Republicans reveal their health care plan

[Pharmavixen]

No doubt. Your own past CMA president even knows your system is broken and needs reform.

Yes; Dr. Brian Day. He's a privatizer who is looking to make some money.

More on Dr. Brian Day:

Claim: "In our country a dog can get a hip replacement in under a week, but a human may wait two years."

Fact: Access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can't pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay.

Claim: "All other models of universal health care differed from the Canadian model in one fundamental way: They did not exclude competition from the private sector. Canada shared this distinction with just one other country - North Korea!"

Fact: 30% of what Canadians spend on health care is private expenditure. Canada is below the OECD average on public health care spending. The argument that private for-profit health care does not play a significant role in Canada is false.

Claim: "At the [Cambie Surgery] Centre we spend only 30% of our gross revenue on wages and salaries, compared with 70% in the public hospitals, yet we pay our nurses more."

Fact: Peer-reviewed evidence shows that for-profit invest or owned facilities skimp on staff, and that patients are at risk as a result. Where is the rest of Cambie's revenue going? Profits?

Claim: "In striking down the existing laws, the judges said, 'The evidence shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care... The courts have a duty to rise above political debate."

Fact: The Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision recognized that failure to ensure timely access to care endangers Canadians' well-being. But the remedy must be to ensure access for all-not just for those who can afford to pay for private care. Three dissenting judges warned that the Charter should not be used to roll back benefits enjoyed by all Canadians, especially the poor.

Claim: "Health care is approaching 50% of all spending in the provinces."

Fact: Health care spending is rising as a percentage of provincial budgets because of tax cuts and cuts to other program spending. Health care spending as a percentage of the economy is stable and takes up the same share of national income as 25 years ago: approximately 4% of GDP for hospitals and physicians. Why would someone concerned about rising costs advocate transferring cost from governments back onto patients and private insurance?

Claim: "The coming changes will create a massive new industry and enable the Canadian health industry and its workers to enter the international health market and participate in the $2 trillion American health economy. On the basis of extrapolations from other countries, we may see $40 billion a year added to the Canadian health system."

Fact: There is a lot of money to be made by wrecking Medicare in Canada. But how is it in the public interest to drive up spending to U.S. levels? If current levels of health care spending are said to be "unsustainable," why would one advocate spending an additional $40 billion a year?

and finally,

Claim: "In Canada, 65% of sick children wait a 'medically unacceptable' period of time."

Fact: There is no evidence for this claim.

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The research for the above done by physicians from Canadian Doctors for Medicare.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

[/I]

Your little rant about the dudes in 17-whatever didn't know anything about what's going on today proves your ignorance. Many things we practice today are right there in the constitution written in 17-dickity. The fact the we can debate on this thread is stated in the first amendment. The reason we don't have slaves is because of the 13th amendment. It is spelled out in the constitution what taxes are and are not permitted to be levied by the federal government. Sure, the original constitition didn't list everthing and the authors knew at the time that changes were going to be needed in the future. That's why we have added amendments over the years. The house and senate do vote on amendments, and if the majority votes to pass an amendment it still has to be ratified, that is three-fourths of the states must approve before it is written into the constitution. Our federal government is to abide by our constitution and not the other way around.

All that is is a giant ass red herring. It has nothing at all to do with anything anyone has discussed. Like I said, the document is malleable to be applicable to future generations. And Congress' job, per said document, is to provide for the Welfare of the nation. The means, costs, and transmission of healthcare have changed in ways not imaginable in 17-dickity-do. Ergo, the constitution needs to be interpreted as it would apply in the 21st century. Our society has changed...and the constitution is a living document. Add it all together and you'll see that I'm right.

 

[ffpickle]

Duelling links! I want to play too! What fun!

(BTW, it's spelled, "Canadian" if you're using English; "Canadien" is French. No exceptions. To use "Canadien" in an English context is wrong, wrong, wrong, unless it's used in an English sentence as a proper noun, like "In a stunning upset, the Montreal Canadiens lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs in 7th game of the Stanley Cup final.")

To rebut one of the previous links, that "many sick Canadians go to the US for care," I'd make two points:

1) When you read the article, it says, 150 people since 2006. Out of 30 million people.

2) Doesn't say how many Americans snuck north to scam healthcare using Canadian friends'/relatives' health cards. A comparison would only be fair.

"US Healthcare Lies About Canada"

"US Healthcare Lies Part II

As newspapers go, the National Post isn't exactly at the apex of left-wing thought. But even right-wing people in Canada favour nationalized healthcare; you saw how in that previous link, Dianne points out how it's good for business.

Why do Republicans lie about Canadian health care?

From the last link:

This post is getting cumbersome, but let me include one more from south of the border:
Debunking Canadian healthcare myths

That *would* be stunning since they're both in the same conference so they can't meet in the finals. Leafs in 2010.

 

[StevePerry]

Seriously, aside from the drawn out discussion over the use of the word Canadian/Canadien, what truly ticks me off with this post is that everyone who glorifies the bull---- system in Canada, brushes off everyone who has to wait extremely long periods of time as a "non-emergency" situation.

Example:
How about a hypothetical situation where someone in Canada, middle-class, who actually worked and paid ridiculous amounts of money into the tax-heavy system their whole life, that comes down with cancer that is expensive to treat, but treatable in the US system with private insurance. They are put on the same government waiting list as some piece of s--- that never worked a day in their life. Yeah, I think that the person that worked and paid into the system deserves to have those expensive treatment procedures over the others. Call me old-fashioned. In fact I think the person that paid in deserves the expensive treatment and procedures more than the other person deserves routine care.


Yeah, I know anyone that has a viewpoint contrary to the liberal garbage of egalitarianism is labeled with right wing nasty names, but, hey, it's a difference in viewpoint. Some with a more libertarian viewpoint don't feel healthcare for all is a right, at the expense of others. Yeah, our system needs tweaked, of course no child under 18 should ever go uninsured (in spite of the fact that people shouldn't reproduce if they can't support children on their own). It's not like we're totally heartless.

In comparing our system to Canada's, you can make an argument on different parameters that each system is better. But to just point to the insuring of more people, as a reason why Canada's system is better, while ignoring differences in population (think the seemingly paradoxical debate over ownership %'s and violence rates in each country in Bowling for Columbine most likely explained by differences in culture)/innovation/value for those who actually pay in, is completely asinine.

And please bleeding-hearts, if you're going to respond, try to avoid petty stuff like spelling and definitions of Canadian/Canadien to label someone with a different viewpoint as a *****...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

That's a slippery ass slope.

It would be nice if the world was that cut and dry, but it ain't.

What pissed me off was that I went 7 years without insurance. I wasn't a deadbeat. I was a college student working on a damned doctorate coming off of medicaid as a child. Plus I worked 24-32 hours a week to pay for my rent and **** as an intern. I thought I worked hard enough to deserve healthcare...yet...nope...didn't get none. Because the system is ****ed up. The market didn't think I deserved it. ****ing Kroger. lmao.

The other problem I have with the US system is that only those who are seen as higher profile workers are those that get healthcare. What about the people who also contribute to society...say a lowly janitor at a fast food joint with an IQ of 75. He can't aspire to afford healthcare...ever. He will always have a job where he doesn't get healthcare. Yet he works as hard as anyone else...prolly harder. I think that's ****ed up, too. If changes were made to guarantee that theoretical dude healthcare, I think it would be a plus.

Not to mention the fact that "work" and "wealth" aren't exactly synonymous. I'd be cool with the whole "you have to work for what you get" thing if it included trust fund types that also don't work.

Basically, any way we can eliminate the whole "he who came out of the wealthiest vagina doesn't have to do ****, but isn't seen as a deadbeat" thing. Because they ARE deadbeats. In fact, most capitalists in that sense are. It's one of the flaws of capitalism, IMO. It's that for many people the ownership of capital, not actual hard work, determines their fate. It's seriously more luck than grit. Yet libertarians like to pretend its the other way around. But, hey...let's abolish inheritance, abolish the ability to buy things for other people, and only pay people as hard as they work...then maybe we'd have the vacuum where libertarianism could work. But that cockamamieness is why libertarianism as a philosophy is complete bull****, anyway. It just doesn't hold up to critical analysis. I won't even get into how wealth and resources are intrinsically redistributed to the wealth class in a capitalistic economy. That **** makes the typical libertarian's head explode.

And of course, I think others are bull****, too, like Marxism...but I am usually especially venomous towards any philosophy where the goal is to exploit those without power just because its more convenient for those with power at that given time. That **** just pisses me off because it discounts other factors that go into actually making yourself something. It discounts the inner-city experience...they cycle of hopelessness...or my own hilljack experience...mother****ers think the **** is so easy, growing up in their upper middle class homes...every resource available to you...but y'all just don't know ****, really...is what it is, I guess...I can't expect those without the experience in a situation where you start out in a hopeless cycle to put on those shoes and walk them thousand miles...easier to hate than to empathize...sure some people are made useless...but others are just kinda born into that ****. Kinda hard to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you're broken and barefoot. Now if we could figure out a way to differentiate people...those that consciously choose to be useless versus those born into hopelessness...I could see that **** working. Figure that **** out and get back at me...

But anyway...that's what I meant way back...the concept of using ideologies to govern...it just rubs me the wrong way...because all ideologies are flawed...so why the **** use them in any serious manner?

Having an idea like "let's provide healthcare to adults that contribute to society" sounds great...but how the hell do you really decide that? The only way would be to use a bull**** philosophy. And for the love of god, if it comes to that, let's not use the strictly objectivist libertarian philosophy. It's frightening. If I ever get disabled, I'll be launched into space and forgotten about...

 

[fenderbiz]

Good post, WVU. I'm not fond of your writing style , but the content was good. Too many people don't understand this. People look highly upon people like wealthy investors and usually look down upon custodial workers, like you said. In reality, the investor is probably some lazy dude who wants to spend the rest of his life out on his yacht. That's great and all, but then the people who do the dirty jobs that most people don't want to do get screwed. It's not always about willpower. Not everyone is capable of learning the material in advanced college classes. Not everyone can be rich. The "American dream" is bull****. There will always be stratification because we will always be greedy.

 

[cjhrph]

All that is is a giant ass red herring. It has nothing at all to do with anything anyone has discussed. Like I said, the document is malleable to be applicable to future generations. And Congress' job, per said document, is to provide for the Welfare of the nation. The means, costs, and transmission of healthcare have changed in ways not imaginable in 17-dickity-do. Ergo, the constitution needs to be interpreted as it would apply in the 21st century. Our society has changed...and the constitution is a living document. Add it all together and you'll see that I'm right.

But your not right. The constitution is not some dynamically changing document and there is a concrete procedure for amending it. We don't just get to disregard the rules just because they were created before you showed up on the scene to play the game.

Back in 17-dickity-do:

James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

And yes, the constitution can be altered. But as one economist put it, "Has the constitution been so amended as to permit congress to manage the economy?" I think not. Congress has no business doing what their doing, all these bailouts and bullS&*t.

Hamilton even argued that congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do, " Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. "

Sadly, the civil war settled that long ago, states taking matters into their own hands and leaving the union is simply not a possibility. Since then, the federal government does anything it wants and the States have little or nothing to say about it. The Supreme Court, filled with sh*theads from both parties over the years, does not interpret the constitution in a strict constructionist fashion. It has allowed the erroneous interpretation of the "welfare" clause, and the bastardization of the document to continue. And so, we've ended up with all these goddamned federal regulations and the ever increasing government control over our lives.

 

[Pharmavixen]

And please bleeding-hearts, if you're going to respond, try to avoid petty stuff like spelling and definitions of Canadian/Canadien to label someone with a different viewpoint as a *****...

True; spelling is a trivial point.

But if the most persistent argument made by opponents of Obamacare involve lies that slag a friendly neighbour, other than being kinda rude, the arguments being made must be pretty weak, no?

Ultimately, though, the best health care for Amerikans must involve a made-in-Amerika solution. Due to various cultural, etc, differences, simply cutting and pasting what works in another country would possibly not be the best for Amerikans.

 

[Old Timer]

Do you read what you link to? The outcomes are equal or slightly better in Canada and they are not going broke like we are.

And then it goes on to discuss how IMR and LE are affected by many other factors.

I'm not saying the Canadian system would work here. I want you to admit our system is broken and explain how you would reform it.

See post #123.

You provide zero solutions in post 123. Also, if you read everything about the past president of the CMA, you can see he is a controversial figure. Just read the comments on the quality of care he provides by people who have received it. It's in your links, not mine.

 

[StevePerry]

That's a slippery ass slope.

It would be nice if the world was that cut and dry, but it ain't.

What pissed me off was that I went 7 years without insurance. I wasn't a deadbeat. I was a college student working on a damned doctorate coming off of medicaid as a child. Plus I worked 24-32 hours a week to pay for my rent and **** as an intern. I thought I worked hard enough to deserve healthcare...yet...nope...didn't get none. Because the system is ****ed up. The market didn't think I deserved it. ****ing Kroger. lmao.

The other problem I have with the US system is that only those who are seen as higher profile workers are those that get healthcare. What about the people who also contribute to society...say a lowly janitor at a fast food joint with an IQ of 75. He can't aspire to afford healthcare...ever. He will always have a job where he doesn't get healthcare. Yet he works as hard as anyone else...prolly harder. I think that's ****ed up, too. If changes were made to guarantee that theoretical dude healthcare, I think it would be a plus.

Not to mention the fact that "work" and "wealth" aren't exactly synonymous. I'd be cool with the whole "you have to work for what you get" thing if it included trust fund types that also don't work.

Basically, any way we can eliminate the whole "he who came out of the wealthiest vagina doesn't have to do ****, but isn't seen as a deadbeat" thing. Because they ARE deadbeats. In fact, most capitalists in that sense are. It's one of the flaws of capitalism, IMO. It's that for many people the ownership of capital, not actual hard work, determines their fate. It's seriously more luck than grit. Yet libertarians like to pretend its the other way around. But, hey...let's abolish inheritance, abolish the ability to buy things for other people, and only pay people as hard as they work...then maybe we'd have the vacuum where libertarianism could work. But that cockamamieness is why libertarianism as a philosophy is complete bull****, anyway. It just doesn't hold up to critical analysis. I won't even get into how wealth and resources are intrinsically redistributed to the wealth class in a capitalistic economy. That **** makes the typical libertarian's head explode.

And of course, I think others are bull****, too, like Marxism...but I am usually especially venomous towards any philosophy where the goal is to exploit those without power just because its more convenient for those with power at that given time. That **** just pisses me off because it discounts other factors that go into actually making yourself something. It discounts the inner-city experience...they cycle of hopelessness...or my own hilljack experience...mother****ers think the **** is so easy, growing up in their upper middle class homes...every resource available to you...but y'all just don't know ****, really...is what it is, I guess...I can't expect those without the experience in a situation where you start out in a hopeless cycle to put on those shoes and walk them thousand miles...easier to hate than to empathize...sure some people are made useless...but others are just kinda born into that ****. Kinda hard to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you're broken and barefoot. Now if we could figure out a way to differentiate people...those that consciously choose to be useless versus those born into hopelessness...I could see that **** working. Figure that **** out and get back at me...

But anyway...that's what I meant way back...the concept of using ideologies to govern...it just rubs me the wrong way...because all ideologies are flawed...so why the **** use them in any serious manner?

Having an idea like "let's provide healthcare to adults that contribute to society" sounds great...but how the hell do you really decide that? The only way would be to use a bull**** philosophy. And for the love of god, if it comes to that, let's not use the strictly objectivist libertarian philosophy. It's frightening. If I ever get disabled, I'll be launched into space and forgotten about...

Very well-written response. I use the term response lightly, as I feel you missed the crux of my post and responded selectively, although I will not take away that your post was nonetheless intelligent... my point was reactionary, indeed, to some of the mindless drivel on this board and was not meant to spew pure libertarian philosophy or to suggest that everything is "cut and dry", but was meant to provide the other side to the argument using a hypothetical situation. I feel we should err on the more "libertarian" side of this debate and not move toward the unchecked egalitarianism that runs rampant in other countries. Your previous post about a mixed system with total coverage through the private sector definitely reinforces your moderate views. However, your pessimism towards organized philosophies/ideologies displayed in the last paragraph implies the true hopelessness and futility of any decision ever being reached regarding not only who deserves coverage, but who deserves what quality of coverage (remember, the pie is only so big). Just because your supported solution involves compromise does not mean that it is not rooted in an ideology of your own choosing -- how else can any one person or group of people decide on a healthcare system, if not by use of an ideology of some sort? The world is many shades of gray my friend...

 

[rphello]

The world is many shades of gray my friend...

Reading his posts, I'm pretty sure he demonstrated his awareness of our grayscale world.

I would like to know what's wrong with the currently proposed plan. The uninsured would be covered with government assistance, which satisfies the egalitarian hippies, and the ruling class keeps their private insurance, where your trust fund is the limit as far as quality of care is concerned. The only opposition is based on the hypothetical progression to a single payer, hello comrade system where we queue for weeks in bread lines and in front of doctor's offices. We even have the somber avatar warning us of our impending doom! Seems like a reasonable compromise to me, hypothetical bull**** aside.

 

[cjhrph]

The only opposition is based on the hypothetical progression to a single payer, hello comrade system where we queue for weeks in bread lines and in front of doctor's offices. We even have the somber avatar warning us of our impending doom! Seems like a reasonable compromise to me, hypothetical bull**** aside.

Well, here's the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

Take a minute and check it out. There's nothing hypothetical about it. Based on the verbiage on page 16, I'd say the future does not look all that good for the private health insurance after 3022 passes.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Very well-written response. I use the term response lightly, as I feel you missed the crux of my post and responded selectively, although I will not take away that your post was nonetheless intelligent... my point was reactionary, indeed, to some of the mindless drivel on this board and was not meant to spew pure libertarian philosophy or to suggest that everything is "cut and dry", but was meant to provide the other side to the argument using a hypothetical situation. I feel we should err on the more "libertarian" side of this debate and not move toward the unchecked egalitarianism that runs rampant in other countries. Your previous post about a mixed system with total coverage through the private sector definitely reinforces your moderate views. However, your pessimism towards organized philosophies/ideologies displayed in the last paragraph implies the true hopelessness and futility of any decision ever being reached regarding not only who deserves coverage, but who deserves what quality of coverage (remember, the pie is only so big).

And trying to chose who gets the best "quality" of care is an equally slippery slope. Deciding who gets that is straight ****ed up. Does a 26 year old mother of 8 who is NEEDED to take care of her children, but is on welfare deserve a life-saving operation more than a rich elderly man with adult children? Now be honest...refusing the young mother of care...and her dying...wouldn't that put the entire system into madness as the state has to take care of 8 kids. I know this is a crazy hypothetical...but like you said, shades of gray. I just can't get on with the idea of funneling healthcare to certain people...which is exactly what we do now. That **** just seems ****ed up to me. "I'd rather this dude not recieve life-prolonging care because I want to wait 1 week for a non-emergent treatment rather than 4 weeks." I'm sorry...that's just ****ed the hell up. Liberal, conservative, fascist, fiefdom, I don't give a damn...that **** is just ****ed up to me...and while I'd see where the hypothetical situation where we have to make a decision whether Mother Theresa or an alcohol gets a liver transplant ...that **** doesn't happen that often, really. At the very least, I don't see why the hell we can't get quality PREVENTATIVE care for everyone. That **** would wind up saving money in the long run.

And like I said way back...this **** ain't ever going to get fixed. Too many people that think a great solution is actually possible.

And I'm not a moderate. I hate that word. It makes me sound like a fence-sitting pansy...the two major ideologies are so damned assured of their greatness that they seriously think that anything that isn't lockstep in approval with one or the other is a "moderate." Give me a ****ing break...

Just because your supported solution involves compromise does not mean that it is not rooted in an ideology of your own choosing -- how else can any one person or group of people decide on a healthcare system, if not by use of an ideology of some sort? The world is many shades of gray my friend...

Oh, I know it is. I think I've certainly displayed that. But what I mean is to blindly follow an ideology of any sort with the idea that the tenants of such are infallible. And, sadly, that is really an issue in our society. I'm just sayin'...that **** needs to be avoided. People need to be open minded and actually take all ideas and angles into effect. And that **** doesn't happen.

 

[tbone444]

The government can't even run this cash for clunkers program. Why would anyone think they can provide healthcare for everyone? The government is trying to tell you that this healthcare will save everyone money, yet The CBO states this proposed plan will cost at least a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
Peolple are starting to see this health care plan for what it really is. This is all about control for the federal government. They already have control of our auto industry and banks. All of this contradicts what the constitition stands for. The federal government belongs to the states or to the people.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The government can't even run this cash for clunkers program. Why would anyone think they can provide healthcare for everyone? The government is trying to tell you that this healthcare will save everyone money, yet The CBO states this proposed plan will cost at least a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
Peolple are starting to see this health care plan for what it really is. This is all about control for the federal government. They already have control of our auto industry and banks. All of this contradicts what the constitition stands for. The federal government belongs to the states or to the people.

Did Ron Paul tell you this? lmao...

Now these costs...are they startup costs that would save money in the long run? (They are)

It's also pretty dishonest to say that the gov't doesn't run things very well. Especially in light of the fact that the private enterprises in question have historically done a terrible job in general...

 

[rphello]

Well, here's the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

Take a minute and check it out. There's nothing hypothetical about it. Based on the verbiage on page 16, I'd say the future does not look all that good for the private health insurance after 3022 passes.

Thanks for the link, but your interpretation is flawed. In fact, the provision to which you referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

 

[rphello]

However, your pessimism towards organized philosophies/ideologies displayed in the last paragraph implies the true hopelessness and futility of any decision ever being reached regarding not only who deserves coverage, but who deserves what quality of coverage (remember, the pie is only so big).

You instantly lose credibility when you imply an ideology is necessary to determine coverage, and to what extent. The US has the largest pie in the world. We can figure it out, and it's not by rationing care. That's one screwed up viewpoint.

 

[MountainPharmD]

The government can't even run this cash for clunkers program. Why would anyone think they can provide healthcare for everyone? The government is trying to tell you that this healthcare will save everyone money, yet The CBO states this proposed plan will cost at least a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
Peolple are starting to see this health care plan for what it really is. This is all about control for the federal government. They already have control of our auto industry and banks. All of this contradicts what the constitition stands for. The federal government belongs to the states or to the people.

Actually Goldman Sachs along with the Wall Street elite control the federal govermnent.

One of many good articles on the subject:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine

 

[tbone444]

Did Ron Paul tell you this? lmao...

Now these costs...are they startup costs that would save money in the long run? (They are)

.
It's also pretty dishonest to say that the gov't doesn't run things very well. Especially in light of the fact that the private enterprises in question have historically done a terrible job in general...

The only way that it would save money in the long run is by rationing the cost. For example, if an elderly person gets macular degeneration and needs to be treated for it, the gov't will ration that the treatment is not really needed because it is a part of aging. Older people require more medical treatment than any other age group, thus creating more cost to the system. The conclusion will be that the elderly will be cheaper when dead. Why do you think there has an outrage by these senior citizens at the town hall meetings this month? And no, I have never listened to what Ron Paul has had to say.

Whether or not the private enterprises have done a terrible job is irrelevant. Again, the fed gov't has no right to step into a private company and take it over. Tell me where in the constitution does it say such a thing. I know, I know the constitution was written sometime in the Victorian era and is not up to date with the 21st century and blah, blah, blah.

 

[cjhrph]

You provide zero solutions in post 123. Also, if you read everything about the past president of the CMA, you can see he is a controversial figure. Just read the comments on the quality of care he provides by people who have received it. It's in your links, not mine.

WTF does controversial have to do with it? That is ridiculous. Oh, well I guess if he's a controversial figure than he must be full of ****. Particularly, if he doesn't conform to your myopic point of view. By that logic, I guess that makes OBAMA full of **** too. No, it's too easy to go about the business of vilifying and marginalizing Dr. Day for arguing that the system in his country needs improvement and using his past position as CMA PRESIDENT to eliminate the health care "rationing"...He knows his country's current single-payer health insurance system is unsustainable. Not that you would admit that, by your and other accounts on this board it's a f-king healthcare Shangri-La up there. Some nutcase in this thread even went so far as to call it "light-years" ahead of ours. That's just plain old dishonest thinking. Why would we in America want to mirror such a system for ourselves? Then again, who knows, maybe those crazy Canadiens/Canadians will promote anyone with a pulse and a degree to that position (CMA President) and I am being misled by a charlatan...

In terms of solutions, I refer to post 123 to demonstrate that I do admit that our system needs improvement, just not the Canadien/Canadian kind (for you grammar freaks). The majority of opinions that I have seen agree that the Canadien/Canadian model, as currently practiced, would not be successful here. I don't have all the answers, I am not an expert in economics, and quite frankly, neither are you..

Here are 10 good ideas I have seen, they are not my own, and most do not need a new bill to be enacted:

1. Tort reform; this has to be done. The lawyers are killing us. No one is even considering it.
2. Reform the tax treatment of health insurance and stop making individual health insurance purchases punitive. US health insurance is taxable if purchased outside of employment and stop requiring health care expenditures to reach a minimum level AGI to be considered tax deductible, let them come right off the top.
3. Devise creative ways to make people use their own income toward the purchase of their own health insurance, not to make some taxpayers buy health insurance for everyone through a government health insurance monopoly. Let's think "outside of the box".
4. Subsidize low-income people to help them buy private insurance.
5. Demand that everyone be legally required to show individual proof of purchase for health insurance coverage or demonstrate the financial means to go without. We can require people to buy car insurance, can't we?
6. Enable families to choose and retain their health coverage from job to job and make health insurance truly "portable".
7. Make HSA's easily available to "everyone".
8. Increase supply: Grant real incentives for people to go into the practice of medicine and nursing. Pay the way for those willing practice medicine in underserved areas.
9. Use the choice system available to Members of Congress as a model.
10.Level the playing field for competing private/public plans. Don't stack the deck in favor of the public plan.

 

[Old Timer]

Anyone, left or right who thinks we can control costs without limiting access to care is either overdue for a random drug test or mentally ******ed. Ditto for those who think there is no rationing now. It's done by the private sector. There called formularies and prior authorizations. Your doctor examines you and evaluates your condition and prescribes drug X. You go to the pharmacy only to find some bureaucrat at the insurance company has decided he/she knows your condition better your doctor and you should use drug Y or Z.

In the United States we already ration care based on income. If you can afford care you get it and if you can't you don't.

So listen to Mikey,forget the ideology, and explain how we can reform our health care system.

 

[cjhrph]

Anyone, left or right who thinks we can control costs without limiting access to care is either overdue for a random drug test or mentally ******ed.

So listen to Mikey,forget the ideology, and explain how we can reform our health care system.

For christ sakes, grow a set and stop kissing Mikey's ass. It's pathetic. In your case.. we'll refer to it as "functionally ******ed".

 

[Old Timer]

WTF does controversial have to do with it? Thats ridiculous. Oh, well I guess if he's a controversial figure than he must be full of ****. Particularly, if he doesn't conform to your myopic point of view. By that logic, I guess that makes OBAMA full of **** too. No, it's too easy to go about the business of vilifying and marginalizing him for arguing that the system in his country needs improvement and using his past position as CMA PRESIDENT to eliminate the health care "rationing"...

I researched him on line and read the comments in the article you posted. So yes he is controversial. I didn't say he was full of anything.

He knows his country's current single-payer health insurance system is unsustainable. Not that you would admit that, by your and other accounts on this board it's f-king a healthcare Shangri-La up there. Some nutcase in this thread even went so far as to call it "light-years" ahead of ours. That's just plain old dishonest thinking. Why would we in America want to mirror such a system for ourselves? Then again, who knows, maybe those crazy Canadiens/Canadians will promote anyone with a pulse and a degree to that position (CMA President) and I am being misled by a charlatan...

In terms of solutions, I refer to post 123 to demonstrate that I do admit that our system needs improvement, just not the Canadien/Canadian kind (for you grammar freaks). The majority of opinions that I have seen agree that the Canadien/Canadian model, as currently practiced, would not be successful here. I don't have all the answers, I am not an expert in economics, and quite frankly, neither are you..

I don't need to be an economics expert to know the Canadians spend a great deal less money and cover everyone. I also know the people who know the most about the system on this board, sing the praises of the Canadian system.

1. Tort reform; this has to be done. The lawyers are killing us. No one is even considering it.

Agreed. This is a huge problem. Not the main problem, but a problem none the less.

2. Stop making individual health insurance purchases punitive. US health insurance is taxable if purchased outside of employment and stop requiring health care expenditures to reach a minimum level AGI to be considered tax deductible, let them come right off the top.

Again, I agree with you. But just so you know it was everybody's favorite Republican president, Ronald Ray-Gun that implemented this *****ic idea.

3. Devise creative ways to make people use their own income toward the purchase of their own health insurance, not to make some taxpayers buy health insurance for everyone through a government health insurance monopoly.

Well, the first part of your answer in number three hits the problem right on the head. One of the major problems in our current system is the utter divorce from the person who receives the service and the person who pays for the service. Continued rants against "government" are ideological drivel that do not advance the solution. In addition, you never address the fact that Medicare runs t 2-3% overhead and private plans operate with a 30% overhead.

4. Subsidize low-income people to help them buy private insurance.
5. Demand that everyone be legally required to show individual proof of purchase for health insurance coverage or demonstrate the financial means to go without. We can require people to buy car insurance, don't we?
6. Make health insurance "portable".
7. Make HSA's easily available to "everyone".

These are easy to agree with and are all excellent suggestions.

8. Increase supply: Grant real incentives for people to go into the practice of medicine and nursing. Pay the way for those willing practice medicine in underserved areas.

This last one is just silly. There is no shortage of physicians. If there is, it's because the private sector has driven down reimbursement so low that people are going into other fields.

Take your ideological blinders off and realize Obama is proposing many of the ideas you propose. So stop screaming and start organizing an alternative. If Obama fails and the Republicans don't pass anything else, it will be a repeat of the 90's. The defeat of health care in the 90's gave the insurance company a green light to lower reimbursement on the pharmacists. This was the death of private community pharmacy and the emergence of mass production chain pharmacy.

Also, please read my earlier post on rationing. We already have rationing in this country. Forget the ideology, solve the problem.

 

[cjhrph]

Thanks for the link, but your interpretation is flawed. In fact, the provision to which you referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

Exactly, let's stack the deck in favor of the public plan. If your thinking that the long term goal here is to allow for a level playing field between public and private, your just dead wrong. If this were the case, then why force the private plans to the "pool" at all? Just let the people that are paying for them keep them as they are.

 

[cjhrph]

I don't need to be an economics expert to know the Canadians spend a great deal less money and cover everyone. I also know the people who know the most about the system on this board, sing the praises of the Canadian system.

Wow, 3 out 33 million, I guess it must be nirvana. They may indeed cover everyone in theory, but if you don't have the resources to provided the promised care than the total access you and the others claim "exists" as a result of the superior Canadien/Canadian is simply unattainable. As I stated before, Canadien government data estimates around 1.7 million Canadians (out of 33-34 million) were unable to access a regular family physician in 2007. Not including the people waiting around for specialist services.

But just so you know it was everybody's favorite Republican president, Ronald Ray-Gun that implemented this *****ic idea.

You and the "*****" term..Whatever. I thought you were the one who wanted to, "Forget the ideology, and solve the problem" This is weak.

Medicare runs t 2-3% overhead and private plans operate with a 30% overhead.

Thats pure Bullsh*t. Now your really blowing sunshine up my ass. Medicare efficiency = Oxymoron. Your overhead claim of 2-3% is based on dividing administrative costs by the dollar amount of the claims paid. It is a fact that Medicare recipients claims are on average twice as high as for non-medicare claims. It is a fact that the administrative overhead of Medicare per claim is remarkably similar to that of the private sector. Just how much of the administrative cost of Medicare is hidden? You may consider, at a minimum, the cost of tax collection and enforcement, cost of debating or changing the rules, the cost of devising and revising fee schedules, the cost inventing new codes for diagnoses and procedures, etc. Then also consider that private companies don't enjoy the luxury of hiding these costs. Also, consider the cost of investigations and enforcement, which are all performed by a branch of the federal government other than HHS, deliberately, so it does not appear as administrative costs. The list goes on and on and on. Apples to Apples my friend... Furthermore, Medicare is a unfunded program that exits only by transferring monies from one group of people to another. It's a straight up transfer payment. Private insurance is not. If it is your contention that Medicare is an efficiently run federal program with respect to private insurance, you'll be pushing the rock all the way up the hill...


There is no shortage of physicians. If there is, it's because the private sector has driven down reimbursement so low that people are going into other fields.


There is in Canada. In fact, per capita, there are ~15% more physicians in the US than in Canada. It's not a coincidence. Many of them come here to practice, and who could blame them. Removing the incentives from the American system will make matters much worse. No matter what changes we make, we have to maintain the incentives to work and produce.


So stop screaming and start organizing an alternative.

I think it's your turn hero. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your solutions? You haven't added much to the debate other than attempt to paint me as a hopeless ideologue unworthy of legitimate intellectual consideration. In fact, you tried to paint me as a "*****", "stupid", and "dim" for using a word improperly. As if that had anything to do with healthcare reform.


Also, please read my earlier post on rationing. We already have rationing in this country.

We do. It's true. I'm just not in denial and resorting to renaming it "efficiency" like you and the Canadiens/Canadians.

 

[cjhrph]

.


Sorry, bad post. I was looking at the outside my Labatt Blue can to see if if the spelling was actually Canadien or Canadian and accidentally hit the mouse button...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

But your not right. The constitution is not some dynamically changing document and there is a concrete procedure for amending it. We don't just get to disregard the rules just because they were created before you showed up on the scene to play the game.

Back in 17-dickity-do:

James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

And yes, the constitution can be altered. But as one economist put it, "Has the constitution been so amended as to permit congress to manage the economy?" I think not. Congress has no business doing what their doing, all these bailouts and bullS&*t.

Hamilton even argued that congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do, " Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. "

Sadly, the civil war settled that long ago, states taking matters into their own hands and leaving the union is simply not a possibility. Since then, the federal government does anything it wants and the States have little or nothing to say about it. The Supreme Court, filled with sh*theads from both parties over the years, does not interpret the constitution in a strict constructionist fashion. It has allowed the erroneous interpretation of the "welfare" clause, and the bastardization of the document to continue. And so, we've ended up with all these goddamned federal regulations and the ever increasing government control over our lives.

I don't buy the Federalist papers as a footnote to the actual document. Those papers were written by a handful of people in a different time and in a manner where it would be applicable to 18th century America. Plus they were written in a way to persuade those living in the 18th century to ratify that ****. And if they WANTED the constitution to be more definitive, then they would have written it that way.

But if you're into that sort of thing, Thomas Jefferson also wrote:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

And that would mirror my view - with the advancement of society, laws of the previous generations will become archaic and will need to be modified for the new day - specifically citing constitutions as such laws. And as such, with the developments and advancements in medicine that have made access to care difficult for the average person to afford without insurance...clearly, our society has changed...and the definition of protecting the general welfare of the citizenry has also changed...thus I can conclude that the idea of a national healthcare plan isn't unconstitutional...

Of course, this **** has been debated for centuries...ain't like we're going to blaze into new and amazing depths...

 

[cjhrph]

Of course, this **** has been debated for centuries...ain't like we're going to blaze into new and amazing depths...

Agreed

 

[rphello]

Exactly, let's stack the deck in favor of the public plan. If your thinking that the long term goal here is to allow for a level playing field between public and private, your just dead wrong. If this were the case, then why force the private plans to the "pool" at all? Just let the people that are paying for them keep them as they are.

A level playing field is what we have now, and it indicates that there's no competition. Right now we can choose between Crap plan A or Crap plan B because there are no competitors. Are you satisfied with the current state of private insurance? It seems like your entire argument is centered against the public option while ignoring the serious deficiencies of private insurance. Subsidize low income people to help them buy private insurance? What would prevent private insurers from escalating plan prices knowing the subsidies will soon follow?

My take is the Exchange would put public and private options in direct competition, and may the best plan win. If private insurers provide high quality care at a reasonable price, then they have nothing to worry about. With the current state of health insurance, the middle class has an extremely difficult time affording coverage, to the point of not seeking care for fear of costs, while everyone below has no chance in hell of affording care. This is a pathetic situation.

 

[ffpickle]

These right-wing flat-earth anti-science gun-loving Christian fundamentalist pseudo-racist Republicans spend all their time knocking down government and telling everyone how bad it is. Then, they get elected, royally **** UP THE ENTIRE COUNTRY...and say "See? We told you government can't do anything."

 

[Passion4Sci]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32340524/ns/politics/

Let's liven it a bit in here!

$150M for "health care reform."

Anyone care to guess why "drugmakers" are so ready to get Obama to overhaul the system?

 

[cjhrph]

My take is the Exchange would put public and private options in direct competition, and may the best plan win.

Wishful thinking. There's just not one chance in hell of the exchange creating a level playing field. The "exchange" will just increase bureaucratic control and interject even more politics into the whole process. It's all but certain that the politicians will use their power to pressure providers into offering the type of care that government officials deem appropriate. They won't be able to help themselves. Mass has been trying an exchange for the past few years, and it has been a dismal failure. Any reforms should not put the politicians between the insurance companies and the consumers.

 

[tjaze]

WTF does controversial have to do with it? That is ridiculous. Oh, well I guess if he's a controversial figure than he must be full of ****. Particularly, if he doesn't conform to your myopic point of view. By that logic, I guess that makes OBAMA full of **** too. No, it's too easy to go about the business of vilifying and marginalizing Dr. Day for arguing that the system in his country needs improvement and using his past position as CMA PRESIDENT to eliminate the health care "rationing"...He knows his country's current single-payer health insurance system is unsustainable. Not that you would admit that, by your and other accounts on this board it's a f-king healthcare Shangri-La up there. Some nutcase in this thread even went so far as to call it "light-years" ahead of ours. That's just plain old dishonest thinking. Why would we in America want to mirror such a system for ourselves? Then again, who knows, maybe those crazy Canadiens/Canadians will promote anyone with a pulse and a degree to that position (CMA President) and I am being misled by a charlatan...

In terms of solutions, I refer to post 123 to demonstrate that I do admit that our system needs improvement, just not the Canadien/Canadian kind (for you grammar freaks). The majority of opinions that I have seen agree that the Canadien/Canadian model, as currently practiced, would not be successful here. I don't have all the answers, I am not an expert in economics, and quite frankly, neither are you..

Here are 10 good ideas I have seen, they are not my own, and most do not need a new bill to be enacted:

1. Tort reform; this has to be done. The lawyers are killing us. No one is even considering it.
2. Reform the tax treatment of health insurance and stop making individual health insurance purchases punitive. US health insurance is taxable if purchased outside of employment and stop requiring health care expenditures to reach a minimum level AGI to be considered tax deductible, let them come right off the top.
3. Devise creative ways to make people use their own income toward the purchase of their own health insurance, not to make some taxpayers buy health insurance for everyone through a government health insurance monopoly. Let's think "outside of the box".
4. Subsidize low-income people to help them buy private insurance.
5. Demand that everyone be legally required to show individual proof of purchase for health insurance coverage or demonstrate the financial means to go without. We can require people to buy car insurance, can't we?
6. Enable families to choose and retain their health coverage from job to job and make health insurance truly "portable".
7. Make HSA's easily available to "everyone".
8. Increase supply: Grant real incentives for people to go into the practice of medicine and nursing. Pay the way for those willing practice medicine in underserved areas.
9. Use the choice system available to Members of Congress as a model.
10.Level the playing field for competing private/public plans. Don't stack the deck in favor of the public plan.

most importantly, the govt should set firm rules on how insurance companies run. they should be forced to outline in detail to the consumer exactly what will be paid for. thesedays, the pts and doctors find out after most of time if the insurance will cover for treatments. and execs get billion dollar bonuses by denying rightful coverage hidden behind legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[rphello]

Wishful thinking. There's just not one chance in hell of the exchange creating a level playing field. The "exchange" will just increase bureaucratic control and interject even more politics into the whole process. It's all but certain that the politicians will use their power to pressure providers into offering the type of care that government officials deem appropriate. They won't be able to help themselves. Mass has been trying an exchange for the past few years, and it has been a dismal failure. Any reforms should not put the politicians between the insurance companies and the consumers.

Who the hell wants a level playing field? We'd hate for the insurance companies to improve in any meaningful way, since it's just working out so well. It's wishful thinking to expect the insurance companies to admit they're abusing customers and willing to reform. If politicians don't force reform, then they sure won't police themselves. I'm glad you have the utmost confidence in the insurance industry. I'm sure they'll work it out. Throw more money at the insurance agencies, that'll fix em. This is a similar situation to the auto and banking industries, if incompetence and greed didn't run rampant through these organizations, then no intervention is required. The insurance companies screwed up.

 

[cjhrph]

Who the hell wants a level playing field? We'd hate for the insurance companies to improve in any meaningful way, since it's just working out so well. It's wishful thinking to expect the insurance companies to admit they're abusing customers and willing to reform. If politicians don't force reform, then they sure won't police themselves. I'm glad you have the utmost confidence in the insurance industry. I'm sure they'll work it out. Throw more money at the insurance agencies, that'll fix em. This is a similar situation to the auto and banking industries, if incompetence and greed didn't run rampant through these organizations, then no intervention is required. The insurance companies screwed up.

Well, I do. Real competition is good for consumers, regardless if there is a government plan or not. I never expressed my love for the insurance companies. The HMO's are the problem. Why is it that were just not trying to regulate them? No one has even breathed a word about them. Is all been government this, single payer that, blah, blah, blah. The whole thing goes back to my original point about the bill setting the stage to funnel the "sheeple" into the government plan. What the hell good is the exchange if its just going to be stacked in favor of the public plan? Why have it at all?

It should be apparent to you that stacking the deck in favor of the public plan means that the politician with the most clout and the heaviest lobbied would have preference in pushing the insurance mandates. The other plans would be clearly at a disadvantage, and be forced into satisfying their new "bosses".. At that point, companies would just lobby your politician for inclusion of their brand new "medical device" into the plan(s). I doesn't sound anything like real "reform" to me. It's just a shift in power from one scumbag to another.

Your point about the auto and banking industries is just part of the story. Conveniently, you left out the rest. Company greed notwithstanding, you neglect to describe the role congress played in forcing banks and other financial institutions into making loans, particularly subprime loans, to high risk homebuyers and businesses with the promise that loans would be purchased by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were forced to by government into making these loans. It is the very government "intervention" your cheerleading for that was instrumental in allowing that financial mess in the first place and these are the very same individuals that you are trusting to bring comprehensive reform to what is arguably the best and most complicated health system in the world. And they are trying to do it with lighting speed. There are many good ideas out there. Why does it need to be hastily overhauled in the next 30 days? Like we say in our pharmacy, "do you want it fast, or do you want it right?" And by the way, reality check, "incompetence and greed" are running rampant in the US Congress as well. Your no better off...

 

[rphello]

Well, I do. Real competition is good for consumers, regardless if there is a government plan or not. I never expressed my love for the insurance companies. The HMO's are the problem. Why is it that were just not trying to regulate them? No one has even breathed a word about them. Is all been government this, single payer that, blah, blah, blah. The whole thing goes back to my original point about the bill setting the stage to funnel the "sheeple" into the government plan. What the hell good is the exchange if its just going to be stacked in favor of the public plan? Why have it at all?

It should be apparent to you that stacking the deck in favor of the public plan means that the politician with the most clout and the heaviest lobbied would have preference in pushing the insurance mandates. The other plans would be clearly at a disadvantage, and be forced into satisfying their new "bosses".. At that point, companies would just lobby your politician for inclusion of their brand new "medical device" into the plan(s). I doesn't sound anything like real "reform" to me. It's just a shift in power from one scumbag to another.

Your point about the auto and banking industries is just part of the story. Conveniently, you left out the rest. Company greed notwithstanding, you neglect to describe the role congress played in forcing banks and other financial institutions into making loans, particularly subprime loans, to high risk homebuyers and businesses with the promise that loans would be purchased by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were forced to by government into making these loans. It is the very government "intervention" your cheerleading for that was instrumental in allowing that financial mess in the first place and these are the very same individuals that you are trusting to bring comprehensive reform to what is arguably the best and most complicated health system in the world. And they are trying to do it with lighting speed. There are many good ideas out there. Why does it need to be hastily overhauled in the next 30 days? Like we say in our pharmacy, "do you want it fast, or do you want it right?" And by the way, reality check, "incompetence and greed" are running rampant in the US Congress as well. Your no better off...

Sure, HMOs are part of the problem. Do you want to send more money their way as well? If I'm having trouble with the neighborhood bully, I don't carry more money in my pockets so he can expand his bullying program to others in the neighborhood who may not have been worth his while initially.

You and tbone444 can sit next to the fire caressing your copy of the Constitution and conjure all of the eroticisms of free market capitalism, but they've gone too far. Private insurance is a wonderful concept, but it's unfortunate they pushed it over the edge and now they'll pay the price. They blew it man. I'm not cheerleading intervention. My point is if they didn't screw up, the intervention isn't necessary. You don't blame the parent for punishing the child because he burned the house down. Yeah, Fannie and Freddie are convenient scapegoats for system wide corruption. You can intimate I have an agenda by what I "conveniently" leave out of the discussion, but if you refuse to admit the insurance companies have screwed us all, then you might as well announce you're a corporate shill. Besides, the banking industry controls the government, not the other way around.

In an interview in July 2009, former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts was asked "Does the US Secretary of the Treasury work for the people or does he work for the banking system on Wall Street?" to which replied, "He works for Goldman Sachs."

I only care about insuring the uninsured. This isn't a Mother Teresa moment, this is basic ****ing humanity. The industry has proven it won't reform itself, so guess what, here comes the government. You can blab on about hypotheticals and where this bill might lead, but you seem to ignore the gigantic picture. If your mission is to convince me you have a better alternative, then consider me utterly unconvinced.

 

[cjhrph]

I'm not cheerleading intervention. My point is if they didn't screw up, the intervention isn't necessary.

You most certainly are. You have expressed nothing but contempt for corporate america. I understand that, but your totally in denial if you think that the people administering the "intervention" were not instrumental in creating the problem in the first place. Here's a thought... You don't call the call guy who set your house on fire to come and put it out.


Yeah, Fannie and Freddie are convenient scapegoats for system wide corruption.

Scapegoats, I think not. Your friends in congress set up the table for the corruption. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a free market failure. Banks in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans in the first place. They were forced to by government, i.e. Community Reinvestment Act.

But if you refuse to admit the insurance companies have screwed us all

I never refused to admit that. I can't stand the HMO's, or the big banks. But they are all playing under the rules set for, and in cahoots with the those in congress. Democrats and Republicans, have been in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years along with all those other damned institutions. They've all been filling up their own coffers.


I only care about insuring the uninsured.

Who's argued against this? Certainly not I. We all want them to have access to affordable insurance.


The industry has proven it won't reform itself, so guess what, here comes the government.

They're the same beast. The cure is going to be worse than the disease.


If your mission is to convince me you have a better alternative, then consider me utterly unconvinced.

I've passed along at least 10 good ideas in this thread alone. I haven't heard many of yours....In fact, I haven't read any at all. You seem to be quite content with the fact the the damned insurance industry is finally going to be taking one "up the ass" without much consideration to the fallout that will ensue from this bloated "reform" bill. It appears that you would raise your hand up without question and vote for anything as long as it wasn't the status quo. IMO - that makes you dangerous.

 

[rphello]

I'm not cheerleading intervention. My point is if they didn't screw up, the intervention isn't necessary.

You most certainly are. You have expressed nothing but contempt for corporate america. I understand that, but your totally in denial if you think that the people administering the "intervention" were not instrumental in creating the problem in the first place. Here's a thought... You don't call the call guy who set your house on fire to come and put it out.


Yeah, Fannie and Freddie are convenient scapegoats for system wide corruption.

Scapegoats, I think not. Your friends in congress set up the table for the corruption. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a free market failure. Banks in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans in the first place. They were forced to by government, i.e. Community Reinvestment Act.

But if you refuse to admit the insurance companies have screwed us all

I never refused to admit that. I can't stand the HMO's, or the big banks. But they are all playing under the rules set for, and in cahoots with the those in congress. Democrats and Republicans, have been in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years along with all those other damned institutions. They've all been filling up their own coffers.


I only care about insuring the uninsured.

Who's argued against this? Certainly not I. We all want them to have access to affordable insurance.


The industry has proven it won't reform itself, so guess what, here comes the government.

They're the same beast. The cure is going to be worse than the disease.


If your mission is to convince me you have a better alternative, then consider me utterly unconvinced.

I've passed along at least 10 good ideas in this thread alone. I haven't heard many of yours....In fact, I haven't read any at all. You seem to be quite content with the fact the the damned insurance industry is finally going to be taking one "up the ass" without much consideration to the fallout that will ensue from this bloated "reform" bill. It appears that you would raise your hand up without question and vote for anything as long as it wasn't the status quo. IMO - that makes you dangerous.

Please, give me a break. I don't like government intervention. Read that last sentence again. You write like you know my intentions. You don't know jack, man. The few good points you listed above are necessary but will make a minuscule impact on the overall problem. You care about insuring the poor, but you want to do this by subsidizing lower income folks so they can afford private insurance? That's about as good of a plan as providing tax credits so lower income people can afford insurance. Your criticism doesn't even make sense, especially when you criticize what you think I think. Why don't you focus on what I write instead of what I hypothetically think. Corporate america is great, because it's made us top of the heap economically, but these few industries went too far. How much time do you want to give the insurance industry to reform itself? I'm sure if we give them more money they'll figure it out.

Here are 10 good ideas I have seen, they are not my own, and most do not need a new bill to be enacted:

1. Tort reform; this has to be done. The lawyers are killing us. No one is even considering it.

That's great.

2. Reform the tax treatment of health insurance and stop making individual health insurance purchases punitive. US health insurance is taxable if purchased outside of employment and stop requiring health care expenditures to reach a minimum level AGI to be considered tax deductible, let them come right off the top.
3. Devise creative ways to make people use their own income toward the purchase of their own health insurance, not to make some taxpayers buy health insurance for everyone through a government health insurance monopoly. Let's think "outside of the box".

Nice ideas, do nothing for the poor. You do realize poor people must devise creative ways to just pay for food, right?

4. Subsidize low-income people to help them buy private insurance.

Stunningly foolish.

5. Demand that everyone be legally required to show individual proof of purchase for health insurance coverage or demonstrate the financial means to go without. We can require people to buy car insurance, can't we?

And no one ever drives without car insurance. You want the government to decide when someone can forgo insurance? Fantasyland.

6. Enable families to choose and retain their health coverage from job to job and make health insurance truly "portable".

Great, in the bill currently in Congress.

7. Make HSA's easily available to "everyone".

Okay, does nothing for poor.

8. Increase supply: Grant real incentives for people to go into the practice of medicine and nursing. Pay the way for those willing practice medicine in underserved areas.

Nonsense. Last part is decent, but that occurs now.

9. Use the choice system available to Members of Congress as a model.

Included in current bill.

10.Level the playing field for competing private/public plans. Don't stack the deck in favor of the public plan.

Great, we'll make everything exactly even, and let the quality of care determine the winner.

News flash, I never said I knew how to solve the situation. Your plan solves some issues, but misses the major problems. These ideas do nothing for the poor. What I'm saying is every other plan, including yours, is worse than the pile of crap that's now in Congress. There's no perfect solution. You're right Iceman, I am dangerous. Dangerous to Constitution copulators and Luntz memo rehashers. If that's all you can come up with, then in the timeless words of Willy Wonka, "You lose! Good day sir!"

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Scapegoats, I think not. Your friends in congress set up the table for the corruption. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a free market failure. Banks in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans in the first place. They were forced to by government, i.e. Community Reinvestment Act.

So do you seriously think that unchecked capitalism has never called market failures? 'Cuz that's ridiculous.

 

[ffpickle]

So do you seriously think that unchecked capitalism has never called market failures? 'Cuz that's ridiculous.

you commie piece of ****. sept 14th, 2008 never happened.

 

[cjhrph]

So do you seriously think that unchecked capitalism has never called market failures? 'Cuz that's ridiculous.

Not at all. I was simply saying that Jimi's impression of the banks and insurance companies driving the bus over the cliff all by them themselves is untrue.

 

[Praziquantel86]

Big brother is fighting back. The thought police are out...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

 

[ffpickle]

Big brother is fighting back. The thought police are out...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

haha..it's lonely at the top.

some of the left-wing websites are not letting up in their criticism of obama's deal with big pharma....they've been lambasting him relentlessly ever since it happened.....and well, the far right-wing pretty much wants to kill him...cuz they're ****ed up & psycho like that.

 

[cjhrph]

some of the left-wing websites are not letting up in their criticism of obama's deal with big pharma....they've been lambasting him relentlessly ever since it happened.....

Good for them. God knows that all rest of those crazy democrats will certainly go ballistic when the next republican president makes the same sort of dirty deals to advance their own agenda.

 

[ffpickle]

Good for them. God knows that all rest of those crazy democrats will certainly go ballistic when the next republican president makes the same sort of dirty deals to advance their own agenda.

How do you know what God knows? That is presumptuous and blasphemous. Have fun in hell. Bitch.

 

[cjhrph]

How do you know what God knows? That is presumptuous and blasphemous. Have fun in hell. Bitch.

Did you forget to take your meds again? It's getting late and I am sure your group therapy has ended. Apparently, you still have serious issues to work through. Don't fear the guys in the white coats, they are there to help you.. Now go be good boy, take your pills, and get some rest... sweet dreams.. Bitch..

 

[farmist]

Obama and the democrats are no different from the republicans.

Yep, many of Obama's policies are similar to Bush's. If you think you voted for change you didn't. In this case they're both for gov't control of healthcare. Bush put Medicare D through and Obama wants universal care.

Profit should not be made off of peoples' health, period.

Without profit modern medicine doesn't exist, and will disappear.

Deciding who gets that is straight ****ed up. Does a 26 year old mother of 8 who is NEEDED to take care of her children, but is on welfare deserve a life-saving operation more than a rich elderly man with adult children? Now be honest...refusing the young mother of care...and her dying...wouldn't that put the entire system into madness as the state has to take care of 8 kids. I know this is a crazy hypothetical...but like you said, shades of gray. I just can't get on with the idea of funneling healthcare to certain people.

From the gov't standpoint, If the wealthy gentleman dies the gov't cashes in on his estate tax. If the welfare mother of 8 dies the gov't has to take care of 8 kids, but the gov't was already taking care of the 8 kids. Now they don't have to take care of the mother. Either way the gov't wins.

Actually Goldman Sachs along with the Wall Street elite control the federal govermnent.

The Obama Deception says the Bilderberg Group controls the gov't. Don't let the name fool you its anti-Bush too. It's long but good. Put on your tinfoil hats and enjoy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756

 

[WVUPharm2007]

From the gov't standpoint, If the wealthy gentleman dies the gov't cashes in on his estate tax. If the welfare mother of 8 dies the gov't has to take care of 8 kids, but the gov't was already taking care of the 8 kids. Now they don't have to take care of the mother. Either way the gov't wins.

Yes. Because it's so cheap to put 8 kids into foster care versus a regular home.

I'll be over here in the real world, thanks.

 

[Maxpwer222]

Did you forget to take your meds again? It's getting late and I am sure your group therapy has ended. Apparently, you still have serious issues to work through. Don't fear the guys in the white coats, they are there to help you.. Now go be good boy, take your pills, and get some rest... sweet dreams.. Bitch..

You don't handle criticism well do you? The Republicans are as wrong as the Democrats. Wake up

 

[cjhrph]

You don't handle criticism well do you? The Republicans are as wrong as the Democrats. Wake up

He called me bitch. And somehow that passes as "criticism" to you?