Public Option close to being dropped

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
guyski79 said:
Well, hello there, hollow health reform bill. I had a feeling you'd be the one left standing when the dust cleared.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Should I be laughing or crying

We'll see what kind of insurance reforms there are, I guess
 
guyski79 said:
Well, hello there, hollow health reform bill. I had a feeling you'd be the one left standing when the dust cleared.
Click to expand...

I figured that would happen as soon as abortion was introduced into the mix. It stopped being about health care reform, and turned into a battle over abortion.
 
insane said:
I figured that would happen as soon as abortion was introduced into the mix. It stopped being about health care reform, and turned into a battle over abortion.
Click to expand...

my mom said she'd stop paying taxes if the abortion thing went through...
 
I had such high hopes for health care reform. Awesome that it's failed so miserably.
 
TheMightySmiter said:
I had such high hopes for health care reform. Awesome that it's failed so miserably.
Click to expand...

I had this sinking feeling all along that this would happen.

Now the gutted bill will pass, the Democrats will pat themselves on the back and say, "HOORAY! WE DID IT! WE MADE HISTORY AND FINALLY PASSED HEALTH REFORM!"

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans will pound their chests and declare, "WE'VE STOPPED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS! WE'RE BACK IN THE SADDLE!"

Meanwhile, the real problems they had hoped to address will go unsolved, and healthcare won't be a point of debate for at least another two or three decades.

Take a bow, guys, you've REALLY screwed the pooch this time.
 
guyski79 said:
I had this sinking feeling all along that this would happen.

Now the gutted bill will pass, the Democrats will pat themselves on the back and say, "HOORAY! WE DID IT! WE MADE HISTORY AND FINALLY PASSED HEALTH REFORM!"

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans will pound their chests and declare, "WE'VE STOPPED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS! WE'RE BACK IN THE SADDLE!"

Meanwhile, the real problems they had hoped to address will go unsolved, and healthcare won't be a point of debate for at least another two or three decades.

Take a bow, guys, you've REALLY screwed the pooch this time.
Click to expand...

👍
 
Typical inept Democrats and anything for a political point Republicans. Hooray American government!

The Democrats doomed themselves by having centrists representatives (who also get the most money from the insurance companies) that don't even understand what a public option is and failing to sell it to themselves, while bringing forth a bill so centrist to begin with that in our political football day and age it had no hope of passing. They couldn't energize their base because of it either. And the Republicans once again demonstrate faux populism and will perform any which contortionist act in order to keep money flowing into the top .1% and their bank holders. I'm not surprised anymore at the pettiness of our politicians. There lacked a healthy debate, even on ideological terms of what was presented - just simple hyperbole and talking points on both sides.

Guess we're getting a patch work health insurance reform rather than health care reform. Still will leave us at square one as to how businesses, especially small businesses, can provide health benefits for their employees and how to contain costs for all businesses, large and small, so that they can overcome the current economy and continue to innovate into the future. And what recourse is left for those currently unemployed in this recession, albeit things have been slowly turning around but its yet to reach the majority of Americans, or even those in our age bracket who may be without jobs after college (an ever increasingly growing problem) and bumped off our parents insurance?
 
guyski79 said:
I had this sinking feeling all along that this would happen.

Now the gutted bill will pass, the Democrats will pat themselves on the back and say, "HOORAY! WE DID IT! WE MADE HISTORY AND FINALLY PASSED HEALTH REFORM!"

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans will pound their chests and declare, "WE'VE STOPPED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS! WE'RE BACK IN THE SADDLE!"

Meanwhile, the real problems they had hoped to address will go unsolved, and healthcare won't be a point of debate for at least another two or three decades.

Take a bow, guys, you've REALLY screwed the pooch this time.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly how I saw it going out once it didn't get done in the summer and all the games in the Senate this fall. It provides a way for both parties to just spout more talking points and half-speak on their way to a midterm election, when in reality no one did a damn thing. Which will actually benefit Republicans oddly enough, who'll only dig the country's hole deeper with their historic fiscal irresponsibility (please don't even attempt their talking point that they are responsible, look at every Republican congress or executive post 1950s.. its abysmal). And the undisciplined Democrats who've increased their political tent but couldn't agree what was North if they were all looking at the same compass, as their in bed with their own special interests. Even if they somehow survive the mid-terms it will only be more ineffectual Democratic governance. So what is worse? A Democratic government that cannot perform? Or a Republican government that hasn't got a clue?
 
This has been said at least three times throughout the health reform debacle. Keep watching. Something mildly interesting may or may not happen. Federal politics blows.

As for the sentiment that republicans are bad economically.. While I don't really like dems or pubs as they are now, dems like to spend money we don't have more than pubs do (exception: the wars).
 
FlowRate said:
This has been said at least three times throughout the health reform debacle. Keep watching. Something mildly interesting may or may not happen. Federal politics blows.

As for the sentiment that republicans are bad economically.. While I don't really like dems or pubs as they are now, dems like to spend money we don't have more than pubs do (exception: the wars).
Click to expand...

This hasn't ever been said. It has been hinted at, starting with Obama's speech a couple months ago, but now it looks like that is what it will actually be.

I know in that many Representatives in the house were very frim on requiring a public option so if the senate passes a bill w/o the public option, I wonder if the house will be able to pass the new bill.
 
FlowRate said:
This has been said at least three times throughout the health reform debacle. Keep watching. Something mildly interesting may or may not happen. Federal politics blows.

As for the sentiment that republicans are bad economically.. While I don't really like dems or pubs as they are now, dems like to spend money we don't have more than pubs do (exception: the wars).
Click to expand...

Yet, republican administrations always expanded the deficit while democratic administrations, with the exception of Carter, have shrunk it or brought out a surplus.

The difference comes in this: Democrats do spend, but they support it through the budget. Republicans spend but they do so in an attempt to bankrupt government programs since they don't want them, but haven't been able to legislate them away, and from their conceived notion of disdain and distrust for government. It is ironic that people who want to govern, hate the government, and try to run the train off the tracks in order to "bring big government down to size". So it is true that Democrats spend more on "butter" than Republicans, but they've been able to do it without expanding the deficit historically as its supported by more robust economies and taxes - conversely Republicans spend in weak economies that don't flow money back into the government.
 
So none of those proposed Medicare cuts to doctors. At least if there are any cuts they shouldn't be nearly as ridiculous as originally proposed.
 
Longshanks said:
Yet, republican administrations always expanded the deficit while democratic administrations, with the exception of Carter, have shrunk it or brought out a surplus.

The difference comes in this: Democrats do spend, but they support it through the budget. Republicans spend but they do so in an attempt to bankrupt government programs since they don't want them, but haven't been able to legislate them away, and from their conceived notion of disdain and distrust for government. It is ironic that people who want to govern, hate the government, and try to run the train off the tracks in order to "bring big government down to size". So it is true that Democrats spend more on "butter" than Republicans, but they've been able to do it without expanding the deficit historically as its supported by more robust economies and taxes - conversely Republicans spend in weak economies that don't flow money back into the government.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Besides, what other feasible way is there to dismantle big govt other than being part of the govt? For example, Peter Schiff has said that he's running for Senate so that he can help get rid of his own Senate position.
 
h1n1 said:
So none of those proposed Medicare cuts to doctors. At least if there are any cuts they shouldn't be nearly as ridiculous as originally proposed.
Click to expand...
The cuts have been scheduled to take effect for years. I don't think anything is going to change it. The cuts to doctors weren't a part of a new bill, it was existing legislature that had been postponed to its limit.
 
I'm not typically one for 'big government; hand-holding, but even I was for serious, rational health care reform because there is something fundamentally wrong with hard-working citizens being unable to access care. There are so many distinct issues within health care reform that should be addressed to improve it, and I was absolutely stunned to see what an inflated, bureaucratic mess the politicians managed to create in the bill. All I can imagine is that Washington is so utterly paralyzed in the giant web of third-party interests groups that it really is powerless in its attempt to create truly positive change.

Why not pass legislation to open state borders when shopping for health insurance? For all the flack that capitalism has taken in the health care industry, here is at least one way that it can redeem itself by lowering costs by increasing competition -- the public wins.

And this is the one that really gets me -- why no tort reform? I think it's pretty much universally accepted that malpractice costs are completely out of control and run up costs that get passed along to the patient, but somehow this type of reform completely slipped through. I can only imagine that the lawyer lobby was powerful enough to cut that from the very beginning.

If congress could just pass health legislation piece by piece, issue by issue, I feel like effective change could happen. Each issue could be examined and a solution found, rather than passing an enormous bill that some congressmen have even admitted was too long for them to read 😕.

I don't know...I feel like the debate started with so much potential and spiraled down into a massive political mess. If they pass any bastardized version of the bill at this point, I imagine it'll be an expensive waste of tax-payer dollars and likely ineffective.

It could have been so different...
 
arrivee said:
And this is the one that really gets me -- why no tort reform? I think it's pretty much universally accepted that malpractice costs are completely out of control and run up costs that get passed along to the patient, but somehow this type of reform completely slipped through. I can only imagine that the lawyer lobby was powerful enough to cut that from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

There is video footage (digitage?) of Howard Dean saying precisely this.

Linky.
 
arrivee said:
Why not pass legislation to open state borders when shopping for health insurance? For all the flack that capitalism has taken in the health care industry, here is at least one way that it can redeem itself by lowering costs by increasing competition -- the public wins.

And this is the one that really gets me -- why no tort reform? I think it's pretty much universally accepted that malpractice costs are completely out of control and run up costs that get passed along to the patient, but somehow this type of reform completely slipped through. I can only imagine that the lawyer lobby was powerful enough to cut that from the very beginning.

If congress could just pass health legislation piece by piece, issue by issue, I feel like effective change could happen. Each issue could be examined and a solution found, rather than passing an enormous bill that some congressmen have even admitted was too long for them to read 😕.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with all of this. Also, I think that health insurance should be separated from employment. I can't stand it when people who are scared of health care reform talk about it destroying "the market". Hello, the way health insurance currently operates is nothing like the free market.
 
No problem arrivee.

I am all for reform, once Congress clears that they have the Constitutional authority to do so. I also don't think I could support anything that didn't work to more clearly define what negligence is and work to cap the damages awarded (or penalize those who bring frivolous suits against physicians) and that would allow insurance to be purchased across state lines. My thoughts are a topic for another day, so sorry for derailing this thread.

Note that Howard Dean is a physician, however I don't know how much he's practiced and I don't believe he practices any longer but I'm open to correction.
 
arrivee said:
And this is the one that really gets me -- why no tort reform?
Click to expand...

Tort reform is a State-level issue, and those who object to the overreach of the Federal government should be happy that tort reform has been left off this bill.

You can find a report for Congress on the issue of Federal tort reform's constitutionality here (prepared by the University of Maryland School of Law).

Bottom line: Federal tort reform probably isn't constitutional.
 
insane said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

views?
Click to expand...

It will be easier to comment on the Senate bill when it is finished, but the public option has been a red herring all along. It takes up only sliver of the House bill. That it has been such a flashpoint has actually been a blessing for reformers, as there has been very little public scrutiny of everything else: insurance reforms, exchanges, Medicaid expansion, and hundreds of pages of Medicare reform/experimentation.

Make no mistake, if even a semblance of the House bill gets signed into law, it will cause profound shifts in health care in this country. Whether you view these shifts as not hardly enough or way too far will likely depend on your position along the political spectrum.
 
If you think the Democrats are on your side, LOL.
Of course, if you think the Republicans are on your side, LOL.
Corporate lobbyists + campaign contributions + voter apathy/ ignorance = the slow, painful death of democracy in America.
 
The demolition of the public option is a good thing for pre-meds.
 
guyski79 said:
I had this sinking feeling all along that this would happen.

Now the gutted bill will pass, the Democrats will pat themselves on the back and say, "HOORAY! WE DID IT! WE MADE HISTORY AND FINALLY PASSED HEALTH REFORM!"

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans will pound their chests and declare, "WE'VE STOPPED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS! WE'RE BACK IN THE SADDLE!"

Meanwhile, the real problems they had hoped to address will go unsolved, and healthcare won't be a point of debate for at least another two or three decades.

Take a bow, guys, you've REALLY screwed the pooch this time.
Click to expand...

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Could not have said it better myself. My god do I hate politicians.
 
guyski79 said:
Why?

I know I'm opening a can of worms by asking this, and it's a very complicated subject, but I'm curious about why you think so.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic

People on these boards are only looking out for #1
 
rockaction said:
I was being sarcastic

People on these boards are only looking out for #1
Click to expand...

Ha, ok, got it. :laugh:

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't come through very well in typing.

I'm still very curious about bigal40's reasoning though.

To my understanding, the only winners from the death of the public option are the insurance companies. They're doing backflips over the news.
 
guyski79 said:
Ha, ok, got it. :laugh:

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't come through very well in typing.
Click to expand...

haha yeah I know what you mean. I texted my mom yesterday saying I wanted Resident Evil 4 for Christmas, and she thought I was being sarcastic. oh mothers, and how they believe their darling children would somehow be opposed to mercilessly brutalizing monsters and zombies...
 
I have to say that the biggest mistake was trying to do everything at once... the bill was huge, and although I'm against a public option, there was some really good things in the bill.

Did you know that the bill advocated the improvement of GME? I'm assuming most of us aren't in med school yet if we're posting in this forum, but had something like that passed... well it would help us out a good bit when the time comes to apply for residency positions (because most likely there would be more spots).

Talking with the director of the free clinic that I volunteer in, I take her position. The bill shouldn't have included a public option to begin with... it should have taken steps to force insurance companies to lower their rates... if within 3-5 years there is no change in rates... then try the public option.

I read an article in Forbes that basically said in this case fiscal conservatism would have been idea. By this they meant taking small experimental steps when dealing with this issue instead of making huge changes all at once like this bill was pushing for. In all honesty, do we really know how the changes in our healthcare suggested in the original bill would have affected our economy? Republicans were saying it would be bad for the economy, Democrats were saying it'd be good for the economy, and finally non-partisan government groups were giving a mix of both opinions... Thats a huge gamble.

I definitely agree, something needs to be done. In the free clinic I volunteer in, I see patients who can't even afford the 4$ prescription plan at walmart... I can't even fathom what life would be like if I lived in that kind of poverty. But the decisions that need to be made have to be healthy ones for the entire population, not just the lower class... Thats what makes this whole thing so complicated.
 
Parts Unknown said:
Tort reform is a State-level issue, and those who object to the overreach of the Federal government should be happy that tort reform has been left off this bill.

You can find a report for Congress on the issue of Federal tort reform's constitutionality here (prepared by the University of Maryland School of Law).

Bottom line: Federal tort reform probably isn't constitutional.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Thanks for that link.
 
I'm still undecided. But, I heard a girl in class today say "I hope it passes. I can't wait for free healthcare!"
Wow. Maybe she's never paid taxes before. Looking at Germany's tax rates (income tax over 50%), I'd say it's not really "free" under than system.

I think there's a bit too much misinformation out there, and gullible people. And funny lookin' politicians. 🙂
 
rockaction said:
I was being sarcastic

People on these boards are only looking out for #1
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There are other reasons for being against the public option.

For one, not wanting to see the rationing, long waiting lists, and other bureaucratic crap that other socialized countries have (i.e., decreased quality of care). There's a reason why many people from Canada cross the border to get quicker care in the US.

Perhaps not wanting to increase the tax burden.

And then, of course, there's always the fact that the government SUCKS at running things (just look at how badly public housing failed).
 
FasterThanAll said:
I'm still undecided. But, I heard a girl in class today say "I hope it passes. I can't wait for free healthcare!"
Wow. Maybe she's never paid taxes before. Looking at Germany's tax rates (income tax over 50%), I'd say it's not really "free" under than system.

I think there's a bit too much misinformation out there, and gullible people. And funny lookin' politicians. 🙂
Click to expand...

Really, if you look at it, our tax rates aren't that much lower.

Income tax for the highest tax bracket is what, 35%?

Add another 10% or so in state income taxes here in CA, plus any sales taxes you pay through the year, and you're right in the same ballpark of a 45-50% tax rate.

Bottom line: we pay about the same in taxes. It's just that more of our money goes to wars and defense spending.

We've got a gun that shoots around corners and a cloaking device for tanks, but we don't have access to basic needs like healthcare and good public education.
 
rosebud1 said:
Not necessarily. There are other reasons for being against the public option.

For one, not wanting to see the rationing, long waiting lists, and other bureaucratic crap that other socialized countries have (i.e., decreased quality of care). There's a reason why many people from Canada cross the border to get quicker care in the US.

Perhaps not wanting to increase the tax burden.

And then, of course, there's always the fact that the government SUCKS at running things (just look at how badly public housing failed).
Click to expand...

Explain why America is #37 on the list of best healthcare systems. We spend more on healthcare and have worse results than most countries. Then again, this may have to do with the fact that Americans are fat, unhealthy people.

Fair enough. I haven't been following this closely, but wasn't there talk of this saving money in the long-run?

Some government run programs are doing their job well. I would argue that the CDC does a good job. I agree that this is a danger, though. But if we keep going on with what he have, no one will have good healthcare.
 
FasterThanAll said:
I'm still undecided. But, I heard a girl in class today say "I hope it passes. I can't wait for free healthcare!"
Wow. Maybe she's never paid taxes before. Looking at Germany's tax rates (income tax over 50%), I'd say it's not really "free" under than system.

I think there's a bit too much misinformation out there, and gullible people. And funny lookin' politicians. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yep. From what I've read, in England, even much of the middle class has to pay 40%. How sad is that? Working hard to make a middle class salary, only to see nearly HALF of it gone to the government?

People can argue all they want that the socialized European programs are better because the people there are healthier and the costs are lower and so on, but lets be honest - Europeans are healthier because they have better diet and exercise habits, which in turn leads to them having fewer health needs and lower costs.
 
rosebud1 said:
Not necessarily. There are other reasons for being against the public option.

For one, not wanting to see the rationing, long waiting lists, and other bureaucratic crap that other socialized countries have (i.e., decreased quality of care). There's a reason why many people from Canada cross the border to get quicker care in the US.

Perhaps not wanting to increase the tax burden.

And then, of course, there's always the fact that the government SUCKS at running things (just look at how badly public housing failed).
Click to expand...

Those are for elective procedures. Wait-times are almost the same for essential procedures.

Plus if you have money, you can always go private in Canada and the UK. And insurance is ALL private in Germany.

I love it when conservatives try to attack the public option by saying:

1) Since it's not-for-profit, the public option can cut corners and will drive private insurance out of business.
2) Government is wasteful and inefficient, so how can we count on them to manage health insurance?

Those two criticisms are logically inconsistent and mutally exclusive. It can be one or other. It can't be both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Confused about the "Commit to Enroll" option
Replies
13
Views
2K
Dr.Freedman MedEdits
Dr.Freedman MedEdits
Topizungochico
How to handle the fact that I dropped out on apps?
Replies
1
Views
431
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
GuavaIsland
Dropped Minor Following Acceptance
Replies
5
Views
1K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
W
Any tangible benefit to applying MD/MPH or MS on AMCAS to OOS public schools or schools where you might be yield protected
Replies
3
Views
576
TheRealBibFortuna
TheRealBibFortuna
Mr.Smile12
2024 NROTC Premed Option
Replies
1
Views
566
gastrocnemesis
gastrocnemesis
Top