Public Option, where do you stand?

[Tutmos]

---

Members don't see this ad.

👍

Of course the conservatives don't want anything done. If Obama actually manages to do something good for the country, they won't be able to continue saying that the "black Kenyan-born Muslim socialist" is ruining this country. Anything positive Obama does will be a disaster for Fox News' ratings and will ruin Republicans' chances come 2012.

The Republicans don't want anything done. That's the only way have a chance of winning come 2012.

The Republicans' position so far has been quite consistent. Anything Obama suggests, their response is quite simple: "NO".

I guess you must have missed those civics classes. The Republicans can't say "NO" to anything. Obama has a super majority in the Senate and a controlling majority in the House so the Republicans CAN'T DO ANYTHING to stop whatever they want to do. If you have a problem with anything happening right now you better look at Democrats because they have COMPLETE CONTROL. What don't you understand about that?

I think you're also forgetting the next election in 2010, not 2012.

 

[7starmantis]

I think you misread my post. If it would help people who can't afford insurance, I'd be all for it, even if it also benefited people in a higher income bracket. All I'm saying is that it would probably not help poorer people because they wouldn't get a sizable contribution to their hsa if the government allocated money based on someone's income.

I'm actually referring to more money for those with extremely lower incomes. IF we are going to give people free stuff, why not give them money for their HSA so they can gain ownership of their own health and health decisions?

Please elaborate on how a flat tax is a ******ed idea compared to our progressive tax system.

Not a fan of a flat tax (for income) but a "fair tax" is supported by many economist, they just think it would be too much of an overhaul to try and undertake. Like the current healthcare bill isn't an "overhaul". 🙄

The Republicans' position so far has been quite consistent. Anything Obama suggests, their response is quite simple: "NO".

I'm so sick of the racial, partisan, "liberal vs conservative" crap. Maybe if Obama let some republicans in the door while policy is being written, "No" wouldn't be the only answer he heard from them. Its such a joke. No one wants to work with anyone from the opposing side in Washington, including the "cross aisle transparent candidate" Obama.

 

[BerlinDude]

I'd like to demonstrate that you really don't believe your own rhetoric. You stated that people who use more services should pay a higher portion (rate) of their income. Although you claimed people with higher incomes use more services from the government I am quite certain that you will magically change your position when it is shown to you that lower income people use more services from the government.

If you were an honest person you'd be all in favor of higher tax rates for lower income people that use more services, which we all know you won't, so why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you don't believe your own trash?

Nope, that's not what I said. I asked why richer people, who are using more government services, shouldn't pay a higher rate. There are reasons why someone who uses government services more might pay a lower rate, but I can't think of one that would apply to rich people.

 

[BerlinDude]

I'm so sick of the racial, partisan, "liberal vs conservative" crap. Maybe if Obama let some republicans in the door while policy is being written, "No" wouldn't be the only answer he heard from them. Its such a joke. No one wants to work with anyone from the opposing side in Washington, including the "cross aisle transparent candidate" Obama.

Dude, are you kidding me? We should have a single-payer system, then we went to a public option that everyone could join, then we went to a public option that only a group of people are eligible for, then we went to a public option that only a group of people are eligible for that states can opt-out of. And for all that compromise only one single Republican voted for the bill.

The Democrats needs to be much much more partisan, not less. Who cares what Republicans want, they are losers and idiots anyway.

 

[7starmantis]

Dude, are you kidding me? We should have a single-payer system, then we went to a public option that everyone could join, then we went to a public option that only a group of people are eligible for, then we went to a public option that only a group of people are eligible for that states can opt-out of. And for all that compromise only one single Republican voted for the bill.

The Democrats needs to be much much more partisan, not less. Who cares what Republicans want, they are losers and idiots anyway.

Nyce. Although you may want to check your facts. The changes were due to your beloved democrats, not the republicans. Remember (you guys always seem to overlook this fact) the dems need no (that means zero) elephants to pass anything (that means anything from free abortions, free mandated gay marriage, chavez for defense secretary, etc).

 

[BerlinDude]

Nyce. Although you may want to check your facts. The changes were due to your beloved democrats, not the republicans. Remember (you guys always seem to overlook this fact) the dems need no (that means zero) elephants to pass anything (that means anything from free abortions, free mandated gay marriage, chavez for defense secretary, etc).

Exactly. Why anyone is trying to appease these people is beyond me.

 

[zinciest]

Not a fan of a flat tax (for income) but a "fair tax" is supported by many economist, they just think it would be too much of an overhaul to try and undertake. Like the current healthcare bill isn't an "overhaul". 🙄

If you support a fair tax, why not just support taxing lower income people at 50% and taxing higher income people at 5%?

 

[HappySlappy]

Nyce. Although you may want to check your facts. The changes were due to your beloved democrats, not the republicans. Remember (you guys always seem to overlook this fact) the dems need no (that means zero) elephants to pass anything (that means anything from free abortions, free mandated gay marriage, chavez for defense secretary, etc).

Try telling that to the conservative (blue dog) dems. The changes in the bills have been to pander to them, not necessarily the republicans. Quite frankly, with democrats like that in office, that would only support a bill that panders to the insurance industry instead of the PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT, we might as well just have Rethugs in those seats instead, same difference, could care less about whether they're reelected. If anything, I would admire senators/congressmen SO much more if they saw their seat in office as an opportunity to do what's best for America, even if it comes at the expense of them losing the next election, rather than to make this a life-long profession. Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman (to name a few and I know Lieberman is Independent but caucuses with the dems) need to realize that whatever damage there is is already done so they better change healthcare for the better as their lasting legacy because they are toast regardless in the next election cycle (the dems hate/refuse to support them now, and the rethugs are scared of this "government takeover"). Also, can Lieberman just go away and never return again? How does that guy keep getting reelected? He's like a thorn in everyone's a**es that won't go away.

Nobody answered my question. "Quality" is a subjective term. How does a single payer system "decrease the quality of healthcare?" Also, what do you all define as "quality?"

 

[ChiDO]

Try telling that to the conservative (blue dog) dems. The changes in the bills have been to pander to them, not necessarily the republicans. Quite frankly, with democrats like that in office, that would only support a bill that panders to the insurance industry instead of the PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT, we might as well just have Rethugs in those seats instead, same difference, could care less about whether they're reelected. If anything, I would admire senators/congressmen SO much more if they saw their seat in office as an opportunity to do what's best for America, even if it comes at the expense of them losing the next election, rather than to make this a life-long profession. Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman (to name a few and I know Lieberman is Independent but caucuses with the dems) need to realize that whatever damage there is is already done so they better change healthcare for the better as their lasting legacy because they are toast regardless in the next election cycle (the dems hate/refuse to support them now, and the rethugs are scared of this "government takeover"). Also, can Lieberman just go away and never return again? How does that guy keep getting reelected? He's like a thorn in everyone's a**es that won't go away.

Nobody answered my question. "Quality" is a subjective term. How does a single payer system "decrease the quality of healthcare?" Also, what do you all define as "quality?"

That is one of my points I mentioned earlier that these people need term restrictions on their positions. Being a senator for 40 years....ya...no thanks. Keep turnover high so that decisions that these guys pass actually are representative of the people they represent and not special interests to get re-elected in 2 years or 6 years...ect.

 

[strummin]

Also, can Lieberman just go away and never return again? How does that guy keep getting reelected? He's like a thorn in everyone's a**es that won't go away.

Yes!! That traitor is one of the reasons why (I think) we had to suffer through eight years of GWB. Gore shouldn't have picked him for running mate. I personally know a lot of people who did not vote for Gore simply because of Lieberman.

 

[strummin]

I guess you must have missed those civics classes.

I guess you must have missed those algebra classes. There are 58 democrats in the senate - not 60.

 

[7starmantis]

If you support a fair tax, why not just support taxing lower income people at 50% and taxing higher income people at 5%?

I didn't say I supported the fair tax, but your implication is simply incorrect. Thats one of the most widespread fallacies about a fair tax there is.

I guess you must have missed those algebra classes. There are 58 democrats in the senate - not 60.

Guess you must have missed those political classes, they dont need 60.

 

[BerlinDude]

Yes!! That traitor is one of the reasons why (I think) we had to suffer through eight years of GWB. Gore shouldn't have picked him for running mate. I personally know a lot of people who did not vote for Gore simply because of Lieberman.

Agreed that Gore made a mistake, but traitor is a harsh word. He's actually been very loyal...to Israel.

 

[strummin]

Agreed that Gore made a mistake, but traitor is a harsh word. He's actually been very loyal...to Israel.

Yeah, and what's with all these Jewish senators who are more loyal to Israel than to America? I mean, I think Israel is a very important ally - but seriously, these Jewish senators need to stop trying to convince us to go to war with Iran.. like we don't have enough wars already. Let Israel fight its own wars! No more American lives should be sacrificed just so Israel can "feel safe"

 

[Tutmos]

It never ceases to amaze me how foul mouthed, belligerent, hateful and without morals so many Democrats can be. It's okay to be a Democrat and a criminal, you not only get to keep your chairmanship but we'll blame someone else for your misconduct! It's like your bitter that more people aren't suffering. Skimming through this thread it's an unending parade of childish insults and complaining. For Pete's sake you control every part of government and have complete control of the legislative process and you still can't man up and take responsibility for anything. You're still blaming everyone else and, I'd be a liar if I didn't admit that I find it pretty funny, you've now even turned on your own. You're being openly antisemitic to top it off. How long until you start blaming women and blacks?

1/4 of the Obama Presidency is now gone and you're still talking about Bush. I always thought it was funny that Clinton never got 50% of the vote in either election yet pretended he had a mandate.

Be more positive, less angry and hate filled. Remember you've now gotten your "hope and change." Aren't you happy yet? What more do you need?

 

[BerlinDude]

It never ceases to amaze me how foul mouthed, belligerent, hateful and without morals so many Democrats can be. It's okay to be a Democrat and a criminal, you not only get to keep your chairmanship but we'll blame someone else for your misconduct! It's like your bitter that more people aren't suffering. Skimming through this thread it's an unending parade of childish insults and complaining. For Pete's sake you control every part of government and have complete control of the legislative process and you still can't man up and take responsibility for anything. You're still blaming everyone else and, I'd be a liar if I didn't admit that I find it pretty funny, you've now even turned on your own. You're being openly antisemitic to top it off. How long until you start blaming women and blacks?

1/4 of the Obama Presidency is now gone and you're still talking about Bush. I always thought it was funny that Clinton never got 50% of the vote in either election yet pretended he had a mandate.

Be more positive, less angry and hate filled. Remember you've now gotten your "hope and change." Aren't you happy yet? What more do you need?

How is 10 months out of 8 years 1/4? We are only 10% into the Obama presidency, and pardon us for not fixing 30 years of Reagan-Bush (including 8 years of GW) overnight!

 

[Parts Unknown]

Maybe if Obama let some republicans in the door while policy is being written, "No" wouldn't be the only answer he heard from them.

To be fair, Obama asked for a bipartisan bill and Max Baucus subsequently spent four months in closed door negotiations with Republicans Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe. The resulting draft legislation was uniformly despised.

 

[7starmantis]

To be fair, Obama asked for a bipartisan bill and Max Baucus subsequently spent four months in closed door negotiations with Republicans Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe. The resulting draft legislation was uniformly despised.

You have a point, but to be fair, your talking about one specific incident, others have included no repubs. Although, I doubt many conservatives would really call those senators true republicans. Also, certainly if the bill that included some republicans was bad that means republicans should be shunned. 🙄 Bottom line is we need to worry about the American people, not repubs or dems. The real issues are coming from dems that are moving away from the severe left turn Obama has brought to the country.

However, if Obama is going to continue to campaign around the world as the "bringer of change" I hold him responsible for orchestrating that change even on our own country, including the senate. If he truly wants bi-partisan bills he could make it happen.

 

[HappySlappy]

You have a point, but to be fair, your talking about one specific incident, others have included no repubs. Although, I doubt many conservatives would really call those senators true republicans. Also, certainly if the bill that included some republicans was bad that means republicans should be shunned. 🙄 Bottom line is we need to worry about the American people, not repubs or dems. The real issues are coming from dems that are moving away from the severe left turn Obama has brought to the country.

However, if Obama is going to continue to campaign around the world as the "bringer of change" I hold him responsible for orchestrating that change even on our own country, including the senate. If he truly wants bi-partisan bills he could make it happen.

In all honesty, 7starmantis, I do NOT want a bipartisan bill. As I've stated before, maybe YOU GUYS want a change in the health care system, but the Republicans in power have been showing time and time again that they want nothing done or are under the assumption that a bill without tort reform is not worth voting for (which again I question whether they're really all that FOR tort reform or they're just stalling legislation).

Okay, and here's another funny thing that makes me question whether they're serious, right before they voted on the House bill the Republicans came up with their own b.s. bill to show they were "serious," the only problem is that according to the CBO it was projected to increase the Federal deficit (wasn't that one of the issues they were stalling the passing of the House bill for) and would not really do much to help in terms of helping to lower rates or covering those that were currently uninsured. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was a pretty WEAK bill and I doubt they were serious about it (and it would INCREASE THE FEDERAL deficit, which drove me crazy because they were saying this whole time how they could not vote on the democrat's plan because of that same reason). Did they not plan that out with their bill? Seems like they just rushed to get something out there to say "hey guys look at us, we're helping health care reform too!" All of the democrat's bill, according to the CBO, and yes I know things have a tendency to still go over budget even with the CBO's approval, is projected to decrease our deficit by the way. Really we're already spending so much on health care costs (from people who can't pay for their emergency room visits) and we're only going to spend more as the years go by so we HAVE to do something about it now.

Another little nugget by the Republicans. I think the NRC came up with another bill recently that would cover ABORTION. I'm not necessarily pro-life, but wasn't their whole argument AGAIN how they would not vote on a bill that had abortion coverage in it? So yet another b.s. excuse for stalling legislation. THESE GUYS ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PASSING ANY HEALTH CARE REFORM. So ultimately I have to side with the democrats, because they're trying at least, the republicans bring NOTHING to the table.

 

[bigal40]

Another little nugget by the Republicans. I think the NRC came up with another bill recently that would cover ABORTION. I'm not necessarily pro-life, but wasn't their whole argument AGAIN how they would not vote on a bill that had abortion coverage in it? So yet another b.s. excuse for stalling legislation. THESE GUYS ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PASSING ANY HEALTH CARE REFORM. So ultimately I have to side with the democrats, because they're trying at least, the republicans bring NOTHING to the table.

Do you get the majority of your news from Jon Stewart?

 

[HappySlappy]

Do you get the majority of your news from Jon Stewart?

Close I usually read the NYtimes or the Huffington post, still more accurate (and there's less manipulation) than Fox News or MUCH of conservative media for that matter (I watch conservative media sometimes though just to see/understand where the opposition mind-set is). I do watch the Daily Show sometimes and I have to say the guy does know his stuff. He really deserves more credit than you all conservatives give him. He's probably more reliable than A LOT of news sources (not that I'm basing this "abortion coverage" info off of the Daily Show). Do you usually make passive aggressive questions when someone proves a point? lol I kid I kid...

 

[bigal40]

Close I usually read the NYtimes or the Huffington post, still more accurate (and there's less manipulation) than Fox News or MUCH of conservative media for that matter (I watch conservative media sometimes though just to see/understand where the opposition mind-set is). I do watch the Daily Show sometimes and I have to say the guy does know his stuff. He really deserves more credit than you all conservatives give him. He's probably more reliable than A LOT of news sources (not that I'm basing this "abortion coverage" info off of the Daily Show). Do you usually make passive aggressive questions when someone proves a point? lol I kid I kid...

Your digging yourself a deeper hole.

The abortion coverage you were talking about is not a bill the republicans drafted, like you claimed it to be.

It turns out that the insurance plan through Cigna that the Republican National Committee supplies for their employees actually covers abortion. When this was pointed out the RNC immeadiately opted out of the abortion coverage part of the plan.

If you really did read the NYTimes, I guess you would have read this article right?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/12/us/politics/AP-US-Republicans-Abortion-Insurance.html

I would have let you go on for a couple more posts looking like an idiot, but I ended your misery early.

 

[Parts Unknown]

You have a point, but to be fair, your talking about one specific incident, others have included no repubs... ..

If he truly wants bi-partisan bills he could make it happen.

How? The dynamic at play here isn't exactly a mystery. Victory for Congressional Republicans is stopping any and all attempts at health care reform, period. The contents of the bill are utterly irrelevant. That's why the Congressional GOP leadership has repeatedly called for uniform opposition to reform measures.

That begs the question: if you're not going to get any votes from the other side, why cater to them?

Dems would, of course, love to attract bipartisan support to their bills. It would be a lot easier to survive cloture if they could pull that off. Instead they have to come up with a proposal that appeases 100% of the liberal wing, 100% of the blue dogs, and probably either Snowe or Lieberman. I don't envy Harry Reid.

 

[HappySlappy]

Your digging yourself a deeper hole.

The abortion coverage you were talking about is not a bill the republicans drafted, like you claimed it to be.

It turns out that the insurance plan through Cigna that the Republican National Committee supplies for their employees actually covers abortion. When this was pointed out the RNC immeadiately opted out of the abortion coverage part of the plan.

If you really did read the NYTimes, I guess you would have read this article right?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/12/us/politics/AP-US-Republicans-Abortion-Insurance.html

I would have let you go on for a couple more posts looking like an idiot, but I ended your misery early.

So sue me, I didn't remember the article exactly. Still is pretty hypocritical and proves my point that they would be COVERED FOR ABORTION this whole time when that was their argument (and their whole "scare tactic") against the Dems, also pretty hypocritical that they're defending the same insurance industries that COVER abortion when they're using that as an attack against the public option. Thanks for just bolstering my point.

And "idiot?" Testy, testy. Are people in this forum getting you all stirred up because we actually fight for our future patient's rights LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO? It really troubles me that more future doctors aren't behind this. Makes me worried about what people's true motivations of being a doctor are....

Also forgot to add, just one less bill the Rethugs came up with, so yeah REAL SERIOUS about this health care reform.....

 

[Concubine]

I wish we would get rid of republicans & dems dominated politcs. Hopefully, people start realizing that this two party system we have had for so long is not working. There is a large and growing (educated) population in the US fed up with both sides, & I'm hopeful this next election will reflect some change.

 

[bigal40]

And "idiot?" Testy, testy. Are people in this forum getting you all stirred up because we actually fight for our future patient's rights LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO? It really troubles me that more future doctors aren't behind this. Makes me worried about what people's true motivations of being a doctor are....

You're wrong, just because people don't support the public option doesn't mean we are money hungry cold hearted people who could care less if everyone dies as long as we stay rich. That is what people like Jon Stewart will make you believe but it is not true.

I feel like this thread keeps going in circles, I say why the public option isn't the best way to help the uninsured and bring down costs(in fact it will likely increase costs), I get some kind of response about how I don't care about people and some other lies thrown in there that I then disprove and it starts over again.

So, this will be my last post in the thread, I'm not going to change your opinion you're not going to change mine, and most other people don't even read the thread.

What it all comes down to is:

 

[HappySlappy]

You're wrong, just because people don't support the public option doesn't mean we are money hungry cold hearted people who could care less if everyone dies as long as we stay rich. That is what people like Jon Stewart will make you believe but it is not true.

I feel like this thread keeps going in circles, I say why the public option isn't the best way to help the uninsured and bring down costs(in fact it will likely increase costs), I get some kind of response about how I don't care about people and some other lies thrown in there that I then disprove and it starts over again.

So, this will be my last post in the thread, I'm not going to change your opinion you're not going to change mine, and most other people don't even read the thread.

What it all comes down to is:

See here's the thing, if I had a choice, I would go with the Single payer system, NOT the public option, but since the public option is the only thing that might have a chance of passing (and the only thing that would inhibit prices from sky-rocketting for the time being) I'm for it. I've asked what alternatives there are to the public option, and the alternatives are weak. The public option is the ONLY way to decrease costs because it forces private costs to go down to the government plan's level (yes I know this public option by the House of Reps isn't strong enough, but it'll still help). We've tried free market for the past 8 years, DIDN'T work.

And for the record, yeah, I DO think those that don't support any of these bills in question are heartless people that don't care about their future patients, because if you're not FOR any of these bills, then what are you FOR? The Republicans have NO bill (anymore at least after their last one failed). There are no other ideas being thrown out but the democrat ideas, so what are YOU ALL FIGHTING FOR EXACTLY? Quite frankly, I think you all could care less about those that are uninsured because you all are under the assumption that "they're fat" or "they eat McDonalds all the time" or "they don't care about their health, so why should we" or "why should the government intervene to help the people, they can do it on their own." That is completely the wrong mentality to have as a future doctor in my opinion and it troubles me that even 35% of the next generation of physicians feel that way.

 

[Concubine]

And for the record, yeah, I DO think those that don't support any of these bills in question are heartless people that don't care about their future patients, because if you're not FOR any of these bills, then what are you FOR?

I guess the majority of physicians are heartless then. 🙄

One the primary reasons I'm against it is I think that it will only bring less autonomy to the doctor-patient relationship. It's bad enough with insurance already, but I don't see how adding the government into the mix will help. I don't support the bill because it is full of pork & doesn't address the core problems. I would happily support a bill that does, but in my opinion, the current bill is not going to do anything to make it better, & again in my opinion, potentially make our already ****ty health care system even worse.

There are no other ideas being thrown out but the democrat ideas, so what are YOU ALL FIGHTING FOR EXACTLY? Quite frankly, I think you all could care less about those that are uninsured because you all are under the assumption that "they're fat" or "they eat McDonalds all the time" or "they don't care about their health, so why should we" or "why should the government intervene to help the people, they can do it on their own." That is completely the wrong mentality to have as a future doctor in my opinion and it troubles me that even 35% of the next generation of physicians feel that way.

I don't think any of us have a problem with helping out the uninsured and I don't assume all the uninsured are fat & lazy. However, there is a significant portion of the uninsured that are as you say "eating at McDonalds all the time" & "don't care about their health" that I DO have a problem with my tax money going to. Why positively reinforce their behavior? What the hell is wrong with a little self responsibility & self worth? Not only is promotion of patient self-responsibility an appropriate mentality to have as a physician, but in my opinion vital to your patients ever getting better.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

Supporting a Heritage article with an RCP article is like getting two foxes to guard the hen house. A blogger named Tom Bozzo sifted through this debate and demonstrates what I expected: to make Medicare administrative costs appear artificially high, they extracted a bunch of Medicare outlays and inappropriately labeled them "administrative." Viola.



I outlined my reason for not minding a public option in post #127, but never heard back from you. Might that count?

Nobody likes responding to your posts 😛

 

[HappySlappy]

I guess the majority of physicians are heartless then. 🙄

One the primary reasons I'm against it is I think that it will only bring less autonomy to the doctor-patient relationship. It's bad enough with insurance already, but I don't see how adding the government into the mix will help. I don't support the bill because it is full of pork & doesn't address the core problems. I would happily support a bill that does, but in my opinion, the current bill is not going to do anything to make it better, & again in my opinion, potentially make our already ****ty health care system even worse.



I don't think any of us have a problem with helping out the uninsured and I don't assume all the uninsured are fat & lazy. However, there is a significant portion of the uninsured that are as you say "eating at McDonalds all the time" & "don't care about their health" that I DO have a problem with my tax money going to. Why positively reinforce their behavior? What the hell is wrong with a little self responsibility & self worth? Not only is promotion of patient self-responsibility an appropriate mentality to have as a physician, but in my opinion vital to your patients ever getting better.

The majority of physicians according to all the polls SUPPORT the public option, so no they're not as cold-blooded as the people on this forum. Here's a link to one of the polls done: http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

And how is getting these uninsured people to see the doctor positive reinforcement for their behavior? It seems to me when you have someone tell you directly (by a doctor) that you're fat, you have diabetes, hypertension, CAD, that you finally get a WAKE UP CALL to do something about it. Your perception that not intervening and letting these people go on their merry way eating fast food till they hit an emergency room is pretty warped. We also have to look after ALL our patients in the future, not just the ones that are changing their habits. If they don't change their habits then we have to at least TRY. We can't just give up and call them lazy and move on, what kind of doctor would you be if you did that?

 

[7starmantis]

This thread has become a cesspool of partisan talking points and attacks on others for being in one of the parties. When will we stop thinking about politics in a partisan way, its about the people (for the people and all of that jazz) not for the parties. A lot of dems are withdrawing from the bills because of their constituents back home. Until you have all dems on board you can't really argue its the republicans fault. However, why not stop worrying about the party and look at the substance of the bills.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I guess the majority of physicians are heartless then. 🙄

Not quite.

From NEJM, September 14, 2009.

One the primary reasons I'm against it is I think that it will only bring less autonomy to the doctor-patient relationship. It's bad enough with insurance already, but I don't see how adding the government into the mix will help.

Okay, pretend you're a primary care physician in Utah. You've been getting bent over the sink for years by Mountain Health, which controls virtually the entire private health insurance market in the state. They have you pegged to a lousy fee schedule, deny over 10% of your claims (used to be more, but you hired a full time employee to fight with them on the phone every day), and chronically pay you late. Your practice also constitutes about 8-12% charity care.

Now, pretend there is a second insurer available in the state, one with a similar fee schedule, but no marketing costs, no rescission, 1-2% claims denials, a record of timely payment, and no profit motive. The only catch is that enrollment is limited.

You crunch the numbers, and realize that if you accept this insurance plan your revenue flow will be more predictable, but your denied claims rate will fall, and the percentage of charity care you give will decline as some previously uninsured people will now be covered. Mountain Health, fearful that enrollment in this new program will expand, decides to pay you a little more and drag their feet a little less.

In a nutshell, that's what the proponents hope will happen.

 

[Concubine]

Not quite.

I wasn't actually inferring that physicians don't support a public/private option, but simply responding to the ABSURD statement by happy slappy that if you don't agree with the current bill or public option, you are heartless money hogging, greedy physician. Btw, that poll DOES not ask physicians on their support of the current bill, only if they would support either public, private, or mix. Furthermore, the public/private support is a HUGE portion of the pie, while as you can see, the support for public only option is very small.

 

[Slack3r]

How is 10 months out of 8 years 1/4? We are only 10% into the Obama presidency, and pardon us for not fixing 30 years of Reagan-Bush (including 8 years of GW) overnight!

You're aware there was 8 years of Clinton in there right?

Close I usually read the NYtimes ...still more accurate (and there's less manipulation) than Fox News

Orly? I'd say the NYT is the polar opposite of Fox news. Doesn't get much more liberally biased than the Times.

Not quite.

And I would argue the fact that there is so little support for a sole public option also says something. I wouldn't mind a public option if it coexisted with a private option. I just feel the current path we're headed down poses itself to become a single paying public-option...or at least that's the intent of the House leadership presently.

 

[Parts Unknown]

And I would argue the fact that there is so little support for a sole public option also says something.

So little? I'd say almost 10% supporting single payer is surprisingly high.

I just feel the current path we're headed down poses itself to become a single paying public-option...or at least that's the intent of the House leadership presently.

Meh, they've had 40 years to march Medicare eligibility below age 65, and it hasn't budged one iota. The House public option is essentially a niche operation, and even if it gets enacted there is significant pressure, both political and societal, to keep it that way.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I wasn't actually inferring that physicians don't support a public/private option,

I just saw an opening to make a point relevant to this thread.

 

[Concubine]

And how is getting these uninsured people to see the doctor positive reinforcement for their behavior? It seems to me when you have someone tell you directly (by a doctor) that you're fat, you have diabetes, hypertension, CAD, that you finally get a WAKE UP CALL to do something about it. Your perception that not intervening and letting these people go on their merry way eating fast food till they hit an emergency room is pretty warped. We also have to look after ALL our patients in the future, not just the ones that are changing their habits. If they don't change their habits then we have to at least TRY. We can't just give up and call them lazy and move on, what kind of doctor would you be if you did that?

I never claimed that getting these uninsured people to see the doctor is a bad thing, I said that making it free for them to see the doc & get meds is positive reinforcement. This is something our current system is already terrible at, and something I believe the current bill would be even worse. Unfortunately the doctor telling them to diet and exercise (usually an afterthought in most patient encounters anyways) is obviously NOT WORKING in our society and physicians largely resort to pharmacotherapy. These patients are pretty much non-compliant with exercising and diet, and what's the point when they can get their drugs for free? Intervening with drugs is fine, but it does not address the real problem. People will change when there is a financial incentive to do so, & having them pay for their therapy would provide that incentive.

 

[HappySlappy]

I wasn't actually inferring that physicians don't support a public/private option, but simply responding to the ABSURD statement by happy slappy that if you don't agree with the current bill or public option, you are heartless money hogging, greedy physician. Btw, that poll DOES not ask physicians on their support of the current bill, only if they would support either public, private, or mix. Furthermore, the public/private support is a HUGE portion of the pie, while as you can see, the support for public only option is very small.

Ummmm, I think you DID mean to say that the majority of physicians don't support the public option (because my argument essentially was how doctors/future doctors would not support any of these bills was beyond me). I think it's basically implied from these polls that if you're FOR the public/private mix then you're FOR the public option, I don't see how you can see it any other way. I guess to a warped mentality, it would look like "SEE! They don't support the public option because they want it mixed with private insurance coverage!" And yeah, I'm pretty sure the NEJM isn't going to come out with a poll for every single bill proposed in Congress. As I've stated before, I don't like that this bill has a WEAK public option, but I support the public option nonetheless. And my claim is not absurd, btw, I'd like to think it's quite accurate. Do you care about what happens to the 46 million uninsured? If so then why not support ANY measure that helps them? And please don't give me a b.s. excuse that we're "weakening our health care" with these measures. No one came up with what exactly we're weakening or "decreasing quality" yet, or even define what they mean by quality. I'm waiting......

And I would argue the fact that there is so little support for a sole public option also says something. I wouldn't mind a public option if it coexisted with a private option. I just feel the current path we're headed down poses itself to become a single paying public-option...or at least that's the intent of the House leadership presently.

You're just basically contradicting yourself here. So then if you're against these public options proposed because you're afraid of it looking like a single-payer system, then why bother supporting the public option? It doesn't make any sense. You can argue that ANY public option is "moving towards a single-payer system," so then what public option would you propose that's "not moving towards a single-payer system," because I don't think it exists. These public options proposed right now are basically moving it further away from a single-payer system if anything, so what do you want exactly? I don't get your statement.

 

[iMD]

i have to laugh at pre-meds who think they have any idea of what they are getting themselves into. you guys are the future and youre going to be working yourselves to the bone for people who dont give two ****s about their health. they wont listen to you and will continue with their high fat diet and sedentary lifestyle. your words mean nothing to them unless they are in immediate danger.

this is the american way: ill do whatever i want and if something bad happens, ill just simply buy a quick fix

that quick fix is definitely pharmacotheraphy aka popping pills. it's absolutely absurd to think this healthcare bill can fix the root of the problem. it gives no incentive for anyone to change anything about their health.

 

[HappySlappy]

i have to laugh at pre-meds who think they have any idea of what they are getting themselves into. you guys are the future and youre going to be working yourselves to the bone for people who dont give two ****s about their health. they wont listen to you and will continue with their high fat diet and sedentary lifestyle. your words mean nothing to them unless they are in immediate danger.

this is the american way: ill do whatever i want and if something bad happens, ill just simply buy a quick fix

that quick fix is definitely pharmacotheraphy aka popping pills. it's absolutely absurd to think this healthcare bill can fix the root of the problem. it gives no incentive for anyone to change anything about their health.

Wow, such a GREAT future doctor. Already jaded before actually completing med-school, you'll be a WONDERFUL physician. So tell me why did you want to practice medicine? Just wondering.... And for the record, I'm not pre-med, I go to medical school.

 

[iMD]

well was anything i said wrong? ill answer it for you: no.

but i can totally see how you think my comments on society affects why i chose to become a doctor.

and im glad you already know what kind of physician im going to be, saves me the trouble to figuring that out for myself.

/sarcasm

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Wow, such a GREAT future doctor. Already jaded before actually completing med-school, you'll be a WONDERFUL physician. So tell me why did you want to practice medicine? Just wondering.... And for the record, I'm not pre-med, I go to medical school.

I haven't really been keeping up with this thread but I have to say you sound like an idiot telling others that they'll be horrible physicians if they don't agree with you. That's a pretty dumb argument and I'd hope you're smart enough to realize it and stop using it. Who are you to say what makes someone a good/bad physician? Especially years before they even enter practice.

Also, if you're a med student, please change your status. Otherwise people will continue to assume you're a premed.

 

[Concubine]

Ummmm, I think you DID mean to say that the majority of physicians don't support the public option (because my argument essentially was how doctors/future doctors would not support any of these bills was beyond me).

Ummmmm, actually no. Your exact statement was "I DO think those that don't support any of these bills in question are heartless people that don't care about their future patients", which IS ABSURD. You can not necessarily support the current bill and still support a public/private option mix. In fact, you could support an entirely single payer option & still not be in support of the current bill.

I think it's basically implied from these polls that if you're FOR the public/private mix then you're FOR the public option, I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Be careful what you assume from polls.

And my claim is not absurd, btw, I'd like to think it's quite accurate. Do you care about what happens to the 46 million uninsured? If so then why not support ANY measure that helps them? And please don't give me a b.s. excuse that we're "weakening our health care" with these measures. No one came up with what exactly we're weakening or "decreasing quality" yet, or even define what they mean by quality. I'm waiting......

That 46-47 million number is inflated:

How many of this 46-47 million actually need or should be given insurance with tax money? You can pretty much subtract those already eligible for insurance through government options since they can get it currently, those earning > $75,000 a year, and at least a good portion of those eligible for employer coverage that choose not to get it. That leaves the illegal & legal immigrants + Americans that really need it. If you don't want to pay for the illegal immigrants, that even brings the number down further. Suddenly that 47 million shrinks substantially. Are the changes really necessary for such a small portion of the population, or could that number be supplied insurance by some other method?

 

[randombetch]

Ummmmm, actually no. Your exact statement was "I DO think those that don't support any of these bills in question are heartless people that don't care about their future patients", which IS ABSURD. You can not necessarily support the current bill and still support a public/private option mix. In fact, you could support an entirely single payer option & still not be in support of the current bill.




Be careful what you assume from polls.




That 46-47 million number is inflated:

How many of this 46-47 million actually need or should be given insurance with tax money? You can pretty much subtract those already eligible for insurance through government options since they can get it currently, those earning > $75,000 a year, and at least a good portion of those eligible for employer coverage that choose not to get it. That leaves the illegal & legal immigrants + Americans that really need it. If you don't want to pay for the illegal immigrants, that even brings the number down further. Suddenly that 47 million shrinks substantially. Are the changes really necessary for such a small portion of the population, or could that number be supplied insurance by some other method?

Why are "Legal Immigrants" separate from Americans without affordable options? Legal immigrants don't matter?

 

[FutureCTDoc]

There is no right to healthcare! It isn't in the constitution, it isn't a "natural right", it isn't anywhere. I oppose the bill and I oppose the concept. If people are too damn lazy or unintelligent to get insurance I don't care. If they can't afford I don't care. I'm tired of people trying to beat around the bush and couch their language in platitudes. I am not my brother's keeper. I feel no commitment towards the deadbeats and failures of the world. Don't expect me to pay for them.

 

[Concubine]

Why are "Legal Immigrants" separate from Americans without affordable options? Legal immigrants don't matter?

I agree here, I'm not sure why this particular breakdown separated that way (I think I read earlier that this number includes people that are here temporarily on green cards or other means legally), but legal immigrants should be included as in the "without affordable options" category. Those two together make up 37% of the 46-47 million uninsured, which is about 17 million people. Still substantially less than the 46 million everyone keeps throwing around.

 

[DRMRL]

NO. You come to America if you want the best invasive or non-invasive treatments. Sorry, but within our current system, everyone CAN GET TREATED IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY. GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND YOU'LL GET TREATMENT. Now, paying it off is another story. That should not be the Physician's job. Honestly, it's not the simple...I understand. But our system is very complex. Also, illegal immigrants should get treatment, however, they should then get ethically exported out of our country. 👍

 

[wanderer]

So polls show anywhere between 56-82% of Americans favor a public option but I thought it would be interesting to see where my fellow SDNers stand in regards to this issue.

Which polls showed those numbers?
This poll doesn't indicate so.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I agree here, I'm not sure why this particular breakdown separated that way (I think I read earlier that this number includes people that are here temporarily on green cards or other means legally), but legal immigrants should be included as in the "without affordable options" category. Those two together make up 37% of the 46-47 million uninsured, which is about 17 million people. Still substantially less than the 46 million everyone keeps throwing around.

green cards aren't temporary.

 

[Concubine]

green cards aren't temporary.

sorry my bad, the point is people that are here legally on temporary basis or permanently as non-US citizens.