PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues How do Republicans and Conservatives want to fix health care?


dirk digler
08-18-2009, 04:32 PM
This is a serious question and one that I find elusive.

First they are against the public option and now they have come out against the co-op idea even though there is a working co-op up on Capital Hill.

So what do they want and how are they going to help fix health care or do they not care and want to maintain the status quo?

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 04:36 PM
Co-op is just a Trojan Horse for the same bull.

We need to fix govt if we're to fix healthcare and our economy.

Healthcare:
Separation of state and medicine.


KISS!

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 04:38 PM
Co-op is just a Trojan Horse for the same bull.

We need to fix govt if we're to fix healthcare and our economy.

Healthcare:
Separation of state and medicine.


KISS!

Why is it a Trojan horse when there is an actually working successful co-op being used on Capital Hill?

KC Dan
08-18-2009, 04:42 PM
I think that a one shot fix is not advantageous nor maybe even possible. I am not a republican but I am conservative leaning. I would start with:

1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

then

2) Enable the ability for individuals/businesses to purchase and utilize medical insurance across state lines.

then

3) Across the income range tax breaks (generous) for insurance purchase

then

4) Tort reform (and yes, I know KC Native will be along shortly to hammer)

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 04:42 PM
This is a serious question and one that I find elusive.

First they are against the public option and now they have come out against the co-op idea even though there is a working co-op up on Capital Hill.

So what do they want and how are they going to help fix health care or do they not care and want to maintain the status quo?

Status quo > Obamacare. If Obama had actually meant it when he said he would listen to other ideas he could have had a bill by now. But the Dems want it their way or no way as evidenced in how HR3200 came into being. There are plenty of Republican ideas out there but the Dems won't adopt any of them and they set the rules right now based on their election victory. I think the basic elements of the Republicans are (not necessarily in this particular order):

1. Stop Obamacare;
2. Make individual health insurance tax deductible;
3. Allow inter-state competition;
4. Impose meaningful tort reform;
5. Provide incentives for health care savings accounts;
6. Offer pay-as-you-go catastrophic health care policies.....

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 04:46 PM
Why is it a Trojan horse when there is an actually working successful co-op being used on Capital Hill?

Because that isn't what they will propose. And if they did it would bankrupt the healthcare system quicker than Obamacare would. If the government has oversight or dictates participation or coverage (which they won't be able to stop themselves from doing if they continue to want to fund it through a new tax) then it will fail. Either legislatively or economically -- but it will fail.

The same way the USPS failed.
The same way Fannie/Freddie failed.
The same way Social Security failed.
The same way Amtrak failed.
The same way Medicare failed.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 04:47 PM
I think that a one shot fix is not advantageous nor maybe even possible. I am not a republican but I am conservative leaning. I would start with:

1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

then

2) Enable the ability for individuals/businesses to purchase and utilize medical insurance across state lines.

then

3) Across the income range tax breaks (generous) for insurance purchase

then

4) Tort reform (and yes, I know KC Native will be along shortly to hammer)

1. agree
2. seems practical so why hasn't this been done long ago?
3. ?
4. I am all for tort reform as long as there is no caps. Make it punitive to bring frivolous lawsuits though.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 04:47 PM
Why is it a Trojan horse when there is an actually working successful co-op being used on Capital Hill?

Because it leads to the public option eventually. It's just another incremental step. Salon.com was actually like it for that very reason. That was a red flag.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 04:49 PM
1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

This too.

The whole Obamacare fraud of deriving two-thirds of the the plan's operating costs via waste/savings is an unsustainable goal and one that the independent CBO says the plan will not achieve. So when Obamacare is left with a huge hole in its projections who is going to fill it? Either more taxes on those that create economic growth, more taxes on the middle class, more deficit spending from China, or fewer services as is the case in most of the other places that have tried to implement a similar plan.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Status quo > Obamacare. If Obama had actually meant it when he said he would listen to other ideas he could have had a bill by now. But the Dems want it their way or no way as evidenced in how HR3200 came into being. There are plenty of Republican ideas out there but the Dems won't adopt any of them and they set the rules right now based on their election victory. I think the basic elements of the Republicans are (not necessarily in this particular order):

1. Stop Obamacare;
2. Make individual health insurance tax deductible;
3. Allow inter-state competition;
4. Impose meaningful tort reform;
5. Provide incentives for health care savings accounts;
6. Offer pay-as-you-go catastrophic health care policies.....

First status quo is not better than "Obamacare" and you are not being honest. The sad fact remains in less than 10 years we are going to be flat broke when 80 million baby boomers go into Medicare so we can't maintain the status quo.

I have no problem with #3 and #4 the rest won't change anything

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 04:51 PM
This is a serious question and one that I find elusive.

First they are against the public option and now they have come out against the co-op idea even though there is a working co-op up on Capital Hill.

So what do they want and how are they going to help fix health care or do they not care and want to maintain the status quo?

I believe the nuts and bolts of the Republican plan is to stop offering health care with tax incentives to businesses and instead provide them to the citizen. Citizens would receive a very sizeable tax incentive to encourage them to purchase insurance in the free market.

It's not perfect, but I like it better than the liberal proposal. The point is they should be meeting somewhere in between, but these stubborn douche bag liberals are screaming up and down about the public option and it's a load of shit. The problem is inefficiencies and high costs and the public option solves neither problem. The liberals are only pushing it as a solution because they have the power to. So while the Republicans don't have a solution per se, don't be fooled into thinking the liberals do either.

KC Dan
08-18-2009, 04:51 PM
1. agree
2. seems practical so why hasn't this been done long ago? lobbyists
3. ? how about tax-deductible
4. I am all for tort reform as long as there is no caps. Make it punitive to bring frivolous lawsuits though.i sorta (but only sorta) agree with no caps but punitive for frivolous ->Absolutely.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 04:52 PM
1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

Will never happen due to the nature of govt. Still worth a try.



2) Enable the ability for individuals/businesses to purchase and utilize medical insurance across state lines.
Nice! I like it!


3) Across the income range tax breaks (generous) for insurance purchase
Another good one.


4) Tort reform (and yes, I know KC Native will be along shortly to hammer)
Allow Negative Outcomes Insurance to be bought as one reform.

I'd add ending govt mandates allowing insurance to tailor and their own programs based on what the market is looking for including affordability issues without putting themselves out of business or unable to pay claims because people allege them as being greedy. They have to be somewhat miserly to stay in business and be there.

Free the market on pharmaceuticals including internationally despite the cries of special interest to protect them because of subsidization elsewhere.

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 04:52 PM
First status quo is not better than "Obamacare" and you are not being honest. The sad fact remains in less than 10 years we are going to be flat broke when 80 million baby boomers go into Medicare so we can't maintain the status quo.

I have no problem with #3 and #4 the rest won't change anything

Here's the problem with your argument.

You're absolutely right that the reason it's doomed in 10 years is due to cost. The public option actually raises costs. And it's going to force a limited supply of doctors to provide more care.

So you'll see higher costs and a shortage of doctors. As broken as our system is, Obamacare will be just as broken.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Because that isn't what they will propose. And if they did it would bankrupt the healthcare system quicker than Obamacare would. If the government has oversight or dictates participation or coverage (which they won't be able to stop themselves from doing if they continue to want to fund it through a new tax) then it will fail. Either legislatively or economically -- but it will fail.

The same way the USPS failed.
The same way Fannie/Freddie failed.
The same way Social Security failed.
The same way Amtrak failed.
The same way Medicare failed.

There are several co-ops all across the country and they are all pretty much the same. The only difference is how they would structure it via nationally or via regionally. I am not saying I am for it because I am not but they all work pretty much the same way.

DaneMcCloud
08-18-2009, 04:53 PM
3. Allow inter-state competition;


I don't think this will work.

Insurance companies are required by state law to have a minimum amount of liquid cash on hand at all times. If you fall below that minimum amount, you are fined. If it happens too often in a one year period, you're shut down.

The problem with inter-state competition is two-fold. First, there is no standard for the state minimums and secondly, what happens if you're insured in Utah while living in California and your insurance company closes shop? Who's going to cover you? The state of Utah? Nope . The state of California? No way.

It's like getting homeowner's insurance out of state. If choose an out of state carrier (let's say, from Kentucky) and there's a disaster in Kentucky that forces your carrier out of business the same day you have a fire, you're SOL. California won't cover you. Kentucky certainly won't cover you.

You're SOL.

I just can't see this working with healthcare, either.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 04:56 PM
First status quo is not better than "Obamacare" and you are not being honest. The sad fact remains in less than 10 years we are going to be flat broke when 80 million baby boomers go into Medicare so we can't maintain the status quo.

I have no problem with #3 and #4 the rest won't change anything

If you accept the notion (and I'll assume you do since it was your idea) that Medicare is going to bankrupt us how do you support Obamacare which essentially plans to impose the same system on EVERYONE instead of just a portion of the population?

Also, if you had the ability to do 2, 5, and 6 you would dent some of the costs significantly in the opinion of many so I'm not sure why you conclude it wouldn't change anything???

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 04:58 PM
There are several co-ops all across the country and they are all pretty much the same. The only difference is how they would structure it via nationally or via regionally. I am not saying I am for it because I am not but they all work pretty much the same way.

I just have no faith that Pelosi and Co. would allow them to operate independently -- but as I said when the idea was floated I would wait for the specifics. So far most of the evidence from the Dems who are discussing the issue is that it would be a public option with a different name.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:00 PM
I believe the nuts and bolts of the Republican plan is to stop offering health care with tax incentives to businesses and instead provide them to the citizen. Citizens would receive a very sizeable tax incentive to encourage them to purchase insurance in the free market.

It's not perfect, but I like it better than the liberal proposal. The point is they should be meeting somewhere in between, but these stubborn douche bag liberals are screaming up and down about the public option and it's a load of shit. The problem is inefficiencies and high costs and the public option solves neither problem. The liberals are only pushing it as a solution because they have the power to. So while the Republicans don't have a solution per se, don't be fooled into thinking the liberals do either.

Is that the plan McCain tried to run with because if it is no one like that idea.

Second I agree that we should be able to meet in the middle but at the same time we need to force competition or make it all single payer. Robert Gibbs explained it better today than I have heard the POTUS explain it. He said insurance companies are like monolpolies in every state. In his home state of Alabama Blue Cross has 89% market share and there is maybe 2-3 choices if that. So in alot of ways it is alot like cable compaines or utilities. Now is that because we don't allow inter-state competition and if so to me that is a common sense idea and I am curious why no one has changed that law.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:00 PM
I don't think this will work.

Insurance companies are required by state law to have a minimum amount of liquid cash on hand at all times. If you fall below that minimum amount, you are fined. If it happens too often in a one year period, you're shut down.

The problem with inter-state competition is two-fold. First, there is no standard for the state minimums and secondly, what happens if you're insured in Utah while living in California and your insurance company closes shop? Who's going to cover you? The state of Utah? Nope . The state of California? No way.

It's like getting homeowner's insurance out of state. If choose an out of state carrier (let's say, from Kentucky) and there's a disaster in Kentucky that forces your carrier out of business the same day you have a fire, you're SOL. California won't cover you. Kentucky certainly won't cover you.

You're SOL.

I just can't see this working with healthcare, either.


The too big to fail argument applies to all insurance, unfortunately, as we've just experienced.

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 05:00 PM
I think that a one shot fix is not advantageous nor maybe even possible. I am not a republican but I am conservative leaning. I would start with:

1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

then

2) Enable the ability for individuals/businesses to purchase and utilize medical insurance across state lines.

then

3) Across the income range tax breaks (generous) for insurance purchase

then

4) Tort reform (and yes, I know KC Native will be along shortly to hammer)

1) Exactly. And it's why everyone should be scared shitless of a public option. If medicare is filled with inefficiencies, why the hell would we trust that the public option won't be filled with the same inefficiencies (but on a grander scale)?
2) Agreed
3) I'm torn on this idea. But what I do believe needs to be done is to promote more transparency in the insurance market. Publish prices. Let patients be consumers. They've become very savvy about auto insurance--they have at least some idea of how much, for example, raising your liability coverage will affect your rates. If consumers become savvier, health care insurers have less ability to dupe their customers into buying less for more money. And force doctors to price based on outcome, not on procedures. Those are all really simple changes that would make a world of a difference.
4) Yes, absolutely. Absolutely!

Let me add in immigration reform. It pisses me off that my hard-earned dollars are being wasted on illegal immigrants who demand emergency room that they can't pay for. I would also funnel more dollars into promoting healthy habits--one of the reasons our insurance system is so expensive is because we eat like pigs and don't expect to pay the piper. We are the unhealthiest country in the world--no wonder we are so low in terms of healthcare outcomes. I also believe that the government must proactively force PRIVATE insurers to be more competitive. That's what Geico did to the auto insurance market, and auto insurers have followed in lockstep.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 05:01 PM
I don't think this will work.

Insurance companies are required by state law to have a minimum amount of liquid cash on hand at all times. If you fall below that minimum amount, you are fined. If it happens too often in a one year period, you're shut down.
Well homeowners insurance has been leaving the state of Florida due to hurricanes anyway. No one has been able to stop that.

The problem with inter-state competition is two-fold. First, there is no standard for the state minimums and secondly, what happens if you're insured in Utah while living in California and your insurance company closes shop? Who's going to cover you? The state of Utah? Nope . The state of California? No way.
The insurance here left because they lost so much money they couldn't offer insurance anymore to stay in business. Seems like they're looking after themselves so they could stay in business.

Let's take your theoretical example: I am just thinking out loud here because I don't know how insurance is set up completely but just using market based economics.

Why wouldn't an entrepreneurial minded insurance firm in some other state, say like Nebraska, that wants more market share step in and provide it? One insurance firms loss is another insurance firm's gain. Maybe a firm with lower overhead in another state with lower taxes, lower labor cost, and not enough population for a big enough market.

One of the main things I learned in economics is you can never predict what some maverick entrepreneur might come up....and they're more likely to come up with something unthought of like uncreative planners, bureaucrats or the average conventional thinking person. That's one way people get rich.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:04 PM
Here's the problem with your argument.

You're absolutely right that the reason it's doomed in 10 years is due to cost. The public option actually raises costs. And it's going to force a limited supply of doctors to provide more care.

So you'll see higher costs and a shortage of doctors. As broken as our system is, Obamacare will be just as broken.

The problem as I see it is that there is no plan out there now or in the future going to contain costs. So to me it is an unrealistic goal. The goal should be get everyone covered and have a good\great quality care.

DaneMcCloud
08-18-2009, 05:05 PM
Why wouldn't an entrepreneurial minded insurance firm in some other state, say like Nebraska, that wants more market share step in and provide it? One insurance firms loss is another insurance firm's gain. Maybe a firm with lower overhead in another state with lower taxes, lower labor cost, and not enough population for a big enough market.

One of the main things I learned in economics is you can never predict what some maverick entrepreneur might come up....and they're more likely to come up with something unthought of like uncreative planners and bureaucrats.

Because of the necessary state and federal regulations regarding the health insurance industry.

If you change those regulations, then you might as well throw the entire notion of health insurance out the window because the bottom line would be that the money wouldn't be there...

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 05:05 PM
The problem as I see it is that there is no plan out there now or in the future going to contain costs. So to me it is an unrealistic goal. The goal should be get everyone covered and have a good\great quality care.

You're a dreamer dirk. A utopian at heart.

Taco John
08-18-2009, 05:06 PM
This is a serious question and one that I find elusive.

First they are against the public option and now they have come out against the co-op idea even though there is a working co-op up on Capital Hill.

So what do they want and how are they going to help fix health care or do they not care and want to maintain the status quo?



I'm in favor of any co-op where only the people who are in the co-op are required to fund it. Or in other words, I'm in favor of having insurance companies.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:06 PM
Let me add in immigration reform. It pisses me off that my hard-earned dollars are being wasted on illegal immigrants who demand emergency room that they can't pay for. I would also funnel more dollars into promoting healthy habits--one of the reasons our insurance system is so expensive is because we eat like pigs and don't expect to pay the piper. We are the unhealthiest country in the world--no wonder we are so low in terms of healthcare outcomes. I also believe that the government must proactively force PRIVATE insurers to be more competitive. That's what Geico did to the auto insurance market, and auto insurers have followed in lockstep.

That's a sticky one but for those who aren't deadbeats the public plans offered in other countries certainly don't give you a break for the crappy care they provide if you land in one of their hospitals. I was in the UK when a friend was injured and ended up in the hospital and not only did he get exceptional public health care coverage (8 people in the same concrete-floored room -- sitting in between an elderly man who was taking his last breath and another guy who had the flu -- with one nurse for every 32 patients) but they billed him for 100% of the coverage (which at the time was much more than a hospital stay in the US).

We should just bill the Mexican government -- though our chances of collecting probably aren't any better... :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 05:07 PM
Because of the necessary state and federal regulations regarding the health insurance industry.

If you change those regulations, then you might as well throw the entire notion of health insurance out the window because the bottom line would be that the money wouldn't be there...

Well, I don't really understand what all those regs are but my hunch is some of them may be a hindrance since it's the state that hinders creativity in the market. I would think they'd want to stay in business out of their own interests for starters. But I know someone who works in insurance so I'll check it out.

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 05:07 PM
Is that the plan McCain tried to run with because if it is no one like that idea.

Second I agree that we should be able to meet in the middle but at the same time we need to force competition or make it all single payer. Robert Gibbs explained it better today than I have heard the POTUS explain it. He said insurance companies are like monolpolies in every state. In his home state of Alabama Blue Cross has 89% market share and there is maybe 2-3 choices if that. So in alot of ways it is alot like cable compaines or utilities. Now is that because we don't allow inter-state competition and if so to me that is a common sense idea and I am curious why no one has changed that law.

There are ways to force competition without forcing a public option. Look at Geico. They built a business model where they bypassed agency commissions and it shocked the system--a ton of low-cost direct insurance providers followed in lockstep. Now the auto insurance industry is extremely well-run--those who want better coverage can pay for better service with State Farm and Nationwide, and those who are willing to sacrifice good coverage go through Geico or a SafeAuto.

The problem is that businesses are buying insurance, because they get tax credits. Consumers have no idea what they are buying, and so it's giving businesses the opportunity to buy crappy insurance that their employees think are great deals. If you empower all customers to transparently see what is being covered, customers become very good shoppers. And I guarantee there will emerge a private player who will see the opportunity to provide cheap insurance to shoppers who only want very good deals. And if that cheap insurer steals enough market share, some in the industry will move in lockstep.

I'm not saying it's the absolute right answer. But I believe that you can force better competition without jamming a public option down everyone's throats. I would still contend that if you can clean up the costs and inefficiencies, that will lead to better premiums. And if you alter the system, you can easily promote more competition. And by the way, I'm not a fan of the Republican plan, but like I said, I believe it's a lot better than the public option.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:08 PM
The problem as I see it is that there is no plan out there now or in the future going to contain costs. So to me it is an unrealistic goal. The goal should be get everyone covered and have a good\great quality care.

You're assuming that the two goals can co-exist.

As you pointed out earlier Medicare is headed towards insolvency.

Making Medicare for all will just get us to that same point sooner -- no matter how much Obamacare tries to put the tab on rich people and small business.

DJ's left nut
08-18-2009, 05:08 PM
Federally? Nothing - do absolutely nothing. This isn't the Feds show.

Any significant healthcare initiatives should be done at the state level. That way if anyone has huge problems with shouldering the burden and/or diminished quality of care, they can leave that state.

If it is absolutely necessary that the Fed do anything, start with tort reform and increased oversight of state insurance regulatory commissions.

Cracking down on illegal immegration would also provide immediate benefits to our 'overtaxed' healthcare system.

Beyond that, status quo would be just fine with me. Again -- only 4% of Americans truly do not have access to 'affordable' healthcare. The rest simply refuse to go through the process or treat health insurance like auto insurance (you don't need every damn bell/whistle for your policy). In the meantime we continue to be on the cutting edge of medical science and provide care which is the envy of the world. That's an unfortunate 4%, but it's not the Fed's responsibility to ensure that nobody has a hard life. Sorry 4%, try getting a 2nd job.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:09 PM
If you accept the notion (and I'll assume you do since it was your idea) that Medicare is going to bankrupt us how do you support Obamacare which essentially plans to impose the same system on EVERYONE instead of just a portion of the population?

Also, if you had the ability to do 2, 5, and 6 you would dent some of the costs significantly in the opinion of many so I'm not sure why you conclude it wouldn't change anything???

That is why I support Medicare for all with a mandatory supplement or Medicare Advantage like plan. From the time you are born to the time you die you pay in monthly along with a little bit higher FICA tax which should even out since your employer based insurance isn't coming out of your paycheck.

The reason why I disagree with 2 is because it won't cover enough of the cost which is why people laughed at McCain's plan which was essentially that.

I admit I don't know much about 5 but 6 we already pretty much have

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:10 PM
I'm in favor of any co-op where only the people who are in the co-op are required to fund it. Or in other words, I'm in favor of having insurance companies.

Agreed.

DaneMcCloud
08-18-2009, 05:10 PM
The too big to fail argument applies to all insurance, unfortunately, as we've just experienced.

I'm not for NHC for everyone, either. But I don't want to change the way private insurance companies are required to handle their finances.

IMO, Washington should be working on ways to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals and the way they're charged to insurance companies, medical supplies (such as blood tests, syringes, etc.) and the way they're charged to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance and work on tort reform.

All three would go a long, long way to reduce the cost of healthcare.

Furthermore, I had a "Wall Street" friend put it to me this way. Take it for what it's worth:

First, the number of non-insured is way over-estimated. It's not 50 million, it's 45 million. Out of those 45 million, half don't have and don't want health insurance, so that number becomes 22 million. Out of those 22 million, at least 11 million are illegals. So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

There are far better solutions to the rising cost of health care.

KC Dan
08-18-2009, 05:11 PM
The problem is that businesses are buying insurance, because they get tax credits. Consumers have no idea what they are buying, and so it's giving businesses the opportunity to buy crappy insurance that their employees think are great deals. If you empower all customers to transparently see what is being covered, customers become very good shoppers. And I guarantee there will emerge a private player who will see the opportunity to provide cheap insurance to shoppers who only want very good deals. And if that cheap insurer steals enough market share, some in the industry will move in lockstep.
I would love to see that. I only know about my company's health plan costs because the President of the company had me working with him on some financial stuff and he divulged it. I would bet that 0.00001% of all workers who are covered at work have any clue how much their company pays out for them. I would also bet that at least 50% of them don't even know how much of their own check goes to that coverage.

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 05:13 PM
The problem as I see it is that there is no plan out there now or in the future going to contain costs. So to me it is an unrealistic goal. The goal should be get everyone covered and have a good\great quality care.

The reason why you don't see those plans is that the politicians are pulling the wool over our eyes. The liberals are suggesting that the problem is universal coverage, and not cost. And the conservatives are suggesting that the problem is in making it easier for consumers to buy health insurance. Both are only right to a very limited extent.

You're absolutely right--the central focus should be on cost. But the politicians are shifting the debate. I truly believe that increasing transparency is one of the most crucial ways to reform. And some politicians are pushing that, but they bundle that transparency with other things you don't need (like a public option).

KC Dan
08-18-2009, 05:13 PM
First, the number of non-insured is way over-estimated. It's not 50 million, it's 45 million. Out of those 45 million, half don't have and don't want health insurance, so that number becomes 22 million. Out of those 22 million, at least 11 million are illegals. So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

There are far better solutions to the rising cost of health care.
TRUE DAT!

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:13 PM
That is why I support Medicare for all with a mandatory supplement or Medicare Advantage like plan. From the time you are born to the time you die you pay in monthly along with a little bit higher FICA tax which should even out since your employer based insurance isn't coming out of your paycheck.

The reason why I disagree with 2 is because it won't cover enough of the cost which is why people laughed at McCain's plan which was essentially that.

I admit I don't know much about 5 but 6 we already pretty much have

But you'll never be able to tax your way out of the problem.

Empowering individuals to make their own choices is always preferable.

DaneMcCloud
08-18-2009, 05:14 PM
Well, I don't really understand what all those regs are but my hunch is some of them may be a hindrance since it's the state that hinders creativity in the market. I would think they'd want to stay in business out of their own interests for starters. But I know someone who works in insurance so I'll check it out.

Well, unfortunately, you're wrong.

My Dad ran insurance corporations in Missouri, Kansas & Florida during his 40 year career. In his opinion, there isn't enough regulation in the health insurance business (and he's a die-hard Republican).

People and corporations are sneaky. He told me about one instance where his parent company that was based overseas was going bankrupt. They called him and said "Hey, we're going bankrupt and can't get to our assets. Can you please do an inter-company transfer of $10 million dollars to us today? Thanks.". My dad hung up the phone and immediately called the state insurance commission. He was told not to transfer the money and to not have any contact with anyone from the parent company.

Of course, he followed the law perfectly. But others may not have.

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:14 PM
So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

Pssst! It's not really about health care at all.

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 05:16 PM
I'm not for NHC for everyone, either. But I don't want to change the way private insurance companies are required to handle their finances.

IMO, Washington should be working on ways to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals and the way they're charged to insurance companies, medical supplies (such as blood tests, syringes, etc.) and the way they're charged to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance and work on tort reform.

All three would go a long, long way to reduce the cost of healthcare.

Furthermore, I had a "Wall Street" friend put it to me this way. Take it for what it's worth:

First, the number of non-insured is way over-estimated. It's not 50 million, it's 45 million. Out of those 45 million, half don't have and don't want health insurance, so that number becomes 22 million. Out of those 22 million, at least 11 million are illegals. So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

There are far better solutions to the rising cost of health care.

Even though I disagreed with you before in the past about pharmaceuticals, I agree with you 100% on your last point. I HATE that people are throwing around the 50M uninsured figure.

I'm fine with my taxes going toward insuring those who legitimately cannot afford the necessary health insurance. I'm just frustrated that the liberals are hell-bent on a health care proposal that is going to force the majority of Americans to pay a higher premium (and taxes) for the health care coverage that they want. When the majority of the country pays an extremely high price for the sake of a few, the economics of that is all kinds of wrong.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:16 PM
You're a dreamer dirk. A utopian at heart.

I wouldn't say that I am just being realistic. If you look at all the plans across the world there isn't any that have cut costs or significantly anyway.

Maybe I am looking at this to simply but 10-15 years ago health care was pretty cheap just like gas and milk was. With all of our technological advances prices still go up not down.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:16 PM
First, the number of non-insured is way over-estimated. It's not 50 million, it's 45 million. Out of those 45 million, half don't have and don't want health insurance, so that number becomes 22 million. Out of those 22 million, at least 11 million are illegals. So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

There are far better solutions to the rising cost of health care.

I agree with this 100%.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2009, 05:21 PM
I wouldn't say that I am just being realistic. If you look at all the plans across the world there isn't any that have cut costs or significantly anyway.

Maybe I am looking at this to simply but 10-15 years ago health care was pretty cheap just like gas and milk was. With all of our technological advances prices still go up not down.

More government involvement will not lower prices. Unless you want to have some diminishing percentage of the kinds of care that most currently receive. Costs aren't going to go down just because Obama says they will. And fortunately most Americans no longer believe what he is trying to sell...

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:23 PM
The reason why you don't see those plans is that the politicians are pulling the wool over our eyes. The liberals are suggesting that the problem is universal coverage, and not cost. And the conservatives are suggesting that the problem is in making it easier for consumers to buy health insurance. Both are only right to a very limited extent.

You're absolutely right--the central focus should be on cost. But the politicians are shifting the debate. I truly believe that increasing transparency is one of the most crucial ways to reform. And some politicians are pushing that, but they bundle that transparency with other things you don't need (like a public option).

I just don't see any plan out there in the real world today that is going to cut costs. I just don't think it is realistic especially with the fact that this country is getting alot older with the baby boomers. It is going to cost an ass load to help them.

I do agree with you about getting rid of employer based insurance and transperency. I also totally agree with anyone that suggests we need to stop illegals like Donger from getting free health care.

KC Dan
08-18-2009, 05:24 PM
I wouldn't say that I am just being realistic. If you look at all the plans across the world there isn't any that have cut costs or significantly anyway.

Maybe I am looking at this to simply but 10-15 years ago health care was pretty cheap just like gas and milk was. With all of our technological advances prices still go up not down.It's all local mis-management, lobbyist influence and piss-poor program oversight. I may be way off base here but I know that many departments in almost ANY business (especially after a long good financial period) has massive waste and inefficiencies. Even more so with gov't run programs, the management is always wasteful. I believe this administration when they state that there is a lot of opportunity for savings within Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem with their approach in my eyes is that they want to tear down the Berlin wall and start over rather than putting competent people in place to eradicate the waste first. This is just a big joke to me. I took over one of the departments that I run now and I trimmed the expenses 50% in one year without laying off a soul or negatively impacting operations. I really believe that that can almost always be done in most organizations. Of course, I like my job and want my company to succeed because I know that if we do, we will all profit in the end.

That mindset is NOT in our gov't. It never has been and never will be. Healthcare should never be 100% in the hands of our gov't.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:24 PM
More government involvement will not lower prices. Unless you want to have some diminishing percentage of the kinds of care that most currently receive. Costs aren't going to go down just because Obama says they will. And fortunately most Americans no longer believe what he is trying to sell...

but doing the private way hasn't worked either so something has to give right? We just can't let insurance companies have free reign without government having some kind of control because they would fuck us over hard like they do to some extent already.

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:27 PM
but doing the private way hasn't worked either so something has to give right? We just can't let insurance companies have free reign without government having some kind of control because they would **** us over hard like they do to some extent already.

Didn't the insurance companies already agree to some rather drastic limits?

DJ's left nut
08-18-2009, 05:28 PM
I So the bottom line is that we're going to nationalize healthcare for 11 million people?

There are far better solutions to the rising cost of health care.

Like I said, it's an unfortunate 4%. This 1/6 garbage spewed forth just isn't accurate.

When we're dealing with #s this small, can we please avoid obliterating the entire system?

Nah, because that wouldn't create more dependants for the Libs to appeal to next election cycle.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2009, 05:29 PM
Also we do not have a healthcare system but a disease management system. Meanwhile our govt subsidizes cheap less-nutrient-dense foods and high-fructose sugars creating an epidemic of obesity.

When too much health insurance if provided, people don't practice self-care while demanding more health insurance and disease management, more doctoring, more treatments, more hospitalizations. Prevention is anathema to our medical, pharmaceutical complex. This is not financially sustainable.

Govt subsidization of insurance is turning healthcare into a medical factory line does not practice much prevention and promotes disease. Then once someone enters the health care system, the search for disease begins: mammograms, colonoscopies, stool tests, blood tests, CT scans while no routine testing is performed for vitamin C, vitamin D, folic acid, vitamin B12, red-cell magnesium, or essential oils. Instead, drugs are prescribed which induce nutritional deficiencies, ensuring more chronic disease or over-vaccination is promoted.

All of these things lead to skyrocketing prices due to over demand.

DaneMcCloud
08-18-2009, 05:31 PM
Didn't the insurance companies already agree to some rather drastic limits?

I really think this comes down to pharmaceutical and medical supply reform. I also believe computerizing and standardizing all medical records would make a tremendous difference in costs as well.

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:32 PM
Didn't the insurance companies already agree to some rather drastic limits?

I don't think they did. they got what they wanted

stevieray
08-18-2009, 05:33 PM
First off, you look at the solving the problems as nouns, not as divisive adjectives .

Replace fraud and greed with honor and integrity.

..like most problems we are facing today..it's generational. Most adversity is an opportunity to learn..problem is, we keep tryingt to eliminate adversity in our lives...our apathy leads to dependancy and bondage.

It wasn't too long ago that people knew what humility meant...because they were humbled...our poor still live better than most in the world.

Until people change their motives, nothing else will change.

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:34 PM
I don't think they did. they got what they wanted

I'll try to find it. I remember it because the CEOs went to the White House and basically bent over for Obama, so I was surprised.

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 05:35 PM
Even though I disagreed with you before in the past about pharmaceuticals, I agree with you 100% on your last point. I HATE that people are throwing around the 50M uninsured figure.

I'm fine with my taxes going toward insuring those who legitimately cannot afford the necessary health insurance. I'm just frustrated that the liberals are hell-bent on a health care proposal that is going to force the majority of Americans to pay a higher premium (and taxes) for the health care coverage that they want. When the majority of the country pays an extremely high price for the sake of a few, the economics of that is all kinds of wrong.

I got mine, fuck you. ;)

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 05:37 PM
It's all local mis-management, lobbyist influence and piss-poor program oversight. I may be way off base here but I know that many departments in almost ANY business (especially after a long good financial period) has massive waste and inefficiencies. Even more so with gov't run programs, the management is always wasteful. I believe this administration when they state that there is a lot of opportunity for savings within Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem with their approach in my eyes is that they want to tear down the Berlin wall and start over rather than putting competent people in place to eradicate the waste first. This is just a big joke to me. I took over one of the departments that I run now and I trimmed the expenses 50% in one year without laying off a soul or negatively impacting operations. I really believe that that can almost always be done in most organizations. Of course, I like my job and want my company to succeed because I know that if we do, we will all profit in the end.

That mindset is NOT in our gov't. It never has been and never will be. Healthcare should never be 100% in the hands of our gov't.

Don't make me repost my post on Medicare setasides and billing review practices AGAIN.

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:45 PM
I don't think they did. they got what they wanted

I have no idea what happened to this...

Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Philip Elliott, AP Writers – Sun May 10, 9:00 pm ET

_WASHINGTON_ – President Barack Obama's plan to provide medical insurance for all Americans took a big step toward becoming reality Sunday after leaders of the health care industry offered $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to help pay for the program.

Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors planned to tell Obama on Monday they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years in a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it.

With this move, Obama picks up key private-sector allies that fought former President Bill Clinton's effort to overhaul health care. Although the offer from the industry groups doesn't resolve thorny details of a new health care system, it does offer the prospect of freeing a large chunk of money to help pay for coverage. And it puts the private-sector groups in a good position to influence the bill Congress is writing. . .'

"If these cost savings are truly achievable, this may be the most significant development on the road to health care reform," said Pollack. "It would cut costs for families and businesses and enable subsidies to be offered so everyone has access to quality, affordable health care."

The groups include the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Service Employees International Union, the California Hospital Association and the Greater New York Hospital Association, which represents facilities in four states. . .'

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:46 PM
More:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/11/insurers-offer-obama-2-trillion-in-healthcare-cost-savings/

BigRedChief
08-18-2009, 05:46 PM
I think that a one shot fix is not advantageous nor maybe even possible. I am not a republican but I am conservative leaning. I would start with:

1) Clean up Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse immediately, first and foremost. If there is so much waste and savings available, why isn't this being done now? Why wait for a new health care bill.

then

2) Enable the ability for individuals/businesses to purchase and utilize medical insurance across state lines.

then

3) Across the income range tax breaks (generous) for insurance purchase

then

4) Tort reform (and yes, I know KC Native will be along shortly to hammer)
#1 agreed
#2 can you explain to me how selling insurance across state lines would decrease costs? Because I don't know of a state that has an upper hand in this and if only I could get a policy in that state I'd be on health care easy street.
#3 Tax breaks for the rich, again? Cap it at $500K per family and I'll sign on.
#4 Why? there is no evidence it will bring down malpractice insurance premiums and all kinds of evidence it would make health care more risker to recieve.

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 05:52 PM
#3 Tax breaks for the rich, again? Cap it at $500K per family and I'll sign on.
Can you read? It's breaks for insurance purchases, like the break for mortgage interest. WhoTF pays $500K annually for health insurance?

dirk digler
08-18-2009, 05:54 PM
I have no idea what happened to this...

Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Philip Elliott, AP Writers – Sun May 10, 9:00 pm ET

_WASHINGTON_ – President Barack Obama's plan to provide medical insurance for all Americans took a big step toward becoming reality Sunday after leaders of the health care industry offered $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to help pay for the program.

Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors planned to tell Obama on Monday they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years in a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it.

With this move, Obama picks up key private-sector allies that fought former President Bill Clinton's effort to overhaul health care. Although the offer from the industry groups doesn't resolve thorny details of a new health care system, it does offer the prospect of freeing a large chunk of money to help pay for coverage. And it puts the private-sector groups in a good position to influence the bill Congress is writing. . .'

"If these cost savings are truly achievable, this may be the most significant development on the road to health care reform," said Pollack. "It would cut costs for families and businesses and enable subsidies to be offered so everyone has access to quality, affordable health care."

The groups include the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Service Employees International Union, the California Hospital Association and the Greater New York Hospital Association, which represents facilities in four states. . .'

IIRC alot more info has been revealed and it appears the insurance companies got a huge break or giveaway out of those negotiations. If I have time I will go look for that.

BigRedChief
08-18-2009, 05:54 PM
Can you read? It's breaks for insurance purchases, like the break for mortgage interest. WhoTF pays $500K annually for health insurance?
Household income not to exceed $500K. If you are pulling in $500K the taxpayer doesn't need to give you assistance to pay a health care premium.

Reaper16
08-18-2009, 05:57 PM
First off, you look at the solving the problems as nouns, not as divisive adjectives .

Replace fraud and greed with honor and integrity.

..like most problems we are facing today..it's generational. Most adversity is an opportunity to learn..problem is, we keep tryingt to eliminate adversity in our lives...our apathy leads to dependancy and bondage.

It wasn't too long ago that people knew what humility meant...because they were humbled...our poor still live better than most in the world.

Until people change their motives, nothing else will change.
How in the world do we reform human motive?

Donger
08-18-2009, 05:58 PM
How in the world do we reform human motive?

Have you never seen ST:TNG?

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Household income not to exceed $500K. If you are pulling in $500K the taxpayer doesn't need to give you assistance to pay a health care premium.

But a guy who's making more than $500K working for a company that provides insurance is getting that with a tax break.

So, your slogan is 'healthcare for all, except successful entrepreneurs?'

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 06:01 PM
How in the world do we reform human motive?


http://tinyurl.com/m95yo6

Donger
08-18-2009, 06:01 PM
But a guy who's making more than $500K working for a company that provides insurance is getting that with a tax break.

So, your slogan is 'healthcare for all, except successful entrepreneurs?'

LMAO

I foresee a classic BRC class warfare outburst in.

Three.
Two.
One!

BigRedChief
08-18-2009, 06:04 PM
But a guy who's making more than $500K working for a company that provides insurance is getting that with a tax break.

So, your slogan is 'healthcare for all, except successful entrepreneurs?'
uhhhh whose slogan? I never have been an advocate for mandated health insurance for all.

Calcountry
08-18-2009, 06:06 PM
Co-op is just a Trojan Horse for the same bull.

We need to fix govt if we're to fix healthcare and our economy.

Healthcare:
Separation of state and medicine.


KISS!I agree, health care needs reform, but what the dumbocrats don't get, is that the American people hired THEM the dumbocrats to fix it, and the American people, don't like the cure that the dumbocrats are offering. A lot of them feel as if they were lied to about the change and hope that was promised to them.

I have news for you left wing kool aid, proud drinking fools. It aint the responsibility of the Republicans to deliver health care reform.

Remember all that, we need change shit last cycle? Remember how bad Bush was? That dog don't hunt no more.

Baby Lee
08-18-2009, 06:10 PM
uhhhh whose slogan? I never have been an advocate for mandated health insurance for all.

You do realize you are arbitrarily singling out one very small group for penalty. Employers get tax breaks for insurance, regardless of income of the recipient. Under KC Dan's proposal, the same would apply to individuals. Under your caveat only successful people who buy their own insurance would be singled out.
What do you estimate the revenue potential of this bit of envy will glean anyway? How about after people restructure to make themselves employees of a shell or find employment elsewhere, costing us an entrepreneur?

patteeu
08-18-2009, 06:28 PM
This is a serious question and one that I find elusive.

First they are against the public option and now they have come out against the co-op idea even though there is a working co-op up on Capital Hill.

So what do they want and how are they going to help fix health care or do they not care and want to maintain the status quo?

Yeah, pretty elusive. I googled "republican health care plan" and among the results on the first page were:

House Republicans Offer Health Care Plan - Political Hotsheet ... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fblogs%2F2009%2F06%2F17%2Fpolitics%2Fpoliticalhotsheet%2Fentry5093 897.shtml&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNH2R0-RPqw2w7FnTjsh8Q6Wyb9f3w) (from CBSNews)

Republican Health Care Plan Unveiled (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F05%2F20%2Frepublican-health-care-pl_n_205728.html&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNF5W79oiuzM2d4CXqJgigZMIuz9ww) (from HuffingtonPost)

The GOP's Health-Care Alternative - WSJ.com (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB124277551107536875.html&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNEgXxGr9-zlqqH_8QzHSITiqBchfw) (from the Wall Street Journal)

BigRedChief
08-18-2009, 06:42 PM
Yeah, pretty elusive. I googled "republican health care plan" and among the results on the first page were:


House Republicans Offer Health Care Plan - Political Hotsheet ... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fblogs%2F2009%2F06%2F17%2Fpolitics%2Fpoliticalhotsheet%2Fentry5093 897.shtml&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNH2R0-RPqw2w7FnTjsh8Q6Wyb9f3w) (from CBSNews)

Republican Health Care Plan Unveiled (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F05%2F20%2Frepublican-health-care-pl_n_205728.html&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNF5W79oiuzM2d4CXqJgigZMIuz9ww) (from HuffingtonPost)

The GOP's Health-Care Alternative - WSJ.com (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB124277551107536875.html&ei=3TeLSqWQKYiOtAP8jpDIDQ&usg=AFQjCNEgXxGr9-zlqqH_8QzHSITiqBchfw) (from the Wall Street Journal)

Let me guess.....tax breaks for the wealthy?

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 07:00 PM
#1 agreed
#2 can you explain to me how selling insurance across state lines would decrease costs? Because I don't know of a state that has an upper hand in this and if only I could get a policy in that state I'd be on health care easy street.
#3 Tax breaks for the rich, again? Cap it at $500K per family and I'll sign on.
#4 Why? there is no evidence it will bring down malpractice insurance premiums and all kinds of evidence it would make health care more risker to recieve.

So you don't think it's just a tad unfair that doctors are paying literally over $100,000 in malpractice insurance so that you have a right to sue him?

Look... health care reform is going to make life very difficult for doctors. They'll probably lose quite a bit of an income and be asked to provide a lot more care than they're used to. We don't have enough doctors in the first place. If you don't cap malpractice insurance but insist on reform, I guarantee there will be a lot of doctors who refuse to practice.

banyon
08-18-2009, 07:07 PM
Because that isn't what they will propose. And if they did it would bankrupt the healthcare system quicker than Obamacare would. If the government has oversight or dictates participation or coverage (which they won't be able to stop themselves from doing if they continue to want to fund it through a new tax) then it will fail. Either legislatively or economically -- but it will fail.

The same way the USPS failed.
The same way Fannie/Freddie failed.
The same way Social Security failed.
The same way Amtrak failed.
The same way Medicare failed.

You're jumping the gun on a few of those aren't you?

chiefzilla1501
08-18-2009, 07:12 PM
I really think this comes down to pharmaceutical and medical supply reform. I also believe computerizing and standardizing all medical records would make a tremendous difference in costs as well.

It's not that easy. Again, the reason pharma costs are so high is largely because of America's ridiculous obsession with over-protecting their citizens. The biggest costs in the pharma industry goes toward having enough reserves to protect themselves in case they get sued for multi-billion dollars. The next biggest is that they have to sink the R&D for 20 drugs just so that only 1 can pass. And it's costly to even get that 1 drug to market.

The surest way to cut down on pharma expenses is to loosen FDA restrictions or to not become so litigious about 5% of patients experiencing complications, while the other 95% are perfectly fine.

These reforms are necessary and will be helpful, but there's also a large cost for only minor reform. If pharma gets less money, their first expense they will cut is R&D. And that means less breakthrough drugs. I don't want that. There are other ways to reform without sacrificing the quality of care to most citizens.

patteeu
08-18-2009, 09:12 PM
The problem as I see it is that there is no plan out there now or in the future going to contain costs. So to me it is an unrealistic goal. The goal should be get everyone covered and have a good\great quality care.

If they raise *your* income tax rate to 50% or more to pay for it are you still in favor? Expanding coverage and maintaining quality are going to exacerbate the cost problem that our health care system already faces. Medicare is already headed toward bankruptcy, but your idea is going to speed up the process.

patteeu
08-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Let me guess.....tax breaks for the wealthy?

You don't have to guess, I went to the trouble of providing working links. All you have to do is click and read unless you want us to start a government program to spoon feed it to you.

RINGLEADER
08-19-2009, 10:13 AM
but doing the private way hasn't worked either so something has to give right? We just can't let insurance companies have free reign without government having some kind of control because they would **** us over hard like they do to some extent already.

Replace the words "insurance companies" with "government" and your statement is equally accurate.

There are many things that could be undertaken to immediately lower costs (which is where the plan will sink or swim and where independent analysis says Obamacare will fail spectacularly) but the Dems don't want to try them. They want to blow up the system before they even know if their plan will work. In fact, they want to blow up the system when there is evidence and analysis that shows their plan WON'T work. It's crazy.

RINGLEADER
08-19-2009, 10:22 AM
You're jumping the gun on a few of those aren't you?

Which ones are operating as originally conceived? If you're losing billions a year despite a government subsidy then you've failed. If you're holding toxic loans that outstrip your assets and requires tens of billions of dollars be infused because of mis-management then you've failed. If a program that was supposed to last forever shows that it won't be able to pay out its obligations in the near-future then you've failed.

Fact is the government makes projections and they're wrong more often than not. The 10-year projections Obama is making will likely be wrong as well. And even if they are 100% correct they completely ignore the fact that the system becomes overloaded AFTER 10 years and the costs to the plan explode. It's unsustainable -- unless you raise taxes on more people, cut services, or increase the debt. And when that happens what are we going to do?

RINGLEADER
08-19-2009, 10:24 AM
If they raise *your* income tax rate to 50% or more to pay for it are you still in favor? Expanding coverage and maintaining quality are going to exacerbate the cost problem that our health care system already faces. Medicare is already headed toward bankruptcy, but your idea is going to speed up the process.

:clap:

The whole "but it's the rich guy's fault" also ignores the fact that the poor don't hire people and that there ultimately aren't enough rich people to keep the plan going once it starts.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 10:49 AM
JHC banyon is one greedy something for nothin' dude.

craneref
08-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Let me guess.....tax breaks for the wealthy?

Somebody explain to me the difference between racisim and class warfare! Why is it wrong for EVERY American to pay the same tax rate. If it is 12% for someone who makes $20,000 a year why isn't it the same for someone who makes $1,000,000 a year. Of course the difference is that the person making $20,000 a year doesn't pay taxes period, but of course they use less government resources! The person who some consider "rich" doesn't have more votes for any elected representative, they don't have more representation, so why should they pay a higher percentage of tax? I think it is not coincidentaly that no one make the connection between high taxes and the loss of charitible giving. I know that most Americans are more charitaible if they have more of their own money to spend. The REAL problem is the lack of Tort reform and the fact that any person who sues the medical inducstry usually wins HUGE amounts of money from the jury's who continue to award this large money. The Government is never the solution to the betterment of our lives, it is usually the problem. The Constitution does not guarantee us all helathcare, a new house, two cars and an X-Box 360, but somehow some Americans believe it does. I am all for fixing a problem, but not for throwing money that we don't have at the symptoms.

BigRedChief
08-19-2009, 10:55 AM
Somebody explain to me the difference between racisim and class warfare! Why is it wrong for EVERY American to pay the same tax rate. If it is 12% for someone who makes $20,000 a year why isn't it the same for someone who makes $1,000,000 a year.
It's called a progressive tax system. One thats been in place since the 30's. The more you benefit from our system, the more you should have to give back. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The richest 1% of Americans got 90% of the $700 billion tax cuts that the Bush gave to the wealthy. I think we as taxpayers are done subsidizing the wealthy.

Donger
08-19-2009, 10:59 AM
It's called a progressive tax system. One thats been in place since the 30's. The more you benefit from our system, the more you should have to give back. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The richest 1% of Americans got 90% of the $700 billion tax cuts that the Bush gave to the wealthy. I think we as taxpayers are done subsidizing the wealthy.

And how much of the total tax burden does that evil 1% "contribute"?

craneref
08-19-2009, 11:03 AM
It's called a progressive tax system. One thats been in place since the 30's. The more you benefit from our system, the more you should have to give back. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The richest 1% of Americans got 90% of the $700 billion tax cuts that the Bush gave to the wealthy. I think we as taxpayers are done subsidizing the wealthy.

How are we "subsidizing" the rich by letting them keep their fair share of the moeny? Progressive tax rates were jsut the first step in the redistribution of wealth, which was all the rage in the 30's, better known as the depression and the first big government socialist step by FDR. I see you saying that you don't want fair, you want equal. I tell you what, make EVERY American pay taxes and I will reconsider what I think is fair! How many of that remaining 99% of Americans don't pay taxes period? Don't they use a greater share of government resources, so are we not ruly subsidizing them? I have no problem with lending a helping hand, I believe it is our civic cuty, but creating a welfare state is not. The freedom in America to become whatever you want and make whatever you want dhouls not be dampened by successess penalties, presented by the liberals as a progressive tax. Even with the President Bush tax cuts, those so-called "wealthy" were still paying more than double than the average American. Class warfare is a basic socialist mantra, hate the people who have money, they are evil, trust us who have just as much money but say we are on your side to get elected to have all the power.

patteeu
08-19-2009, 11:10 AM
BigRedChief isn't called Red for nothing.

Dirk Digler, on the other hand, isn't called Dirk Digler for anything. :p

mlyonsd
08-19-2009, 11:13 AM
Somebody explain to me the difference between racisim and class warfare! Why is it wrong for EVERY American to pay the same tax rate. If it is 12% for someone who makes $20,000 a year why isn't it the same for someone who makes $1,000,000 a year. Of course the difference is that the person making $20,000 a year doesn't pay taxes period, but of course they use less government resources! The person who some consider "rich" doesn't have more votes for any elected representative, they don't have more representation, so why should they pay a higher percentage of tax? I think it is not coincidentaly that no one make the connection between high taxes and the loss of charitible giving. I know that most Americans are more charitaible if they have more of their own money to spend. The REAL problem is the lack of Tort reform and the fact that any person who sues the medical inducstry usually wins HUGE amounts of money from the jury's who continue to award this large money. The Government is never the solution to the betterment of our lives, it is usually the problem. The Constitution does not guarantee us all helathcare, a new house, two cars and an X-Box 360, but somehow some Americans believe it does. I am all for fixing a problem, but not for throwing money that we don't have at the symptoms.

Nothing is wrong with the idea everyone should pay the same tax rate. We'd be much better off now if the progressive system had never been implemented and the idea 'someone else should pay for all America's burdens and follies' had never been implanted in generations of our citizens.

Many many people now days actually believe they have a right to someone elses money. They really do think another human being should pay more of their share for services used. They have no problem promoting or wanting programs that cost money while at the same time believing they shouldn't have to help pay for them. Then the worst part is they pass those belief's to their kids.

Rinse, repeat several times, and and you have the mess we have today.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 11:14 AM
BigRedChief isn't called Red for nothing. Dirk Digler, on the other hand, isn't called that for anything. :p

I reckon Big Red Robin Hood knew Ronald Reagan was gonna put his guys out of business so he wanted to jump on the winning side's bandwagon.....then later bring it down from the inside.

patteeu
08-19-2009, 11:18 AM
I reckon Big Red Robin Hood knew Ronald Reagan was gonna put his guys out of business so he wanted to jump on the winning side's bandwagon.....then later bring it down from the inside.

Even though he's recently touted his Reagan votes as evidence that he's not the leftist that he can appear to be around here, he's also said that that support was an error (in retrospect) before so I don't think it really reflects today's BRC in any significant way.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 11:18 AM
Oh! Thank you for telling me that.

patteeu
08-19-2009, 11:20 AM
Oh! Thank you for telling me that.

I think he'd be hard pressed to find many of Reagan's domestic policy ideas that he could agree with today. He'd probably be less opposed to Reagan's neo-con-friendly foreign policy views.

Chief Henry
08-19-2009, 11:30 AM
BigRedChief isn't called Red for nothing.

Dirk Digler, on the other hand, isn't called Dirk Digler for anything. :p

ROFL

patteeu
08-19-2009, 11:35 AM
Somebody explain to me the difference between racisim and class warfare! Why is it wrong for EVERY American to pay the same tax rate. If it is 12% for someone who makes $20,000 a year why isn't it the same for someone who makes $1,000,000 a year. Of course the difference is that the person making $20,000 a year doesn't pay taxes period, but of course they use less government resources! The person who some consider "rich" doesn't have more votes for any elected representative, they don't have more representation, so why should they pay a higher percentage of tax? I think it is not coincidentaly that no one make the connection between high taxes and the loss of charitible giving. I know that most Americans are more charitaible if they have more of their own money to spend. The REAL problem is the lack of Tort reform and the fact that any person who sues the medical inducstry usually wins HUGE amounts of money from the jury's who continue to award this large money. The Government is never the solution to the betterment of our lives, it is usually the problem. The Constitution does not guarantee us all helathcare, a new house, two cars and an X-Box 360, but somehow some Americans believe it does. I am all for fixing a problem, but not for throwing money that we don't have at the symptoms.

Anyone who wants a preview of Obamacare rationing for the elderly need only watch the way the rich are treated by the left when it comes to the tax code.

I am finally scared of a White House administration (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3)
By Nat Hentoff

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years — or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains (Undue influence," Aug. 8): the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney … and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.

Significantly, Lane adds that, "The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint)."

But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are "purely voluntary." In response, Lane — who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter — advises us:

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. "Patients," notes Lane, "may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority."

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?

I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice — for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations — by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives — and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.

Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy — as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?

Donger
08-19-2009, 11:37 AM
I've always wondered what Soylent Green tastes like.

pikesome
08-19-2009, 11:57 AM
I've always wondered what Soylent Green tastes like.

I wonder if you can get Alzheimers in much the same way as Mad Cow Disease.

Hoover
08-19-2009, 11:59 AM
Here is the Hoover solution.

1. Create new Medicare reimbursement formulas that rewards the quality of care given, not the quantity which we currently do. We need to encourage doctors to find cures, not repeat visits.
2. Tort reform. Currently many physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine. We need to eliminate the threat of frivolous lawsuits so they can focus on healing instead of doing everything possible to cover their ass.
3. Eliminate all state and federal coverage mandates. Currently state legislators tell insurance companies what they must cover in their insurance plans they offer. This does nothing but increase costs. Instead the consumer should be able to sit down with an insurance agent and create a plan that works for them without the government’s hand in the process. Look maybe I don’t want mental health coverage, feel the need to have a plan that covers birth control or Viagra.
4. Eliminate the barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing an insurance plan from another state. The current system creates monopolies not competition. In Iowa Wellmark controls 80% of market. That’s not good for consumers. If there is a plan in New Hampshire that fits me I should be able to go buy it.
5. Decouple heath insurance with employment. Face it people don’t one at one place their entire career anymore. What the government could do is provide every worker with medical savings account where the individual and their employer could make tax free contributions to. The consumer then could use that account to pay for prescriptions, doctors’ visits, or purchase a traditional health insurance policy.

All of these things can be accomplished without asking the American taxpayer for another dime or taking anyone’s freedoms away.

mlyonsd
08-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Anyone who wants a preview of Obamacare rationing for the elderly need only watch the way the rich are treated by the left when it comes to the tax code.



Obama's already proven he'd throw his grandma under the bus, why would anyone think he wouldn't throw theirs?

patteeu
08-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Here is the Hoover solution.

1. Create new Medicare reimbursement formulas that rewards the quality of care given, not the quantity which we currently do. We need to encourage doctors to find cures, not repeat visits.
2. Tort reform. Currently many physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine. We need to eliminate the threat of frivolous lawsuits so they can focus on healing instead of doing everything possible to cover their ass.
3. Eliminate all state and federal coverage mandates. Currently state legislators tell insurance companies what they must cover in their insurance plans they offer. This does nothing but increase costs. Instead the consumer should be able to sit down with an insurance agent and create a plan that works for them without the government’s hand in the process. Look maybe I don’t want mental health coverage, feel the need to have a plan that covers birth control or Viagra.
4. Eliminate the barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing an insurance plan from another state. The current system creates monopolies not competition. In Iowa Wellmark controls 80% of market. That’s not good for consumers. If there is a plan in New Hampshire that fits me I should be able to go buy it.
5. Decouple heath insurance with employment. Face it people don’t one at one place their entire career anymore. What the government could do is provide every worker with medical savings account where the individual and their employer could make tax free contributions to. The consumer then could use that account to pay for prescriptions, doctors’ visits, or purchase a traditional health insurance policy.

All of these things can be accomplished without asking the American taxpayer for another dime or taking anyone’s freedoms away.

What happens when most people under cover themselves and then later, when they need a specific coverage that they decided not to purchase, they end up being sad cases on the news? For example, what happens when a bunch of young women don't bother getting coverage for care related to pregnancy because they have no intention of getting pregnant any time soon only to have an "accident"? Is it abortion (if they purchased that coverage) or nothing for them?

patteeu
08-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Obama's already proven he'd throw his grandma under the bus, why would anyone think he wouldn't throw theirs?

Good point.

Radar Chief
08-19-2009, 12:08 PM
100.

BigRedChief
08-19-2009, 12:50 PM
I think he'd be hard pressed to find many of Reagan's domestic policy ideas that he could agree with today. He'd probably be less opposed to Reagan's neo-con-friendly foreign policy views.
Yes, I'd probably not vote for Ronald Regan is he were to magically rise from the dead run on the same platform as he did in 1984 in 2012. but, I do think I'm more inclinded to use force overseas against our enemies that you wimps.;)

BigRedChief
08-19-2009, 12:50 PM
100.
uh so?:hmmm:

BigRedChief
08-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Here is the Hoover solution.

1. Create new Medicare reimbursement formulas that rewards the quality of care given, not the quantity which we currently do. We need to encourage doctors to find cures, not repeat visits.
2. Tort reform. Currently many physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine. We need to eliminate the threat of frivolous lawsuits so they can focus on healing instead of doing everything possible to cover their ass.
3. Eliminate all state and federal coverage mandates. Currently state legislators tell insurance companies what they must cover in their insurance plans they offer. This does nothing but increase costs. Instead the consumer should be able to sit down with an insurance agent and create a plan that works for them without the government’s hand in the process. Look maybe I don’t want mental health coverage, feel the need to have a plan that covers birth control or Viagra.
4. Eliminate the barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing an insurance plan from another state. The current system creates monopolies not competition. In Iowa Wellmark controls 80% of market. That’s not good for consumers. If there is a plan in New Hampshire that fits me I should be able to go buy it.
5. Decouple heath insurance with employment. Face it people don’t one at one place their entire career anymore. What the government could do is provide every worker with medical savings account where the individual and their employer could make tax free contributions to. The consumer then could use that account to pay for prescriptions, doctors’ visits, or purchase a traditional health insurance policy.

All of these things can be accomplished without asking the American taxpayer for another dime or taking anyone’s freedoms away.
1. Sounds good to me.
2. Never going to fly with me. I saw the way Doctors behave when there is no restraint. No thanks.
3. I agree with this. Buy what you need or want as individuals.
4. How does selling insurance across state lines lower costs? Is there some state that selling a great insurance plan that we don't have access too?
5. Agreed on this too. Employers give you some cash to buy a retail plan. But we would have to make it mandatory to take that money and buy health "stuff" or people would just pocket the money and then if they get sick, we taxpayers would be paying their medical bills.

Hoover
08-19-2009, 01:40 PM
What happens when most people under cover themselves and then later, when they need a specific coverage that they decided not to purchase, they end up being sad cases on the news? For example, what happens when a bunch of young women don't bother getting coverage for care related to pregnancy because they have no intention of getting pregnant any time soon only to have an "accident"? Is it abortion (if they purchased that coverage) or nothing for them?
Its called personal responsibility. We need more of it not less.

memyselfI
08-19-2009, 01:42 PM
Obama's already proven he'd throw his grandma under the bus, why would anyone think he wouldn't throw theirs?

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 01:42 PM
Dirk Digler, on the other hand, isn't called Dirk Digler for anything. :p

Your wife would say different ;)


:p

Hoover
08-19-2009, 01:44 PM
1. Sounds good to me.
2. Never going to fly with me. I saw the way Doctors behave when there is no restraint. No thanks.
3. I agree with this. Buy what you need or want as individuals.
4. How does selling insurance across state lines lower costs? Is there some state that selling a great insurance plan that we don't have access too?
5. Agreed on this too. Employers give you some cash to buy a retail plan. But we would have to make it mandatory to take that money and buy health "stuff" or people would just pocket the money and then if they get sick, we taxpayers would be paying their medical bills.
I'm not saying that you can't sue a doctor, there just needs to be limitations. I would also add that if a Doctor is really bad, patients and families should be able to file actions that could lead them to losing their license, mush like we deal with bad attorneys.

#4 adds competition which is good for consumers.

orange
08-19-2009, 02:15 PM
I am finally scared of a White House administration (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3)
By Nat Hentoff

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. "Patients," notes Lane, "may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority."



I wonder - do patients "bow to white-coated authority" when the doctor recommends unnecessary tests or treatments? Would Mr. Lane admit that?

I wanted to post this comment on JWR but they only have an email link. I sent it anyway - kind of doubt I'll ever get an answer, though.

DaneMcCloud
08-19-2009, 02:23 PM
Here is the Hoover solution.

4. Eliminate the barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing an insurance plan from another state. The current system creates monopolies not competition. In Iowa Wellmark controls 80% of market. That’s not good for consumers. If there is a plan in New Hampshire that fits me I should be able to go buy it.

You'd have to create a Federal Insurance Regulatory Commission to oversee every single insurance agency to make sure they have the minimum amount of funding for operating costs, among many other things.

State to state health insurance is just not a possibility. There are just way too many regulatory issues.

The Rick
08-19-2009, 02:30 PM
Its called personal responsibility. We need more of it not less.
:thumb:

patteeu
08-19-2009, 04:05 PM
Its called personal responsibility. We need more of it not less.

Except that it won't work out that way. People who neglect to take responsibility for themselves by buying basic coverage will not be turned away when they show up at the hospital emergency room. It's a wonderful concept, but it's not realistic, IMO. (BTW, I agree with all of your other points).

I agree that we need more of it, not less, but I think a more realistic idea would be to require people to purchase a bare bones, catastrophic coverage policy of some sort and then let them individually decide on how much coverage above and beyond that policy they want to carry. And then we need to be willing to let people who fail to cover themselves adequately suffer the consequences.

patteeu
08-19-2009, 04:07 PM
I wonder - do patients "bow to white-coated authority" when the doctor recommends unnecessary tests or treatments? Would Mr. Lane admit that?

I wanted to post this comment on JWR but they only have an email link. I sent it anyway - kind of doubt I'll ever get an answer, though.

Of course they do and I don't know why Mr. Lane wouldn't admit it (or why it would be characterized as an admission, for that matter, since it is consistent with what he's saying to begin with).

orange
08-19-2009, 04:14 PM
Of course they do and I don't know why Mr. Lane wouldn't admit it (or why it would be characterized as an admission, for that matter, since it is consistent with what he's saying to begin with).

Then why shouldn't doctors be required to present the full spectrum of options - including hospice, etc. - instead of just the money-making or ego-enhancing or liability-deflecting or religiously-self-justifying ones? ... i.e. the doctor-first options?

chiefzilla1501
08-19-2009, 04:20 PM
1. Sounds good to me.
2. Never going to fly with me. I saw the way Doctors behave when there is no restraint. No thanks.
3. I agree with this. Buy what you need or want as individuals.
4. How does selling insurance across state lines lower costs? Is there some state that selling a great insurance plan that we don't have access too?
5. Agreed on this too. Employers give you some cash to buy a retail plan. But we would have to make it mandatory to take that money and buy health "stuff" or people would just pocket the money and then if they get sick, we taxpayers would be paying their medical bills.

On tort reform....
So, if nobody had to worry about auto insurance, then drivers would probably drive recklessly and get into a LOT more accidents. Auto insurance is necessary to keep accidents down. Does that mean that you should have to pay $100,000+ in auto insurance premiums every year to do that?

How can anyone possibly defend a system where one person has to pay over $100,000 PER YEAR to insure him/herself against damages. The right to sue is a necessary evil, but in no way does it justify those outrageous premiums.

The right to sue in this country is weighing us down in so many ways.

googlegoogle
08-19-2009, 04:29 PM
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/may-2009/what-is-driving-rising-healthcare-costs

chiefzilla1501
08-19-2009, 04:30 PM
It's called a progressive tax system. One thats been in place since the 30's. The more you benefit from our system, the more you should have to give back. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The richest 1% of Americans got 90% of the $700 billion tax cuts that the Bush gave to the wealthy. I think we as taxpayers are done subsidizing the wealthy.

The progressive tax system is necessary, but your explanation about taxation is exactly the mindset that pisses me off. It's not a hard concept to grasp--most people who make a lot of money got to that point through a lot of hard work, blood, sweat, or tears. And excuse me, but I didn't benefit much from "the system." I paid a lot of good money for college and graduate school, and worked my tail off to earn two degrees. I benefited because I put a lot of time and work and money into making myself better.

While progressive taxation is a necessary evil, there is also a lot to be said for rewarding those who are successful.

patteeu
08-19-2009, 04:35 PM
Then why shouldn't doctors be required to present the full spectrum of options - including hospice, etc. - instead of just the money-making or ego-enhancing or liability-deflecting or religiously-self-justifying ones? ... i.e. the doctor-first options?

I'd rather just leave it between the doctor and the patient while removing the incentive for a doctor to practice over-defensive medicine.

chiefzilla1501
08-19-2009, 04:37 PM
Then why shouldn't doctors be required to present the full spectrum of options - including hospice, etc. - instead of just the money-making or ego-enhancing or liability-deflecting or religiously-self-justifying ones? ... i.e. the doctor-first options?

You are obviously distant from the medical profession.

I've seen great doctors get sued multiple times for the most trivial of "mistakes." One was sued because he insisted that a patient take a certain medicine, but the patient's wife refused to let him for whatever reason. Another was sued because the drip on life-saving chemotherapy created a very small scar on the man's chest.

Doctors are human. They make mistakes. The only difference is, if you screw up an engine repair or a calculation or you screw up a purchase order, you can remedy the situation. In the medical profession, you get sued, which is expensive and it's a huge drain on a doctor's time. Imagine the expectation that a doctor be absolutely perfect 60+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year.

I can understand the fuss over gross negligence or care that was so poor, it created life-changing physical conditions. But they're getting sued for a lot more than that. They seek second opinions because they can be sued if they're wrong. They'll often recommend safe options instead of riskier options that might have better outcomes. It has little to do with ego. If you had that kind of liability hanging over your shoulders, I guarantee you'd be gunshy about making decisions too.

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 04:48 PM
Don't see a lot I particularly dislike here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803449.html

Others?

JohnnyV13
08-19-2009, 05:16 PM
I don't think this will work.

Insurance companies are required by state law to have a minimum amount of liquid cash on hand at all times. If you fall below that minimum amount, you are fined. If it happens too often in a one year period, you're shut down.

The problem with inter-state competition is two-fold. First, there is no standard for the state minimums and secondly, what happens if you're insured in Utah while living in California and your insurance company closes shop? Who's going to cover you? The state of Utah? Nope . The state of California? No way.

It's like getting homeowner's insurance out of state. If choose an out of state carrier (let's say, from Kentucky) and there's a disaster in Kentucky that forces your carrier out of business the same day you have a fire, you're SOL. California won't cover you. Kentucky certainly won't cover you.

You're SOL.

I just can't see this working with healthcare, either.

Sure it can be done, you'd just need to pass a federal insurance law. It would kill many of the individual state features where the fed passes its legislation under the doctrine of federal pre-emption. Of course, you'd be making an even bigger federal government.

I'm not an insurance expert, so there could be issues I don't see. Yet, creating interstate insurance is simply a matter of passing enabling legislation. Any legal issues would likely end up in federal court since there would be diversity jurisdiction (plaintiff and defendant with different state residencies).

DaneMcCloud
08-19-2009, 05:19 PM
I'm not an insurance expert, so there could be issues I don't see.

Exactly. You're not an expert.

It would be a very unwise decision. Probably an extremely unwise decision.

Way too many variables and pitfalls.

pikesome
08-19-2009, 05:35 PM
Exactly. You're not an expert.

It would be a very unwise decision. Probably an extremely unwise decision.

Way too many variables and pitfalls.

Or...

It could be great idea by spreading health cost amongst a larger and more diverse pool.

My biggest worry would be that we would end up with a "Clear Channel" like insurance company down the road.

JohnnyV13
08-19-2009, 06:00 PM
How are we "subsidizing" the rich by letting them keep their fair share of the moeny? Progressive tax rates were jsut the first step in the redistribution of wealth, which was all the rage in the 30's, better known as the depression and the first big government socialist step by FDR. I see you saying that you don't want fair, you want equal. I tell you what, make EVERY American pay taxes and I will reconsider what I think is fair! How many of that remaining 99% of Americans don't pay taxes period? Don't they use a greater share of government resources, so are we not ruly subsidizing them? I have no problem with lending a helping hand, I believe it is our civic cuty, but creating a welfare state is not. The freedom in America to become whatever you want and make whatever you want dhouls not be dampened by successess penalties, presented by the liberals as a progressive tax. Even with the President Bush tax cuts, those so-called "wealthy" were still paying more than double than the average American. Class warfare is a basic socialist mantra, hate the people who have money, they are evil, trust us who have just as much money but say we are on your side to get elected to have all the power.

Actually, the people you are calling rich are merely affluent. The truly mega wealthy, who make the bulk of their money from investments and company ownership pay far less then even the average worker.

Capital gains tax sits at 15%, with the AMT it gets bumped up to around 28%. The people who are taxed the most are those who earn large salaries, but most top corporate officers and company founders earn the bulk of their income as capital gains.

Of course, the reason for the lower capital gains rate is to reward entrepenuerial risk. Someone on salary can't LOSE money, like an entrepenuer. But, when you apply the same logic to a well established blue chip entity, that discount becomes ridiculous. Especially when a top executive receives work compensation as a stock option, that compensation should be taxed as income and not a capital gain. Typically, an executive has a set salary with large stock options which he will only exercise if company stock goes up. Its not like that executive is risking loss like a founder.

Chief Henry
08-19-2009, 06:01 PM
Then why shouldn't doctors be required to present the full spectrum of options - including hospice, etc. - instead of just the money-making or ego-enhancing or liability-deflecting or religiously-self-justifying ones? ... i.e. the doctor-first options?

wtf

googlegoogle
08-19-2009, 06:18 PM
Actually, the people you are calling rich are merely affluent. The truly mega wealthy, who make the bulk of their money from investments and company ownership pay far less then even the average worker.

Capital gains tax sits at 15%, with the AMT it gets bumped up to around 28%. The people who are taxed the most are those who earn large salaries, but most top corporate officers and company founders earn the bulk of their income as capital gains.

Of course, the reason for the lower capital gains rate is to reward entrepenuerial risk. Someone on salary can't LOSE money, like an entrepenuer. But, when you apply the same logic to a well established blue chip entity, that discount becomes ridiculous. Especially when a top executive receives work compensation as a stock option, that compensation should be taxed as income and not a capital gain. Typically, an executive has a set salary with large stock options which he will only exercise if company stock goes up. Its not like that executive is risking loss like a founder.
:spock:
Are you arguing that people who are wealthy don't pay more?

JohnnyV13
08-19-2009, 06:31 PM
Exactly. You're not an expert.

It would be a very unwise decision. Probably an extremely unwise decision.

Way too many variables and pitfalls.


Hello, I'm not really familiar with the insurance industry but I am a lawyer, so I'm not entirely ignorant about what can be done with legislation. While I am no insurance guru, there are many lawyers who ARE experts in the field, who could craft such legislation.

For example, your out of state bankrupcy problem can be handled by something similar to federal deposit insurance for banks. You could require any carrier who sells out of state policies to purchase federal bankrupcy insurance and have the fed bail them out, similar to what would happen if a state government bailed out a failed insurance carrier.

The question isn't really whether it can be done, the real issue is whether the benefits would be significant enough to endure to process of solving those legislative problems.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 06:43 PM
Don't see a lot I particularly dislike here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803449.html

Others?

Even though I am for Medicare for all I think this article is spot on in alot of ways. Hard to argue with any of it

orange
08-19-2009, 06:49 PM
Don't see a lot I particularly dislike here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803449.html

Others?

Even though I am for Medicare for all I think this article is spot on in alot of ways. Hard to argue with any of it

"Finally, there are the government-chartered cooperatives that key members of the Senate Finance Committee are pushing. Although public-option enthusiasts scoff at the idea, the experiences of a number of communities show that cooperatives could significantly contain costs, provided the cooperatives are big enough and built around networks of hospitals and physician practices that accept a fixed, annual fee for treating patients rather than billing for every procedure. The key isn't that the cooperatives would be not-for-profit, but that the annual payments would give doctors and hospitals a financial incentive to control costs, better coordinate care, and eliminate procedures with little or no benefit.

A few other ideas not in any bill but worth considering: To address the pricing power of the big hospital chains, the government could require that they offer the same set of prices to all private insurers. Congress could also toughen antitrust laws to make it more difficult for hospitals in the same region to merge and require the breakup of chains that charge rates that are significantly higher than in other markets.

To bring down drug prices, Medicare could cap what it is willing to pay for any drug at 150 percent of the average price paid by other industrialized countries, where governments negotiate prices that are significantly lower. That would become a new benchmark for what private-pharmacy benefit managers would pay.

Do you actually believe Republicans would go along with ANY of that? :shake:

JohnnyV13
08-19-2009, 06:49 PM
:spock:
Are you arguing that people who are wealthy don't pay more?

Precisely. If Bill Gates sells his Microsoft stock, his billions will be taxed at 28% fed rate (Presuming Gates doesn't have any exotic tax avoidance structures in place).

(AMT=alternative minimum tax).

That's significantly less than that top fed bracket of 35%


Current US tax brackets are:

0-8,350 10%
8k-33,950 15%
33k-82,250 25%
82k-171,550 28%
171k-372,950 33%
372k - above 35%


Median household income in the US is around 50k. In many cities, the 82k-171k bracket is a very middle class income, yet Bill Gates would pay at that rate for his 50 odd billion in microsoft.

Gates would pay at a significantly lower rate than Jared Allen. The CEO of countrywide (who destroyed his company), would pay at the same rate as a mid level accountant for his 100 million stock option in 2006.

Obviously, the mega wealthy would pay far more overall tax, but capital gains (with a triggered AMT) is a very middle class tax rate.

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 06:53 PM
[INDENT]Do you actually believe Republicans would go along with ANY of that? :shake:
Dunno about the guys on The Hill, but if it drove a stake through the heart of this stealth campaign for single payer, I know I would.

Oh, and thanks for your analysis, 'those assholes wouldn't go for it' was very enlightening.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 06:56 PM
"Finally, there are the government-chartered cooperatives that key members of the Senate Finance Committee are pushing. Although public-option enthusiasts scoff at the idea, the experiences of a number of communities show that cooperatives could significantly contain costs, provided the cooperatives are big enough and built around networks of hospitals and physician practices that accept a fixed, annual fee for treating patients rather than billing for every procedure. The key isn't that the cooperatives would be not-for-profit, but that the annual payments would give doctors and hospitals a financial incentive to control costs, better coordinate care, and eliminate procedures with little or no benefit.

A few other ideas not in any bill but worth considering: To address the pricing power of the big hospital chains, the government could require that they offer the same set of prices to all private insurers. Congress could also toughen antitrust laws to make it more difficult for hospitals in the same region to merge and require the breakup of chains that charge rates that are significantly higher than in other markets.

To bring down drug prices, Medicare could cap what it is willing to pay for any drug at 150 percent of the average price paid by other industrialized countries, where governments negotiate prices that are significantly lower. That would become a new benchmark for what private-pharmacy benefit managers would pay. Do you actually believe Republicans would go along with ANY of that? :shake:

Probably not at least not the ones that require the same set of prices to insurance companies and capping Medicare

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 07:01 PM
And let's not pussy foot around here. The whole 'single payer' thing is nothing more than the Dem's version of Rove's 'plan for permanent majority.'
Actually fixing the problems without making HC a new government entitlement lets us continue to debate the merits of the market.
But put our health and survival in the hands of the government, and you'd be daft to elect anyone but the guys who take as much money from the rich as possible to keep you getting your 'free' HC.

orange
08-19-2009, 07:07 PM
Dunno about the guys on The Hill, but if it drove a stake through the heart of this stealth campaign for single payer, I know I would.

Oh, and thanks for your analysis, 'those assholes wouldn't go for it' was very enlightening.

Here's my insightful analysis: the author is ready to abandon a tough sell (public option) because he errantly believes it could be replaced by a handful of impossible sells.

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 07:11 PM
Here's my insightful analysis: the author is ready to abandon a tough sell (public option) because he errantly believes it could be replaced by a handful of impossible sells.

Again with both houses and the executive, what on earth is impossible?

orange
08-19-2009, 07:15 PM
Again with both houses and the executive, what on earth is impossible?

In the Senate - like Income Tax - it's the margin that matters. No proposal passes without the blue dogs.

googlegoogle
08-24-2009, 03:30 AM
It's called a progressive tax system. One thats been in place since the 30's. The more you benefit from our system, the more you should have to give back. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The richest 1% of Americans got 90% of the $700 billion tax cuts that the Bush gave to the wealthy. I think we as taxpayers are done subsidizing the wealthy.

LOL.

It's the wealthy that subsidizes YOU.

googlegoogle
08-24-2009, 03:30 AM
Health care in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore#Means_testing_in_Singapore_hospitals)

MahiMike
08-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Why is it a Trojan horse when there is an actually working successful co-op being used on Capital Hill?

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

kcfanXIII
08-24-2009, 05:31 PM
a true conservative will say "keep out of it, the less government interference the better."

MahiMike
08-24-2009, 05:32 PM
Here is the Hoover solution.

1. Create new Medicare reimbursement formulas that rewards the quality of care given, not the quantity which we currently do. We need to encourage doctors to find cures, not repeat visits.
2. Tort reform. Currently many physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine. We need to eliminate the threat of frivolous lawsuits so they can focus on healing instead of doing everything possible to cover their ass.
3. Eliminate all state and federal coverage mandates. Currently state legislators tell insurance companies what they must cover in their insurance plans they offer. This does nothing but increase costs. Instead the consumer should be able to sit down with an insurance agent and create a plan that works for them without the government’s hand in the process. Look maybe I don’t want mental health coverage, feel the need to have a plan that covers birth control or Viagra.
4. Eliminate the barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing an insurance plan from another state. The current system creates monopolies not competition. In Iowa Wellmark controls 80% of market. That’s not good for consumers. If there is a plan in New Hampshire that fits me I should be able to go buy it.
5. Decouple heath insurance with employment. Face it people don’t one at one place their entire career anymore. What the government could do is provide every worker with medical savings account where the individual and their employer could make tax free contributions to. The consumer then could use that account to pay for prescriptions, doctors’ visits, or purchase a traditional health insurance policy.

All of these things can be accomplished without asking the American taxpayer for another dime or taking anyone’s freedoms away.

Nice post. I agree with everything you said. I've been to 3 Dr's in the last few months and they're all scared of the changes. They think the jig is up. Meanwhile, there staffs are so large they look like the Chiefs coaching staff. I had to sit for 90 minutes while 5 drug reps walk right in. Once I was able to kiss the ring of the Dr. I was allotted 5 mins to which the same result always ensues - a prescription from the same company as one of the reps that just visited.

The system is broke all right. I can't fathom what the republicans are afraid of.

kcfanXIII
08-24-2009, 05:44 PM
Nice post. I agree with everything you said. I've been to 3 Dr's in the last few months and they're all scared of the changes. They think the jig is up. Meanwhile, there staffs are so large they look like the Chiefs coaching staff. I had to sit for 90 minutes while 5 drug reps walk right in. Once I was able to kiss the ring of the Dr. I was allotted 5 mins to which the same result always ensues - a prescription from the same company as one of the reps that just visited.

The system is broke all right. I can't fathom what the republicans are afraid of.


oh its broke for sure. when my mother passed away they couldn't figure out what was wrong, just kept bouncing her from specialist to specialist. the morning she passed, my father called and told her doctor she wasn't feeling well and asked if they should go to the er. the doctor responded "no, just go refill the prescription." she passed while he was at the pharmacy. i've never known, nor do i want to know who her doctor was. i just might go a little over board on him if i could find him. you can't treat everything with drugs.