the bill who oppose this ban (even hardcore repubs). The ban itself isn't really "funded" at all. I guess thats semantics, but welcome to politics and constitutional debates!

I think we can't just chalk up everything in the bill as an entitlement and claim democratic victory if anything stays. There are many things that most people like about the bill. To say a republican "victory" only comes by repealing everything is not really honest. However, aside from partisan victories, I think there are some good things in this bill, I just think they could have been given the attention they really deserve in individual bills not lumped together to be mismanaged by the federal government.....and most likely underfunded as most things are.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[7starmantis]

Actually, that's the point I'm making . I probably just suck at getting it across. That's what happened with Medicare and Social Security. This is why no Republican or Democrat wants to repeal those.

No no, I get that and agree. I was addressing the statement that entitlements are the part of the bill most people care about. Nvm, I obviously suck at reading comprehension. I must have misunderstood your point. I still think trying to determine what "most people" think is a loosing battle.

 

[casualremark]

When I was a 1L, some of the doozies my Constitutional law professor spewed, showed me that someone who knows the system well enough can certainly manipulate it well enough to fool the less discerning among us. Manipulation does not a Constitutional measure make, however.

JMHO, but it's seriously flawed to think it Constitutional for the federal government to impose a tax on an individual's commerce on the occasion he or she doesn't engage in said commercial transaction.

Slick for the Dems to try it though...pretty slick -- on so many levels.

 

[7starmantis]

When I was a 1L, some of the doozies my Constitutional law professor spewed showed me that someone who knows the system well enough can certainly manipulate it well enough to fool the less discerning among us. Manipulation does not a Constitutional measure make, however.

JMHO, but it's seriously flawed to think it Constitutional for the federal government to impose a tax on an individual's commerce on the occasion he or she doesn't engage in said commercial transaction.

Slick for the Dems to try it though...pretty slick -- on so many levels.

I agree. Slick but successful.

on another note, I think the discussion about repealing the bill by repubs is lacking the full idea. Its not about repealing it and just leaving everything else the same, but repealing it (or parts) that are poorly done and replacing it (or them) with better written and administered bills.

 

[Dr Oops]

Normally I find the word used as by this definition:
Government funds issued to certain individuals because of a prescribed need. Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and food stamps are examples of entitlement programs.
In this case, a ban on specific action by insurance companies wouldn't really be an entitlement. Thats like saying a law baning embezzlement is an entitlement. I dont think you could find many people who oppose the bill who oppose this ban (even hardcore repubs). The ban itself isn't really "funded" at all. I guess thats semantics, but welcome to politics and constitutional debates!

I think we can't just chalk up everything in the bill as an entitlement and claim democratic victory if anything stays. There are many things that most people like about the bill. To say a republican "victory" only comes by repealing everything is not really honest. However, aside from partisan victories, I think there are some good things in this bill, I just think they could have been given the attention they really deserve in individual bills not lumped together to be mismanaged by the federal government.....and most likely underfunded as most things are.

I think i understand what youre trying to say. This is the way I see it, The insurance companies have the right to refuse to bring on a person, just like say a restaurant could refuse to serve someone who wasnt wearing a shirt or something (however in this case the insurance company doesnt serve these people because they know this will cost them alot of money-while this is morally reprehensible it is logical). So the bill says you now have to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, well this will cost lots of money, eating into the companies profits; the insurance company will likely just pass the cost on to customers who will also be mandated to have health insurance and thus the person with a pre-existing condition gets subsidized by everyone else (and probably the government), its basically like putting them on medicare, which as you said is an entitlement.

 

[madamebovary]

Still im questioning whether there is interstate commerce regarding health insurance contracts.

 

[7starmantis]

I think i understand what youre trying to say. This is the way I see it, The insurance companies have the right to refuse to bring on a person, just like say a restaurant could refuse to serve someone who wasnt wearing a shirt or something (however in this case the insurance company doesnt serve these people because they know this will cost them alot of money-while this is morally reprehensible it is logical). So the bill says you now have to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, well this will cost lots of money, eating into the companies profits; the insurance company will likely just pass the cost on to customers who will also be mandated to have health insurance and thus the person with a pre-existing condition gets subsidized by everyone else (and probably the government), its basically like putting them on medicare, which as you said is an entitlement.

Yeah, I can see it that way. In which case I'm fine with the word "entitlement" i guess. lol Just holds a bit of a stigma. I would also point out that what you just laid out (in a manner much easier way to read than I make myself type) also shows how silly it is to think we can contain said costs. I also find it against my belief system to really federally regulate the private sector. I think the federal government could make incentives for these kinds of things that might go farther in the long run than legal strong arms. Laws are only loopholes waiting to be found.

Still im questioning whether there is interstate commerce regarding health insurance contracts.

Ironically allowing purchase across state lines would have made this a non-issue in the very beginning.

 

[madamebovary]

Yeah, I can see it that way. In which case I'm fine with the word "entitlement" i guess. lol Just holds a bit of a stigma. I would also point out that what you just laid out (in a manner much easier way to read than I make myself type) also shows how silly it is to think we can contain said costs. I also find it against my belief system to really federally regulate the private sector. I think the federal government could make incentives for these kinds of things that might go farther in the long run than legal strong arms. Laws are only loopholes waiting to be found.


Ironically allowing purchase across state lines would have made this a non-issue in the very beginning.

yea i do wonder if they originally allowed purchase across state lines to begin with, maybe insurance premiums wouldn't cost as much. iono

 

[yoman786]

Is there a sparknotes version of the bill? I kinda dont have the time to read 1k pages

 

[thamsenman]

Is there a sparknotes version of the bill? I kinda dont have the time to read 1k pages

will it cover my lube and condoms?

 

[Dr Oops]

Yeah, I can see it that way. In which case I'm fine with the word "entitlement" i guess. lol Just holds a bit of a stigma. I would also point out that what you just laid out (in a manner much easier way to read than I make myself type) also shows how silly it is to think we can contain said costs. I also find it against my belief system to really federally regulate the private sector. I think the federal government could make incentives for these kinds of things that might go farther in the long run than legal strong arms. Laws are only loopholes waiting to be found.


Ironically allowing purchase across state lines would have made this a non-issue in the very beginning.

Well thats the difference between the government and the private sector and the good thing, when the private sector doesnt contain costs they fail; when the government cant control costs they cut back services (medicare payments going down, post office not shipping mail on saturdays, etc.) or raise taxes.

inevitably I think both of these things will happen. Costs wont be controlled enough, however before rationing happens they will try to get the money from physicians pockets (theyre an easy target), because they wont want to cut the benefits of seniors(one of the largest groups of active voters) and they sure as hell wont be taking a paycut.

I half way agree with you about the government regulating the private sector. I think the governments purpose is to protect its citizens even if that means regulating the private sector, but it should only be in such a way as to prevent fraudulent practices.

For instance, insurance companies accepting premiums for years then dropping customers on loopholes when they get an illness, this is where the government needs to step up and regulate (which I still dont even know if this is in the bill).

However, requiring insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions is over the limits of what I think federal regulation should be. These people should be subsidized by the government. I dont mind if some of my money in the form of taxes goes towards the kid born with CF, but i dont like the idea that everyone gets a piece of my earnings.

Although I shouldnt really complain, as of right now I contribute nothing to society and all those other working suckers will be helping subsidize my health insurance, makes you wonder, why go through all the work of med school to have them take money from me, when I can just do the bare minimum and have the government pay me?

Is there a sparknotes version of the bill? I kinda dont have the time to read 1k pages

unfortunately not, buts thats kind of the point, its so convoluted that not even the politicians who write the thing knows whats exactly in it, so they can point to a few good things it does and people cant really say one way or the other about it.

bureaucracy is intentionally made very complex and convoluted to justify its existence.

 

[Lokhtar]

unfortunately not, buts thats kind of the point, its so convoluted that not even the politicians who write the thing knows whats exactly in it, so they can point to a few good things it does and people cant really say one way or the other about it.

bureaucracy is intentionally made very complex and convoluted to justify its existence.

I dare anyone to re-write the bill and accomplish what it does while making it small. I've read it, it's not unreasonably long.

 

[Lokhtar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100323/pl_mcclatchy/3459321

 

[Dr Oops]

I dare anyone to re-write the bill and accomplish what it does while making it small. I've read it, it's not unreasonably long.

probably does need to be that long, but that kinda proves my point.

 

[Tutmos]

I dare anyone to re-write the bill and accomplish what it does while making it small. I've read it, it's not unreasonably long.

Could I shorten it by taking out billions in special deals and bribes for votes? I'm guessing those add up to more than a few pages. How long was the section for $300 Million to Landreau for her vote? I sure don't have time to read it, neither do legislators, what's their job again?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Here in lies the divide. I dont believe "perfect financial equity" could (or more importantly should) exist. The idea that we have to have perfect equity is riddled with problems. Why must there be this equity? Its a loosing battle to try and force life to be fair....its just simply not. our founding fathers knew this and its not a bad or morally corrupt ideology. Helping those who fall on hard times is important and I applaud those who do it. However, using the federal government to force people to help is not right in my opinion.


I mean while Al Sharpton would agree with you I just simply do not. At its true, a divide we cannot change especially here on SDN.

I never said that perfect financial equity is a good idea, it would be unwise to attribute such thoughts to me. Way to throw Al Sharpton in there, cause you know "all health care reformers agree with him".

Just because I like the idea of health care reform, doesn't mean I'm a communist. If you take away the incentive people have to work hard and take home a little extra cash, people stop working. If you give people everything, they'll come to expect it and not want to do any work. That's one of the problems with getting people off welfare and why I support reform.

Remember the posts a while back about people saying that doc's they knew were planning on retiring as a result of the drop in reimbursement rates? They're planning on retiring because the effort they are putting in no longer matches up with the reward of financial gain. What happens if ever got to the point that the middle class felt this way? That no matter how hard they work, they'll never achieve the American Dream (not that I'm really sure what that is anymore)? They might get fed up and leave.

Look at it this way. On one end of the curve where the Robin Hood Index is really high you have places like Haiti. Places that anyone who has resources gets the heck out of. Why? Because you can't possibly catch up and poverty is everywhere. Why live in a place where the rich have it all and you have comparatively none, when you can go and move to a different place, like America? People are usually happier when then have about as much money as the folks around them, even if it's comparatively less (the stress of keeping up with the Jones). On the other end, we've got Communism, with a very low number, which doesn't work out at all either (but you agree with me here, I so don't need to defend it).

If the number is too low, people don't feel like trying, if the number is too high people give up and get out (if they can).

What I would argue is maybe a number like 35 is better than 50. But most importantly I am curious as to why that number keeps going up. The legal system in our country is very complex, perhaps the inequality is the result of the legal system benefiting the wealthier more than the not-so-wealthy? Or would you argue that the average American has just gotten lazier since WWII? I mean, it's gotta be happening for a reason, it's not just magic.

There is also some interesting work that shows in the US, states that have less income disparity have better overall health (for both richer and poorer people).

 

[mechanictodr]

So this link: http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/TIMELINE.pdf

Was posted in another thread that was closed by the Mods and it outlines what will take place and when with this bill.

On page 3 it states:


Increasing Training Support for Primary Care. [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Establishes a Graduate Medical Education policy allowing unused training slots to be re..[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‐..[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]distributed for purposes of increasing primary care training at other sites. ..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]And on page 4:..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Expanding Primary Care, Nursing, and Public Health Workforce. [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Increases access to primary care by adjusting the Medicare Graduate Medical Education program. Primary care and nurse training programs are also expanded to increase the size of the primary care and nursing workforce. Ensures that public health challenges are adequately addressed. ..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]..
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Does this mean that the fed. will start messing with where and what we can do for residency?
....

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Be that what it may, the people are pissed about the way this thing was passed and I think that will play a huge role in the next several elections (fed, state, and local).

Pelosi 11% favorable?
Reid 8% ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

For what its worth this poll was conducted before the House voted on the health care reform bill Sunday.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126755/Race-Control-Congress-Remains-Close.aspx

Yet, both parties are essentially tied in the races. In the middle of March, the way this health care bill was going to be passed was already known (except for the deem and pass, which was discarded). I think people are angry at both sides, you've already covered while people are angry at the Dems, but folks are mad at the Republicans for being obstructionalist.

This could have been a better bill, but they gambled on trying to block it completely. The legislation and the country as a whole, suffered for it.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

So this link: http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/TIMELINE.pdf

Was posted in another thread that was closed by the Mods and it outlines what will take place and when with this bill.

On page 3 it states:


Increasing Training Support for Primary Care. [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Establishes a Graduate Medical Education policy allowing unused training slots to be re..[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‐..[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]distributed for purposes of increasing primary care training at other sites. ..

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]And on page 4:..

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Expanding Primary Care, Nursing, and Public Health Workforce. [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Increases access to primary care by adjusting the Medicare Graduate Medical Education program. Primary care and nurse training programs are also expanded to increase the size of the primary care and nursing workforce. Ensures that public health challenges are adequately addressed. ..


[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Does this mean that the fed. will start messing with where and what we can do for residency?
....

Seems like if you want federal dollars to run your residency program, you should increase the number of slots you have for primary care physicians. A good idea, but only part of the picture.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

This could have been a better bill, but they gambled on trying to block it completely. The legislation and the country as a whole, suffered for it.

The republicans did gamble big, and tried very hard to make this Obama's Waterloo. As Bush's speech writer told the media recently, it turned out to be their own Waterloo instead. They should have tried a little harder to compromise. I'm absolutely convinced that if the Republicans would have given Obama a few votes, especially in the senate, the president would have placed tort reform into the bill. After all, tort reform DOES save money, but the president didn't think it would save ENOUGH to pursue it, especially when he himself didn't care too much for it. With no promised votes, however, the only incentive Obama had to pursue tort reform would be republicans being just slightly positive, characterizing the bill as one with "a few good ideas, but still a travesty!" Being the minority in the House, Senate, and not having the White House, it's natural to think they shouldn't be calling the shots but instead, do their best to throw in amendments THEY would like to see, while conceding that because they are not in power, they shouldn't expect to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Republicans had a precise and calculated plan to obstruct Obama's agenda, in hopes of crashing down this major goal, and in effect, wrecking havoc on his presidency. When you gamble big, there's an Epic Win, and an Epic Fail.

And you can't say Republicans weren't part of the process. That I think was actually the case for the bill in the House (but that is gone completely and thus, for all purposes, irrelevant). In the Senate however (the bill that was actually passed), there were over 100 bipartisan meetings, over 200 Republican amendments, the various gangs, etc. I think Obama didn't push through hard enough between August of 2009 all the way until the final strong push began after January 2010 because he was hopeful he would reach some consensus with the Republicans. The back room negotiating didn't happen until around December, when it was blatantly clear that working with the Republicans was a total waste of time. I know it, you know it, they knew it, let's not try to deny it.

 

[Parts Unknown]

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Does this mean that the fed. will start messing with where and what we can do for residency?
....

"Start"? Considering the Fed already pays for residency training through Medicare, I'd say that horse left the barn years ago. Time will tell, but my guess is that the push to train more primary care doctors will be part carrot (increased loan forgiveness, more funding for CHCs, higher Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement) and part stick (training slot reapportioning).

Institutions can always start and operate training programs outside of Federal involvement, Medicare simply won't pay for them.

 

[mechanictodr]

So hospitals will get more money for matching people to PCP positions?

Also it says they will re-distribute unfilled positions to locations that fill. Does that mean that the staff that runs the positions will move as well? Also, will residents have to share more cases once the relocated positions are combined with those that do fill?

With medical schools expanding enrollment and many PCP residencies going unfilled each... is this the government's plan to get more PCP's? By "forcing" graduates into programs that they have no interest in even though they may be good enough to do another specialty because only PCP positions were left? I know the military does this already with those doing HPSP and similar programs.

 

[Lokhtar]

Could I shorten it by taking out billions in special deals and bribes for votes?

You could. Not by much though.

There are definitely special deals in there, but not an excessive amount compared to other bills. The biggest 'special deal' was the student loan, that's the thing that got a lot of wavering liberal dems back on board.

 

[7starmantis]

I dare anyone to re-write the bill and accomplish what it does while making it small. I've read it, it's not unreasonably long.

I disagree. I've read it as well and find it unnecessarily long. But this all depends on how you view whats in the bill. The whole premise here is that most who oppose the bill wouldn't want to write something that "accomplishes what it does". I've always been for much smaller bills that really solve very specific issues, not one bill that just gives lip service to many issues. Kind of moot now though.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100323/pl_mcclatchy/3459321

I'm not sure continuing to post articles that deal with the commerce clause is really doing much. There are really only two options here considering the constitutionality of the bill and they have been beaten to death. I dont see anything new in this specific article. Its not exactly unbiased either....

"It would be surprising if the ( Supreme Court ) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," said David Freeman Engstrom , a Stanford University Law School professor. "The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense."

The true issue is not regulating those who participate but regulating those that do not participate. This is a very important distinction in the constitutional battle. One that has been touched on here sufficiently as well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126755/Race-Control-Congress-Remains-Close.aspx

Yet, both parties are essentially tied in the races. In the middle of March, the way this health care bill was going to be passed was already known (except for the deem and pass, which was discarded). I think people are angry at both sides, you've already covered while people are angry at the Dems, but folks are mad at the Republicans for being obstructionalist.

This could have been a better bill, but they gambled on trying to block it completely. The legislation and the country as a whole, suffered for it.

That poll will do nothing to save individual races like Pelosi and Reid. Regardless of the "national feel" when key spots are dropped to repubs the power shifts. I also agree that people are upset at both parties but I think its more for the lack of representation they get from their elected leaders. I dont know that the legislation suffered anything, it was forced through without much change. The country suffered from a year long process, I've said from the beginning that several smaller specific bills could have been passed and signed into law well before this whole debate even got started. That would have helped the people who need it quickly. We can't blame the repubs alone for the country suffering from this entire debacle. Speaking of systems that are jacked up.

I'm absolutely convinced that if the Republicans would have given Obama a few votes, especially in the senate, the president would have placed tort reform into the bill. After all, tort reform DOES save money, but the president didn't think it would save ENOUGH to pursue it, especially when he himself didn't care too much for it. With no promised votes, however, the only incentive Obama had to pursue tort reform would be republicans being just slightly positive, characterizing the bill as one with "a few good ideas, but still a travesty!" Being the minority in the House, Senate, and not having the White House, it's natural to think they shouldn't be calling the shots but instead, do their best to throw in amendments THEY would like to see, while conceding that because they are not in power, they shouldn't expect to get what they want.

The flaw here is the focus on partisan games rather than the American people. You just stated tort reform "DOES save money" so I would think the incentive Obama would have to include it would be saving money and helping people. But what do I know? I never understood why the dems were trying to make doing something they they themselves said was good, into a compromise. Why is doing the right thing a compromise? I think it really showed the partisan agenda of the dems to leave out good things like (as you stated) tort reform simply because they didn't have to compromise.

Its not a compromise to include things that work, help people, or save money. Those should have been included with or without compromise. I also think this should have bene less about what the dems or repubs wanted and what the American people wanted, but I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

And you can't say Republicans weren't part of the process. That I think was actually the case for the bill in the House (but that is gone completely and thus, for all purposes, irrelevant). In the Senate however (the bill that was actually passed), there were over 100 bipartisan meetings, over 200 Republican amendments, the various gangs, etc. I think Obama didn't push through hard enough between August of 2009 all the way until the final strong push began after January 2010 because he was hopeful he would reach some consensus with the Republicans. The back room negotiating didn't happen until around December, when it was blatantly clear that working with the Republicans was a total waste of time. I know it, you know it, they knew it, let's not try to deny it.

This is completely false. Even the top dems agree it was done on a partisan level. Its not denying the truth, its denying the spin.

 

[7starmantis]

You could. Not by much though.

There are definitely special deals in there, but not an excessive amount compared to other bills. The biggest 'special deal' was the student loan, that's the thing that got a lot of wavering liberal dems back on board.

Which is a terrible "bill" in an of itself. Terrible idea, terrible administration of the terrible idea, and a terrible outcome.

 

[Lokhtar]

Which is a terrible "bill" in an of itself. Terrible idea, terrible administration of the terrible idea, and a terrible outcome.

Actually, that's the one thing that I absolutely love about the bill, as a student. Pretty unequivocally actually.

 

[Parts Unknown]

So hospitals will get more money for matching people to PCP positions?

As it stands right now, for each doctor that takes a spot in an approved training program, the institution where the program is located gets an allotment of money (usually somewhere in the vicinity of 100K) from Medicare. That money is used to pay for the resident's salary, benefits, malpractice, etc.

The total number of training slots that Medicare will fund has been capped since the late 1990's in order to contain costs. How the available funding slots have been apportioned between specialties is an ongoing process that involves coordination between the programs, the hospitals, Medicare policy wonks, and the professional societies that govern each specialty.

I would venture to guess that more primary care positions will be funded at the expense of other training positions. No doubt some folks will be forced into such positions when they fail to match into specialist residencies. However, by increasing loan forgiveness and reimbursement for primary care services, this approach may also "win back" other folks who want to do primary care but pursue specialist training because they feel overly burdened by debt.

Interestingly, one of the earlier incarnations of health reform last year contained a lift on the cap, but it died in committee.

Also it says they will re-distribute unfilled positions to locations that fill. Does that mean that the staff that runs the positions will move as well? Also, will residents have to share more cases once the relocated positions are combined with those that do fill?

My take on this is that valuable approved training slots are perennially "wasted" on training programs that rarely if ever fill. Might as well offer those spots to programs that do fill, and have the capacity (and desire) to take on more trainees. Sorting that out will have to be done on a case by case basis.

Staff won't move unless they want to find a position at a different institution.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Which is a terrible "bill" in an of itself. Terrible idea, terrible administration of the terrible idea, and a terrible outcome.

I must say, I never understood the reasoning behind the old system.

As I understood it, students are too high risk a group to expect banks to give them loans, at least not without really high interest rates. So, the government steps in and guarantees that students will repay. As a result, students get loans.

This seems silly, the private banks in this case are really just middlemen. They make money, but the government takes the risk. Why doesn't the government administer the loans?

As of before, the government still took care of deciding what you were eligible for, whether you got the loan and enforcing collection. Seems like they were just giving the banks a handout. It's not like the banks were providing any security against federal mismanagement or abuse.

 

[7starmantis]

Actually, that's the one thing that I absolutely love about the bill, as a student. Pretty unequivocally actually.

Thats ok, lots do. I'll let it slide.

Problem is removing competition in the loan process will eventually hit the students. Its not like student loan providers are dropping students for preexisting poor grades or anything. Making there be only one place to receive a loan is a big mistake in my opinion. Not to mention I think the fed is so jacked up in so many areas (and overextending more and more) that a company could offer student loans, make a profit, and still be cheaper and better for students than the feds.

Just my opinions. Wrong thread really I guess.

 

[7starmantis]

I must say, I never understood the reasoning behind the old system.

As I understood it, students are too high risk a group to expect banks to give them loans, at least not without really high interest rates. So, the government steps in and guarantees that students will repay. As a result, students get loans.

This seems silly, the private banks in this case are really just middlemen. They make money, but the government takes the risk. Why doesn't the government administer the loans?

As of before, the government still took care of deciding what you were eligible for, whether you got the loan and enforcing collection. Seems like they were just giving the banks a handout. It's not like the banks were providing any security against federal mismanagement or abuse.

Your referring only to federally subsidized loans, and still its not the whole story. Many banks (and the fed) made money from the process.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlonelyRoad
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126755/Ra...ins-Close.aspx

Yet, both parties are essentially tied in the races. In the middle of March, the way this health care bill was going to be passed was already known (except for the deem and pass, which was discarded). I think people are angry at both sides, you've already covered while people are angry at the Dems, but folks are mad at the Republicans for being obstructionalist.

This could have been a better bill, but they gambled on trying to block it completely. The legislation and the country as a whole, suffered for it.

That poll will do nothing to save individual races like Pelosi and Reid. Regardless of the "national feel" when key spots are dropped to repubs the power shifts. I also agree that people are upset at both parties but I think its more for the lack of representation they get from their elected leaders. I dont know that the legislation suffered anything, it was forced through without much change. The country suffered from a year long process, I've said from the beginning that several smaller specific bills could have been passed and signed into law well before this whole debate even got started. That would have helped the people who need it quickly. We can't blame the repubs alone for the country suffering from this entire debacle. Speaking of systems that are jacked up.

I hold the Republicans responsible for their part in this mess, nothing more. If they'd come to the table, some of their ideas (which I like) would have been included in the bill. If Obama could have gotten some Republican support he would be doing flips, he'd have been happy (I think it's pretty reasonable to feel that's how he'd behave) to add in tort reform or insurance across state lines. The bill is worse for those things not being included.

As for your other point, it is true, public opinion for the four House and Senate leaders is abysmal and about equal. Few people appear happy with any of the leaders in Congress, Republican or Democrat.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Your referring only to federally subsidized loans, and still its not the whole story. Many banks (and the fed) made money from the process.

I assume by those you mean the Stafford and Grad Plus loans?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Regardless, lowering interest rates for students is a good idea.

 

[stromijj]

this bill seems to help the american people, but does nothing for the doctors who have to serve those people. Specifically, earlier in the debate they were talking about putting a cap to malpractice, what ever happened to that?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

this bill seems to help the american people, but does nothing for the doctors who have to serve those people. Specifically, earlier in the debate they were talking about putting a cap to malpractice, what ever happened to that?

It was only in there to appease Republicans. When they decided to vote against the bill, the Dems cut it.

 

[SteinUmStein]

this bill seems to help the american people, but does nothing for the doctors who have to serve those people. Specifically, earlier in the debate they were talking about putting a cap to malpractice, what ever happened to that?

Republicans were too busy doing this to compromise and get their own ideas into the bill:

 

[Dr Oops]

this bill seems to help the american people, but does nothing for the doctors who have to serve those people. Specifically, earlier in the debate they were talking about putting a cap to malpractice, what ever happened to that?

Well theres two problems. First, nobody really cares about doctors, they are a minority (easy target), who (since med school) are told to suck it up and are very politically inactive. So they just keep prodding along without standing up for themselves. When you start med school you'll see.

The second problem is the general public thinks the AMA represents physicians. So once the AMA jumped on board, everyone thought "oooo all the doctors are fine with" When in reality the AMA is more of a student organization now than anything.

 

[stromijj]

Well theres two problems. First, nobody really cares about doctors, they are a minority (easy target), who (since med school) are told to suck it up and are very politically inactive. So they just keep prodding along without standing up for themselves. When you start med school you'll see.

The second problem is the general public thinks the AMA represents physicians. So once the AMA jumped on board, everyone thought "oooo all the doctors are fine with" When in reality the AMA is more of a student organization now than anything.

why don't the doctors do something? in all reality, without the doctors there is no healthcare anyways. if doctors went on strike or refused to see patients, they might get noticed. it isn't that easy to replace all the doctors in the U.S. (the training is way to long). Just seems something should be done to better represent the desires of the physicians, we are people too. this fall i start med school, so maybe i will be a little more enlightened on this subject as you suggest.

 

[7starmantis]

If Obama could have gotten some Republican support he would be doing flips, he'd have been happy (I think it's pretty reasonable to feel that's how he'd behave) to add in tort reform or insurance across state lines. The bill is worse for those things not being included.

Two points I think are important here:

1.) I think its useless in these discussions to start bringing in how we each feel a person, we have never met, would have acted if another possible situation had taken place.

2.) If the bill is in fact worse for these things not being included (as you and others have stated), then why are we saying this bill is a victory for the dems? Seems they left out things (that you all agree makes the bill worse) simply for partisan and arrogant reasons. How does that help the American people? I'm not saying this isn't the "status quo" (to use the Obama hot words) in Washington, but Obama was supposed to be changing all of that. The way all of this went down is really telling of his politico speak.

3.) To try and write off not adding things (that you all agree make the bill worse) as the republicans fault is the height of spin and flavor aide drinking. (look it up).

Regardless, lowering interest rates for students is a good idea.

Well I agree except that we need to look at what cost this may bring. Sure every student wants lower interest rates, just like every homeless starving person wants a free meal. However the cost of that free lunch may be high. To simply write off all the negative consequences of an action that we like is sticking our proverbial heads in the sand (some I think not proverbially). Also the false premise is that this is the only way to lower student interest rates, thats simply not the case.

I assume by those you mean the Stafford and Grad Plus loans?

There are many subed and unsubed fed loans, not only those two. I'm also not sure about the Grad Plus, I think its subed.

 

[KMFDM]

Two points I think are important here:

1.) I think its useless in these discussions to start bringing in how we each feel a person, we have never met, would have acted if another possible situation had taken place.

2.) If the bill is in fact worse for these things not being included (as you and others have stated), then why are we saying this bill is a victory for the dems? Seems they left out things (that you all agree makes the bill worse) simply for partisan and arrogant reasons. How does that help the American people? I'm not saying this isn't the "status quo" (to use the Obama hot words) in Washington, but Obama was supposed to be changing all of that. The way all of this went down is really telling of his politico speak.

3.) To try and write off not adding things (that you all agree make the bill worse) as the republicans fault is the height of spin and flavor aide drinking. (look it up).


Well I agree except that we need to look at what cost this may bring. Sure every student wants lower interest rates, just like every homeless starving person wants a free meal. However the cost of that free lunch may be high. To simply write off all the negative consequences of an action that we like is sticking our proverbial heads in the sand (some I think not proverbially). Also the false premise is that this is the only way to lower student interest rates, thats simply not the case.


There are many subed and unsubed fed loans, not only those two. I'm also not sure about the Grad Plus, I think its subed.

What are the negative consequences, exactly? When the issue was being discussed, the main argument I heard against this legislation was that it would make thousands of banking jobs obselete. Didn't hear much mention of downside in terms of the students.

Seemed like a pretty beneficial piece of legislation to me.

 

[Dr Oops]

why don't the doctors do something? in all reality, without the doctors there is no healthcare anyways. if doctors went on strike or refused to see patients, they might get noticed. it isn't that easy to replace all the doctors in the U.S. (the training is way to long). Just seems something should be done to better represent the desires of the physicians, we are people too. this fall i start med school, so maybe i will be a little more enlightened on this subject as you suggest.

Some schools are worse than others about it, my school likes to say that med school is your entire life and anything else should take a backseat. Life is short enough already and while med school is a significant part of my life I REFUSE to make it my entire life. Just watch out for it, theres a fair amount of social reprogramming they try to do at med schools.

Theres are a couple reasons why doctors dont do anything. First, there are anti trust laws which are applied to doctors if they try to find out what other docs are charging or if they all go on strike at the same time or something. Second, most people who go into medicine like the sciences and are just very ignorant about business and politics. They are also very busy so its very easy to stay ignorant about whats going on. There were even people at my school who didnt know the healthcare bill passed (far more than should be at a place so greatly affected by such a legislation).

Another thing is that physicians in specialties tend to only be concerned with their specialty as opposed to all of medicine. So you end up having lots of little PACs (if not underfunded) which can make a small dent in some legislative processes, but theres no longer an all encompassing group which represents all physicians with a size big enough to get anything really done.

Plus public opinion was never on our side. Every one thinks doctors just drive their ferrari's to the golf course every weekend, people dont really realize how much sacrifice, time and money is spent getting there. Also nowadays anybody who watches an episode of house and has an internet connection thinks they know more than their doctor and if they dont then hey lets sue the bastard.

 

[Drad18]

Theres are a couple reasons why doctors dont do anything. First, there are anti trust laws which are applied to doctors if they try to find out what other docs are charging or if they all go on strike at the same time or something. Second, most people who go into medicine like the sciences and are just very ignorant about business and politics. They are also very busy so its very easy to stay ignorant about whats going on. There were even people at my school who didnt know the healthcare bill passed (far more than should be at a place so greatly affected by such a legislation).

Another thing is that physicians in specialties tend to only be concerned with their specialty as opposed to all of medicine. So you end up having lots of little PACs (if not underfunded) which can make a small dent in some legislative processes, but theres no longer an all encompassing group which represents all physicians with a size big enough to get anything really done.

The Doc Fix is Coming which will address your concerns, Refer to my last post on page 49. There seems to be an AMA-congress agreement to pass the doc fix which will fix doctors salaries or increase them instead of cutting them. The doc fix was not in the bill that was just passed but it will be passed in the coming months.

 

[Drad18]

DONT GET SICK -Motto of Republicans!!



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Marcus Brody]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm

"Our nation has a clear history of reducing health care program budgets through across-the-board cuts to health care professionals, and the impact on patients is reduced access to care."

The survey surmises that long wait times in Boston could be the result in part of the 2006 health reform initiative that requires nearly every Massachusetts resident to get health insurance.​

​

 

[Parts Unknown]

If Obama could have gotten some Republican support he would be doing flips, he'd have been happy (I think it's pretty reasonable to feel that's how he'd behave) to add in tort reform or insurance across state lines. The bill is worse for those things not being included.

Insurance across state lines is, in fact, included in the bill. It is a central feature of the exchanges that will ultimately be set up for the individual insurance market.

Tort reform has been a state level issue all along, many states have it, and there is nothing preventing other states from joining in.

 

[7starmantis]

What are the negative consequences, exactly? When the issue was being discussed, the main argument I heard against this legislation was that it would make thousands of banking jobs obselete. Didn't hear much mention of downside in terms of the students.

Seemed like a pretty beneficial piece of legislation to me.

Beneficial to whom is the question though. Sure students will see some benefits, but these students will not always be students. The most notable negatives are the fact that you will loose the ability to "shop" for your Staford loans which eliminates the discounts many lenders gave to attract business. That means you only have one option for these loans and have to agree to whatever terms they decide.

However even the positives are slim. With all of these savings, the Pell grants will be raised. Thats such an amazing and moral thing to do! Yeah, with all of the touted $60 billion saved by this loan bill, the fed is going to increase the maximum Pell grant $200. Over the course of a decade it might be raised as much as $550! Thats including the $200 already listed.

My issue is these dismal "savings" are not worth the stifling of competition and loss of "price wars" for student loans.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

If the bill is in fact worse for these things not being included (as you and others have stated), then why are we saying this bill is a victory for the dems? Seems they left out things (that you all agree makes the bill worse) simply for partisan and arrogant reasons. How does that help the American people? I'm not saying this isn't the "status quo" (to use the Obama hot words) in Washington, but Obama was supposed to be changing all of that. The way all of this went down is really telling of his politico speak.

To try and write off not adding things (that you all agree make the bill worse) as the republicans fault is the height of spin and flavor aide drinking. (look it up).

The bill is a victory for the Dems cause they can spin it.

I think the bill is a victory for the American people because it has more good than bad things in it. These are two different things.

The Dems didn't include those things I mentioned above because they don't think they are valuable. I disagree with them on that issue and I was counting on the Republicans to make sure they reached the bill.

I was already frustrated with the Dems for not thinking those things were important. I'm newly frustrated with the Republicans for not fighting for them. This is a perfectly reasonable position. Combine that with my initial frustration for feeling that they as a party or more on the wrong side of the debate then the Dems and it's easy to see why I'm irritated. I'm starting to feel that they're putting reelection over doing the best job they can. (Which is why I don't care for Allen Specter) No spin here.

Regardless, I still think the good outweighs the bad. I'm disappointed that there wasn't more good and less bad, but I'm not going to go sulk about it.

Speaking of spin, I've been more and more impressed with your ability to do so yourself. You are arguing (in the philosophical sense) well above a college level. You do an excellent job of framing arguments. Whenever I don't say something explicitly, you assume that I take a more extreme view than I actually do (ex: stating that I agreed with Al Sharpton, and that I thought the democrats were blameless in the health care debate). I mean, we're never going to run into each other, but I'd actually be genuinely curious to meet you face to face.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Beneficial to whom is the question though. Sure students will see some benefits, but these students will not always be students. The most notable negatives are the fact that you will loose the ability to "shop" for your Staford loans which eliminates the discounts many lenders gave to attract business. That means you only have one option for these loans and have to agree to whatever terms they decide.

Well, the fed already set the rate for the loans, so no real difference there. Additionally, when I was doing the searching, there didn't seem to be that much different between the lenders. I do however, agree to the point that it is possible there could be more competition later, which this bill would prevent.

Though I am really excited about them cutting my interest rates in half, I ain't gonna lie.

 

[Drad18]

Though I am really excited about them cutting my interest rates in half, I ain't gonna lie.

Not surprised 1 bit. You will like it more when the doc fix comes into play.

Then when you learn more details about reform you will again like it more.


Then one day when hell freezes over you will realize that Dems don't have all that bad of a philosophy.



DONT YOU FIND IT FUNNY THE THINGS YOU LIKE THE MOST ARE THOSE SATISFYING YOURSELF!

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Not surprised 1 bit. You will like it more when the doc fix comes into play.

Then when you learn more details about reform you will again like it more.


Then one day when hell freezes over you will realize that Dems don't have all that bad of a philosophy.



DONT YOU FIND IT FUNNY THE THINGS YOU LIKE THE MOST ARE THOSE SATISFYING YOURSELF!

Wow, I'm both a liberal ***** and a conservative ***** in the same thread.

It sure sucks to be a moderate.