Health Care Bill PASSED l.. from Manufacturing view.

[Pete Serotta]

Many views on Cost and Value of Bill and many Number gymnastics by both sides.....


The below is from the WSJ

CHICAGO—Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the House would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."

Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria, Ill., company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20%, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.

Write to Bob Tita at robert.tita@dowjones.com

[johnnymossville]

but caterpillar is just another evil polluting corporation that needs to fail. no harm done there. Govt. can do a better job taking care of people anyway.

[eddief]

should healthcare coverage be in any way connected to your job? why if you lose your job, should you ever lose your healthcare. HR people are some of the main defenders of employer sponsored healthcare, cause if it goes away their own jobs are threatened due to not needing all those heads to administer all the programs.

get rid of the monopolies, give us a gov option, and let us buy from a competitve marketplace. insurance companies are in biz to make money only and not to deliver high quality lowest cost services. the bill it nowhere near perfect, but i pray is passes...and i never pray.

[Ray]

If it just...

...covered 30 million people who have NO healthcare today, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...restored portability to the US workforce, who could change jobs without fear of losing health care, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...eliminated the pre-existing condition features of almost all current health insurance, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...made it impossible for insurance companies to decide to deny care when someone gets sick, making it impossible for them to get other insurance because of their new-found "pre-existing" condition, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...allowed young adults to stay on their parents policies until they're 26, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...at least attempts to bring the deficit down or even only be deficit neutral - unlike the medicare drug benefits and tax cuts enacted by the previous administration and congress, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

But it doesn't JUST do any of those things, it does all of them. And, yeah, it could still be better. But to me its not even a close call - its worth it and I'm more than willing to pay my share of it.

As noted before, this is a values question, not a technical question. Those are my values and why I'M willing to pay more taxes for this bill. I recognize others feel differently. I have no problem with that. But I've been voting for people my whole adult life to help make this happen. This is a gut check for the Dems. If the Republicans had their numbers and this was one of their priorities, it would have long since been done. The Dems need to do it. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will, but FAR from certain.

They'll lose seats in November either way. My bet is that they'll lose a lot fewer if they get this done than if they let it die. But I guess we'll never know - only one of those outcomes will be tested.

-Ray

[eddief]

John Bayner the next day. I just want to mess up his hair so badly. Literally and figuratively.

[Wilkinson4]

> Govt. can do a better job taking care of people anyway.

Based on what statistics?? Or is that just a feeling that they can do a better job taking care of people because they are so honest with us?

Insurance companies are not in the business of taking care of people, that is what health care providers do. Health care costs are the real culprit here.

Insurance companies run at about 3-7% profits annually. Is that too much??

If we were talking about car insurance, pre-existing traffic violations and fed intervention it would probably be an entirely different conversation.

Face it, most people take better care of their cars better than themselves...

So where is the personal accountability if the Govt is expected to do better?

mIKE

[SamIAm]

get rid of the monopolies, give us a gov option, and let us buy from a competitve marketplace. insurance companies are in biz to make money only and not to deliver high quality lowest cost services.

Oh man, did I just read that?

In order to be properly competitive with the government, you wouldn't mind if the insurance companies were also given the right to appropriate/print money and create legislation as required would you?


As soon as you start talking about lowering the cost of healthcare by government mandate, what you are really saying is that you are going to tell a free american/business what they can and can't charge for something. Otherwise, how are you going to take cost down? You think insurance companies don't already try to negotiate lower costs for these items, how will the government get even greater savings unless they ultimately mandate them or kill off the competition. Then look out below for the quality of healthcare.

But, for me, as long as there remains a path to private healthcare, I can live with this disgrace of a bill.

[SamIAm]

If it just...

...covered 30 million people who have NO healthcare today, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...restored portability to the US workforce, who could change jobs without fear of losing health care, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...eliminated the pre-existing condition features of almost all current health insurance, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...made it impossible for insurance companies to decide to deny care when someone gets sick, making it impossible for them to get other insurance because of their new-found "pre-existing" condition, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...allowed young adults to stay on their parents policies until they're 26, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...at least attempts to bring the deficit down or even only be deficit neutral - unlike the medicare drug benefits and tax cuts enacted by the previous administration and congress, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

But it doesn't JUST do any of those things, it does all of them. And, yeah, it could still be better. But to me its not even a close call - its worth it and I'm more than willing to pay my share of it.

As noted before, this is a values question, not a technical question. Those are my values and why I'M willing to pay more taxes for this bill. I recognize others feel differently. I have no problem with that. But I've been voting for people my whole adult life to help make this happen. This is a gut check for the Dems. If the Republicans had their numbers and this was one of their priorities, it would have long since been done. The Dems need to do it. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will, but FAR from certain.

They'll lose seats in November either way. My bet is that they'll lose a lot fewer if they get this done than if they let it die. But I guess we'll never know - only one of those outcomes will be tested.

-Ray

You may be willing to pay more in taxes, but will you be asked to? or will others be asked to carry your load? It's easy to spend other peoples money.

Your "ifs" are simple ones. What if it was phrased

...covered 30 million people who have NO healthcare today, but lowered the quality of healthcare and led to rationing for the 200+ million already covered, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

etc. etc.

[93legendti]

Many views on Cost and Value of Bill and many Number gymnastics by both sides.....


The below is from the WSJ

CHICAGO—Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the House would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."

Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria, Ill., company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20%, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.

Write to Bob Tita at robert.tita@dowjones.com
Thanks Pete. I had not read that article yet.

Here's more good news:

http://www.investors.com/newsandanalysis/article.aspx?id=506199

...Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found...

[eddief]

and can't get back in.

You'll change your tune about insurance companies, their value, and their profit margin. Someone close to my family has malignant melanoma. When she was diagnosed, she had a job and insurance. The employer kindly kept her on the plan for an extra year even after she could not work any more. Employer recently cut her loose as she is struggling to fight the battle of her life. An insurance company would not touch her with a pole at this time. Family would/will go broke if they try to pay out of pocket. No high risk pool in AZ. Unfortunately, I predict she will end up in an emergency room and probably die as a tribute to the current system.

Thanks god, insurance companies are still making their 3-7%.

[rugbysecondrow]

get rid of the monopolies, give us a gov option, and let us buy from a competitve marketplace. insurance companies are in biz to make money only and not to deliver high quality lowest cost services. the bill it nowhere near perfect, but i pray is passes...and i never pray.

??? Monopolies, government option, competative market place...these phrases don't come close to belonging in the same cogent statement.

Yes, companies are in business to make money, but they do that by offering high quality at acceptable costs. One would argue that there is a relationship between the increase in costs and the increase in coverage. The amount of coverage, technologies, access to treatments, testing, medication...these are all fantastic for most Americans.

I am not sure where the notion of the evil health insurance company came from, but it seems like a boogie man.

And Ray, I get your point about all the what ifs, but you only state the what ifs you want to happen...you leave out draw backs, unanticipated consequences, whether this system will work, is this the best job that can be done.

This all seems like a pile of crap, acknowleged universally as a pile a crap, but the argument is, "Well, crap isn't all that bad". Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, and this is crap. If this was good policy, Dems wouldn't be pussy-footing around about it. Senate and House members would be unified, but they aren't. This is a patch-work 2700 page monstrocity that is hardly an improvement...

Luckily for the Dems voting for it, they still have 2, maybe 3 election cycles before it gets enacated and they are able to be absolved....

[93legendti]

and can't get back in.

You'll change your tune about insurance companies, their value, and their profit margin.
I pay for my family's health insurance.

Can you tell us the amount of health insurance companies' profit margins?

[Kirk007]

Here's more good news:

http://www.investors.com/newsandanalysis/article.aspx?id=506199

...Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found...

Yep the world is going to end. This is starting to sound like a bunch of hysterical liberals :)

[BCS]

You may be willing to pay more in taxes, but will you be asked to? or will others be asked to carry your load? It's easy to spend other peoples money.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000

I am so weary of being told that I need to pay "my fair share" by people basically sucking hind tit of the so-called wealthy. Maybe I could remove a spacer or two if my back wasn't so sore from carrying people.

Eagerly awaiting the Flat Tax/ Consumption Tax thread in the OT forum.

[93legendti]

+1000000000000000000000000000000000

I am so weary of being told that I need to pay "my fair share" by people basically sucking hind tit of the so-called wealthy. Maybe I could remove a spacer or two if my back wasn't so sore from carrying people.

Eagerly awaiting the Flat Tax/ Consumption Tax thread in the OT forum.
I would love to only pay my fair share.

[thwart]

...Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found...

Who woulda guessed that myself (and essentially all of my partners) are in the minority, and to that degree.

Gee... I wonder about the accuracy of that poll... :rolleyes:

And I wonder who paid for it... ?

[Ray]

...Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found...

Who woulda guessed that myself (and essentially all of my partners) are in the minority, and to that degree.

Gee... I wonder about the accuracy of that poll... :rolleyes:

And I wonder who paid for it... ?
Four out of five dentists agree - chew TRIDENT!!!

-Ray

[fiamme red]

Four out of five dentists agree - chew TRIDENT!!!

-Rayhttp://www.nutrexsolutions.com/wp-content/images/Doctors_Smoke.jpg

[Onno]

and can't get back in.

You'll change your tune about insurance companies, their value, and their profit margin. Someone close to my family has malignant melanoma. When she was diagnosed, she had a job and insurance. The employer kindly kept her on the plan for an extra year even after she could not work any more. Employer recently cut her loose as she is struggling to fight the battle of her life. An insurance company would not touch her with a pole at this time. Family would/will go broke if they try to pay out of pocket. No high risk pool in AZ. Unfortunately, I predict she will end up in an emergency room and probably die as a tribute to the current system.

Thanks god, insurance companies are still making their 3-7%.

Excellent point, which can't be repeated often enough. To me this gets at the heart of the issue. Denying people with pre-existing conditions and cutting off people who are sick have been two standard operating procedures for private insurance. While it may be good business practice, it is unquestionably immoral from a societal perspective. I don't see how anyone with even half a conscience can deny this. There are no free market solutions to these, only government ones. Single-payer is an obvious solution, or government run or mandated catastrophic health insurance, perhaps. Haven't heard the right say much if anything about how to solve these twin problems, or even about how serious they are. What I've heard Republicans say mostly is keep your hands off what I've got, and if we have anything to spare we'll see if we can figure out how to make extremely marginal improvements. Too bad if 45 million don't have insurance, and if millions of others will be denied coverage exactly when they need it.

It's because of this issue that in countries like Canada (from which I'm writing) there's really no debate about the moral value of government-run health care. The idea of universal access trumps everything else. Yes of course there's serious complaining about wait-times, and availability of certain procedures, but there's general consensus that it's worth paying the government premiums (in the form of taxes) so that there's basic coverage for everyone. Both my parents' lives were saved by excellent medical care in Canada, and I've only had good experiences here.

[JMerring]

deleted - sorry - decided i didn't want to go there.

[1happygirl]

should healthcare coverage be in any way connected to your job? why if you lose your job, should you ever lose your healthcare. HR people are some of the main defenders of employer sponsored healthcare, cause if it goes away their own jobs are threatened due to not needing all those heads to administer all the programs.

get rid of the monopolies, give us a gov option, and let us buy from a competitve marketplace. insurance companies are in biz to make money only and not to deliver high quality lowest cost services. the bill it nowhere near perfect, but i pray is passes...and i never pray.

+1 I'm young but I've been wanting to quit my medical job and work on my passion(s). After multiple degrees and sick people tending I told my Mom I've discovered my true passion. I'm actually a history teacher who plays/sings Jazz music.

Mom pointed out however that I can't sing and I don't have a degree in history.
Hey, but I can learn :rolleyes: (and to her greatest fear quit my job /training and actually get another degree) :crap:

When I quit the first time to get a degree, the first thing she said was what about health insurance. Now she won't have to worry if this passes. :rolleyes: I'll just follow my passion (and take my skydiving back up)

NO WORRIES MOM, NO WORRIES

[1happygirl]

http://www.nutrexsolutions.com/wp-content/images/Doctors_Smoke.jpg


Not anymore...hahahaha

[zap]

If it just...

...covered 30 million people who have NO healthcare today, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...restored portability to the US workforce, who could change jobs without fear of losing health care, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...eliminated the pre-existing condition features of almost all current health insurance, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...made it impossible for insurance companies to decide to deny care when someone gets sick, making it impossible for them to get other insurance because of their new-found "pre-existing" condition, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...allowed young adults to stay on their parents policies until they're 26, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

...at least attempts to bring the deficit down or even only be deficit neutral - unlike the medicare drug benefits and tax cuts enacted by the previous administration and congress, it would be worth it to me to pay more taxes.

But it doesn't JUST do any of those things, it does all of them. And, yeah, it could still be better. But to me its not even a close call - its worth it and I'm more than willing to pay my share of it.

As noted before, this is a values question, not a technical question. Those are my values and why I'M willing to pay more taxes for this bill. I recognize others feel differently. I have no problem with that. But I've been voting for people my whole adult life to help make this happen. This is a gut check for the Dems. If the Republicans had their numbers and this was one of their priorities, it would have long since been done. The Dems need to do it. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will, but FAR from certain.

They'll lose seats in November either way. My bet is that they'll lose a lot fewer if they get this done than if they let it die. But I guess we'll never know - only one of those outcomes will be tested.

-Ray

Ray, as I understand it, the senate version does allow insurance companies to limit payouts. Something Reid added. Page 16 if i recall correctly.

If you believe deficits will be reduced........I think unions will have something to say about taxing caddy plans, paper industry will lobby hard........, etc.

Anyhow, I would love to create a business where I could collect payment for 10 years but offer service for 6 years.

I'm in agreement that society should fix this mess but I'm not buying any of this nonsense coming from Capitol Hill or this White House. It's too rushed, far to partisan and if passed Sunday, is not going away anytime soon.

[eddief]

this has been going on for many decades. when the repubs had the majority they did not fart in the direction of a health care fix. let's move it forward and then improve it.

[1centaur]

It's just the start of a multi-year transition to socialized medicine (without value judgment on the word socialized). Look at human nature and demographics and you'll agree. Good medicine is expensive medicine (in the aggregate) and the bottom half of the pyramid can never pay for expensive medicine, especially as they age. That same bottom half is a majority at the polls. Therefore they will extract payment from the top half, and almost certainly along the way get to live with a 15% VAT like most Western countries with socialized medicine. Health care is not alone in that demographic problem (the low earners outnumber the high earners and use political power to take what they have not earned). We already have minimal income taxes on close to 50% of the population, the same people who consume most of the welfare payments. A flat tax would create more fairness in incentives to expand the welfare state, but it won't happen in a democracy.

Where some on the left view this bill as close to a free lunch (their taxes won't go up much; the rich can afford a few more %; who cares about insurance companies; isn't it great/moral to give stuff to those without), there are many on the right who, correctly I believe, see the inevitable slide to less freedom, less economic vitality and strength, less global power, and a more stifling government presence. The opposition to this bill is not wholly as portrayed, greedy profiteers desperate to keep praying on the poor while twirling their mustaches. Yes some of those motives exist, but the nature of the no sentiment is broad and reflects something strongly associated with Americans - let the chips falls where they may. They know that $1 trillion becomes $10 trillion that's politically impossible to stop, and that $10 trillion government-controlled programs will be delivered dully, chokingly, with lots of negative consequences, overseen by fat cat politicians who are indifferent to being great at running the country. What made America strong, great, and the envy of the world is slipping away, and yes, it was built on the backs of those left behind (and the hearts of those not left behind) because that is inherent in freedom - risk of failure, real failure, with consequences. There's always a dark side to greatness - ask Lance.

Over the next few years we will see manifestations of sadness and anger and protection of what is left from the right, and we will see expanding efforts to define what is right from the left. Obama will be long gone by the time the national health care scene settles down. The Serotta forum will debate the issues 100s of times, in OT folders and otherwise. And we will end up with a system that looks like most Western countries. It's like watching the world as a person grow from youth to old age - we were young once, but now Asia is young, and someday Off-World will be young. Large collections of humans must inevitably end up in about the same place (pre-grave). Many of you don't have these feelings today; yay, let's be like Europe. For many, that is indeed a step up. When you start paying VAT, look to Europe and see your future (we will deride China as Europe has long derided the USA). Over there, greatness left the building long ago, but mediocrity works just fine for the bottom half of the pyramid.

[thwart]

That's the half-empty view.

The half-full view sees a broken system that serves only a minority very well. And stifles new, innovative business that really wants its employees to have good health care at a reasonable cost.

... and serves that minority well only if their employer doesn't get a double digit increase in premiums, and decide to lay off their division to help pay for it... and move all the jobs to India, where there is no health care cost at all.

It ain't perfect, but we need to move off the schneid. Badly.

[Ray]

It ain't perfect, but we need to move off the schneid. Badly.
That's pretty much where I am. Zap noted above that the plan was "too rushed", but after nearly a century of trying, a half century of trying pretty hard, and a solid year of debates and committees and various votes, I don't think its rushed at all. I just think its the best that's politically possible at this moment in time. And yeah, once in place, it'll be a devil to get rid of. Which will leave us one choice - make it better, drop or fix the parts that don't work and double down on the stuff that does. That's how every major program we've had has worked and it's how this one will have to also.

Some people see this all as a terrible thing. I see it as the least bad option we face and by a pretty good margin. If we don't do this, it'll probably be another 15 years before anyone even thinks about having the balls to try it again. If Clinton had taken the Republican plan in '94 (or better yet the Cooper compromise plan), we'd be 15 years into tweaks and fixes by now. Their bill then was almost identical to this bill now. Damned socialist Republicans. :cool:

BTW, the same predictions of gloom and doom and socialism and the end of America as we know it were happening during the fight over Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare in the 1960s, and even the Clinton budget deal in 1993. We got through all of those OK. America is always changing. Some things will get better, some will get worse. I think the reaction to this is pretty overheated, as it was to those things. But I agree that we're in the midst of a somewhat inevitable decline (given the amazing heights we'd risen to) and that has people badly on edge about just about everything. So reactions on all sides tend to get more extreme when we see something slipping away from the way it was.

-Ray

[93legendti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVz-DCUyxtE

Biden Assures Democrats In Congress: "We're Going To Control The Insurance Companies"

[rugbysecondrow]

Ray, are you sure you want to rest your case on the status of Social Security and Medicare for why the government should get involved in this? Before you say yes, I would then ask for you to revist the budget projections for the Health Care bill and how that reconciles to historical "Projections". Nothing against the populace wanting the government to assume that role, but we need to not lie about how much money health care reform is going to save us...it just isn't true. If people believe in health care reform, then they should have the balls (or Pelosi's equivilant) to say, " You want this, you voted for us to install it, but you have to pay for it." That is the responsible approach, rather than budget manipulation, supposed realized savings from Medicare etc...this cobbling of funds is a false fascade.

Eddie, I have no problem with fixing a problem, Preexisting conditions for instance, but I would argue that spot fixes are more appropriate than overhaul right now. There is not a consensus, there is not an infrastructure, and there is not a cogent direction that can be articulated. The leadership is aweful on this and they admist this is bad policy, hence the pass it now, fix it later...if it is good policy, it wouldn't need fixed. Ray, if the time for this policy is now, then why the hurry to rush this through the back door? You can be intelectually honest and agree with the idea, but disagree about the tactics and approach...they failed themselves here. Why rush it, why not take it into the summer and the election campaigning season to see what direction the public really wants...you and I both know the answer to that question though.

This pass it now, then fix it later approach is bull crap and everybody knows it is bull crap, which is why it is funny when smart people ignore it.



That's pretty much where I am. Zap noted above that the plan was "too rushed", but after nearly a century of trying, a half century of trying pretty hard, and a solid year of debates and committees and various votes, I don't think its rushed at all. I just think its the best that's politically possible at this moment in time. And yeah, once in place, it'll be a devil to get rid of. Which will leave us one choice - make it better, drop or fix the parts that don't work and double down on the stuff that does. That's how every major program we've had has worked and it's how this one will have to also.

Some people see this all as a terrible thing. I see it as the least bad option we face and by a pretty good margin. If we don't do this, it'll probably be another 15 years before anyone even thinks about having the balls to try it again. If Clinton had taken the Republican plan in '94 (or better yet the Cooper compromise plan), we'd be 15 years into tweaks and fixes by now. Their bill then was almost identical to this bill now. Damned socialist Republicans. :cool:

BTW, the same predictions of gloom and doom and socialism and the end of America as we know it were happening during the fight over Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare in the 1960s, and even the Clinton budget deal in 1993. We got through all of those OK. America is always changing. Some things will get better, some will get worse. I think the reaction to this is pretty overheated, as it was to those things. But I agree that we're in the midst of a somewhat inevitable decline (given the amazing heights we'd risen to) and that has people badly on edge about just about everything. So reactions on all sides tend to get more extreme when we see something slipping away from the way it was.

-Ray

[eddief]

for 30 million without insurance going to the emergency room for care. they are already dying by the hundreds every day. in that case, put me in the prolife category.

[rugbysecondrow]

for 30 million without insurance going to the emergency room for care. they are already dying by the hundreds every day. in that case, put me in the prolife category.


Hold up a second, because you appear to be shifting problems around.

Is it your family member who lack portability of coverage, is it insuring the unisured, is it the competative marketplace, is it removal of monopolies...we can't have a hopscotch discussion. We also can't have a discussion where the trump card is, " People are dying!" because good policy isn't made, nor should it be made, like that.

People die everyday, insurance or not, so lets not blame insurance, lack of it for everything here. Lets also not ignore all the county, state and city and non profit programs available. Lets also not ignore peoples decisions to not have coverage. Yes, some people want it but can't, but quite a few others make decisions that don't make health care a priority.

So, again, how is this good legistlation? That is the discussion. I am not discussing hysterics, but how this 2700 page monstrocity helps the health care system that accounts for approx 300 millions people.

[Pete Serotta]

1centaur, is right on target. This health bill is not going to raise the level of care - just look at Canada and Europe. It will limit care and ration it. Anyone who thinks that it will save money please see me for I am selling the GW Bridge.


I have long said (and I wish I was/am wrong) look at England over the past 100 years and where they are today... WE the USA are following the same path!!

[1centaur]

BTW, the same predictions of gloom and doom and socialism and the end of America as we know it were happening during the fight over Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare in the 1960s, and even the Clinton budget deal in 1993. We got through all of those OK.
-Ray

It's only a question of timing, not destination, with SS and Medicare poster children for the inevitability of entrenched entitlements and the structures/politics/costs surrounding them. The speed of decline is increasing due to the level of debt to GDP - there's a tipping point beyond which over promising and under earning is not sustainable.

[JohnHemlock]

Ahhh, nothing like a bunch of rich white guys taking time out from arguing about carbon fiber myths to argue about socialism myths.

rugbysecondrow makes some very good points, I support his bill.

[Wilkinson4]

This at its core is an ideological argument that is irreconcilable. What is fair? Define justice, so on a so forth... I have not read this book, but Mr. Sowell is one of the smartest men out there and an American Treasure.

A conflict of visions (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ngl_4jPv8M0C&lpg=PP1&dq=thomas%20sowel%20conflict&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

mIKE

[pbjbike]

We are turning into a third world nation with our dwindling manufacturing, poor infrastructure, and lack of universal health care. I will wager that the vociferous comments from the right side have come from those who have benefited the most from the most from the Bush tax cuts...Are those not subsidies? How are they not? AND, while your dander is up, why not post your occupation, (and real name while you're at it), and occupation. I've been a dairy farmer, messenger, carpenter, frame builder....Always paid my own way.

[Ray]

This at its core is an ideological argument that is irreconcilable.
Yep. I've been trying to say the same thing for a while, but people keep trying to explain all the complex reasons it's wrong. I appreciate Paul just coming out and calling an argument for the bill "bullcrap" - at least gets past the artifice of manners. So from now on, y'all can just call us libs naive bleeding hearts and we can call y'all heartless bastards. Or we can just agree that it's a fundamental ideological disagreement for which there is no absolute right or wrong - just value driven disageement. Because that's all it is. Or maybe I'm just full of bullcrap. But I don't have a monopoly.

-Ray

[1centaur]

sub·si·dy
   /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ Show Spelled[suhb-si-dee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-dies.
1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.
a grant or contribution of money.
4.
money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

from dictionary.com

"direct pecuniary aid" does not seem the same to me as confiscating less of people's money. Does it to you?

And for the record, Bush's tax cuts were simply rate cuts that were slanted to the poor, ratewise, slightly.

[rugbysecondrow]

We are turning into a third world nation with our dwindling manufacturing, poor infrastructure, and lack of universal health care. I will wager that the vociferous comments from the right side have come from those who have benefited the most from the most from the Bush tax cuts...Are those not subsidies? How are they not? AND, while your dander is up, why not post your occupation, (and real name while you're at it), and occupation. I've been a dairy farmer, messenger, carpenter, frame builder....Always paid my own way.


So, when the going gets tough, dust off an old school Bush comment, play the guilt card, change the subject and sit back? :rolleyes:

I think many would disagree with your third world comment.

The truth is that you think everybody who doesn't agree with you or hold your world view is not only wrong, but stupid. So, mr. farmer, if we were having a converstion over some fresh milk, after riding a bike you built, parking it in the garage you constructed, how would this conversation go? The truth is that there are middle class subsidies (tax credits, interest decuctions), ag subsidies, student (hope, taxe credits etc)....there are subsidies accross the board, but you want to focus on the Bush subsidies.

By the way, I am 33, was in the Air Force Reserves for 10 years, waited tables for 4 years, paid my way through school by starting and selling a small businesses along with the GI Bill, having worked as a public and private Urban Planner and now I am a Federal Government (Judiciary) employee...don't hate though. :) My full name is quite inconsequential right now, but Paul will work.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yep. I've been trying to say the same thing for a while, but people keep trying to explain all the complex reasons it's wrong. I appreciate Paul just coming out and calling an argument for the bill "bullcrap" - at least gets past the artifice of manners. So from now on, y'all can just call us libs naive bleeding hearts and we can call y'all heartless bastards. Or we can just agree that it's a fundamental ideological disagreement for which there is no absolute right or wrong - just value driven disageement. Because that's all it is. Or maybe I'm just full of bullcrap. But I don't have a monopoly.

-Ray

:) I don't think your belief or ideology is bull crap, but I think the eagerness to purposefully pass bad policy is. That is such a low standard that it is really unacceptable that we accept that this is the best the legislators can come up with.

Yes, many political and religious ideas do not reconcile, but that is why we have discussions, preferably over beers or on a ride.

:beer:

[pbjbike]

So, when the going gets tough, dust off an old school Bush comment, play the guilt card, change the subject and sit back? :rolleyes:

I think many would disagree with your third world comment.

The truth is that you think everybody who doesn't agree with you or hold your world view is not only wrong, but stupid. So, mr. farmer, if we were having a converstion over some fresh milk, after riding a bike you built, parking it in the garage you constructed, how would this conversation go? The truth is that there are middle class subsidies (tax credits, interest decuctions), ag subsidies, student (hope, taxe credits etc)....there are subsidies accross the board, but you want to focus on the Bush subsidies.

By the way, I am 33, was in the Air Force Reserves for 10 years, waited tables for 4 years, paid my way through school by starting and selling a small businesses along with the GI Bill, having worked as a public and private Urban Planner and now I am a Federal Government (Judiciary) employee...don't hate though. :) My full name is quite inconsequential right now, but Paul will work.

Yeah, whatever, G.I. Bill man who can't name his last...Reserves? You couldn't hack regular, that's OK. No hating, just get real, you've received benefits all of us have contributed towards. Haven't worked on a farm yet that received subsidies, (those that do are called agribusiness, and you would know if you'd been out of the office).

[pbjbike]

sub·si·dy
   /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ Show Spelled[suhb-si-dee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-dies.
1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.
a grant or contribution of money.
4.
money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

from dictionary.com

"direct pecuniary aid" does not seem the same to me as confiscating less of people's money. Does it to you?

And for the record, Bush's tax cuts were simply rate cuts that were slanted to the poor, ratewise, slightly.

Ah, he falls on the Webster reference. Sad and desperate. How does it feel to live in a state with universal coverage? Time to move? Go Romney.

[Ray]

:) I don't think your belief or ideology is bull crap, but I think the eagerness to purposefully pass bad policy is. That is such a low standard that it is really unacceptable that we accept that this is the best the legislators can come up with.
I think our lenses of what constitutes "bad policy" is rather affected by our ideological perspectives as well. I think its an imperfect bill, not bad policy. And I think its the best the legislators can come up with based on it being the best any legislators have EVER come up with that's ever come close to passing. In politics, that's the very DEFINITION of the best. As HHH always used to say, politics is the art of the possible. This is what's possible. What might be closer to ideal to one constituency would make it absolute poison to another and visa versa and nothing would get done. If this passes, its the best bill that's ever been developed on health care. Again, by definition.

I actually think it could have been better, particularly on the cost control side, if some Republicans had been willing to engage and swap some actual VOTES for inclusion of their ideas. But that's probably another whole thread and I'm just not up for it. Because our opinions on that too would probably be ever so slightly shaded by our philosophical biases and it would just turn into this discussion all over again. Been there, done that. Probably do it again someday, but not now.

-Ray

[Wilkinson4]

And a tribute to Fess Parker to say goodnight:) It explains why one wing gives more to 'charity' than the other wing as opposed to the coercion that exists for the greater good.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertyPen?feature=chclk#p/search

Like I said, it is irreconcilable. Politics are based on beliefs, not facts... There is no amount of convincing or arguing that will change a persons belief system. It is something that evolves over their life experience.

mIKE

"Two wings, same bird"

[Kirk007]

:) That is such a low standard that it is really unacceptable that we accept that this is the best the legislators can come up with.


With almost two decades on 'ya I'm a bit more jaded: it has been decades since we've had good for the country legislation rather than substandard sausage. And once the sausage is ground, then, depending on who is in the kitchen, it can get left in the freezer or cooked half way through or fully cooked into something that even then is half baked. This is the best legislators will come up with because we've allowed a political system to develop where the only thing important to most legislators is getting re-elected, with campaigns starting as soon as the last one ended. And the public, fed up but without a clue as to how to change things, other than to change the actors but not the script, churn out the old and bring in the new who really aren't new at all. I'm with 1Centaur on this: we are on the downward path; we are the new Europe. And as we piss, moan and quibble with each other, China is taking us to the cleaners and most don't even see it.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yeah, whatever, G.I. Bill man who can't name his last...Reserves? You couldn't hack regular, that's OK. No hating, just get real, you've received benefits all of us have contributed towards. Haven't worked on a farm yet that received subsidies, (those that do are called agribusiness, and you would know if you'd been out of the office).

So, am I not keep'n it real enough for you? Most Americans have employor based health care that is derived from the goods we buy, services we pay for, taxes we pay or investment money we entrust...so my benefits come from one source, somebody elses may come from Front End Loaders manufactured in Peoria, Illinois...what is the point?

In life, people make decisions based on outcomes and circumstances. If you chose to work on a farm with less benefits ( I am not certain if that is the case or not) then why are you upset about it? Furthermore, why should your decision impact me? I am fine with people chosing their own way (it is America), but the choice should involve tangible pros and cons, one of which are benefits. If we choose our own way, leave it at that and don't try to bring others into the process. What I do has nothing to do with what you do.

[93legendti]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/11/obama-family-health-care-fracas/

Thursday, March 11, 2010

A doctor savages his cousin Barack's reform plan
By Dr. Milton R. Wolf

"Primum nil nocere." First, do no harm. This guiding principle is a bedrock of medical care. Sadly, those politicians who would rewrite our health care laws do not live in the same universe as do the doctors and health care professionals who must practice it.

Imagine if, like physicians, politicians were personally held to the incredibly high level of scrutiny that includes civil and financial liability for any unintended consequence of their decisions. Imagine if they were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on malpractice insurance and still faced the threat of multimillion-dollar lawsuits with every single decision they made. If so, a government takeover of health care would be the furthest thing from their minds.

Obamacare proponents would have us believe that we will add 30 million patients to the system without adding providers, we will see no decline in the quality of care for the millions of Americans currently happy with the system, and -if you act now!- we will save money in the process. But why stop there? Why not promise it will no longer rain on weekends and every day will be a great hair day?

America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let's not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe's common cancer mortality rates to America's: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.

Look closer at the United Kingdom. Britain's higher cancer mortality rate results in 25,000 more cancer deaths per year compared to a similar population size in the United States. But because the U.S. population is roughly five times larger than the United Kingdom's, that would translate into 125,000 unnecessary American cancer deaths every year. This is more than all the mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, cousins and children in Topeka, Kan. And keep in mind, these numbers are for cancer alone. America also has better survival rates for other major killers, such as heart attacks and strokes. Whatever we do, let us not surrender the great gains we have made. First, do no harm. Lives are at stake.

Obamacare: Fixing price at any cost

The justification for Obamacare has been to control costs, but the problem is there is little in Obamacare that will do that. Instead, there are provisions that will ration care and artificially set price. This is a confusion of costs and price.

As one example, consider the implications of Obamacare's financial penalty aimed at your doctor if he seeks the expert care he has determined you need. If your doctor is in the top 10 percent of primary care physicians who refer patients to specialists most frequently - no matter how valid the reasons - he will face a 5 percent penalty on all their Medicare reimbursements for the entire year. This scheme is specifically designed to deny you the chance to see a specialist. Each year, the insidious nature of that arbitrary 10 percent rule will make things even worse as 100 percent of doctors try to stay off that list. Many doctors will try to avoid the sickest patients, and others will simply refuse to accept Medicare. Already, 42 percent of doctors have chosen that route, and it will get worse. Your mother's shiny government-issued Medicare health card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

Obamacare will further diminish access to health care by lowering reimbursements for medical care without regard to the costs of that care. Price controls have failed spectacularly wherever they've been tried. They have turned neighborhoods into slums and have caused supply chains to dry up when producers can no longer profit from providing their goods. Remember the Carter-era gas lines? Medical care is not immune from this economic reality. We cannot hope that our best and brightest will pursue a career in medicine, setting aside years of their lives - for me, 13 years of school and training - to enter a field that might not even pay for the student loans it took to get there.

Giving power back to people

I believe there is a better way. The problems in the American health care system are not caused by a shortage of government intrusion. They will not be solved by more government intrusion. In fact, our current problems were precisely, though unintentionally, created by government.

World War II-era wage-control measures - a form of price controls - ushered in a perverted system in which we turn to our employers for insurance and the government penalizes us if we choose to purchase insurance for ourselves. You are not given the opportunity to be a wise consumer of health care and compare prices as well as quality in any meaningful way. Worse still, your insurance company is not answerable to you because you are not its customer. It is answerable to your employer, whose interests differ from your own.

Insurance companies have been vilified for following the perverse rules that government has created for them. But it gets worse. The government, always knowing best, deploys insurance commissioners across the land to dictate what the insurance companies must provide, whether you want it or not, and each time, your premiums increase. Obamacare will make all of this worse, not better.

One of America's founding principles is our trust in the people and their economic freedom to rule their own lives. We should decouple health insurance from employers and empower patients to be consumers once again. Allow them to determine the insurance plan that best meets their families' needs and which company will provide it. This will unleash a wave of competition that will drive costs down in a way that price controls never have. Eliminate the artificial state boundary rules that protect insurance companies from true competition and watch as voters demand that their state insurance commissioners get the heck out of the way. Innovative companies will drive down costs similar to how Geico and Progressive have worked for automobile insurance. And it won't cost taxpayers a trillion dollars in the process.

This free-market approach has worked for everything from high-definition TVs to breakfast cereals, but will it work for medicine? It already is. Take Lasik eye surgery, for example. Because patients are allowed to be informed consumers and can shop anywhere, doctors work hard for their business. Services, availability and expertise have all increased, and costs have decreased. Should consumers demand it, insurance companies - now answerable to you rather than your employer - would cover it.

Between Barack and a hard place

I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.

I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a radiologist in Kansas. He is Barack Obama's second cousin once removed. President Obama's great-great grandfather, Thomas Creekmore McCurry, is Dr. Wolf's great-grandfather. Dr. Wolf's mother, Anna Margaret McCurry, was five years older than Mr. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. The two were childhood friends until the Dunhams moved from Kansas to Seattle in 1955.

[1centaur]

Ah, he falls on the Webster reference. Sad and desperate.

When being clear about what words mean using an impartial standard of reference is sad and desperate, it's time to conclude that the ignore list is underpopulated.

[Wilkinson4]

> Reserves? You couldn't hack regular, that's OK.

PJBBike, you are out of line here. We are and were having a civil discussion on ideological difference. Irreconcilable, but we were agreeing to disagree.

Instead, you state that we will be a "third world" country because we don't have a universal system and then you attack the poster when you disagree with him.

First, I would argue the third world statement and if anything implementing the system envisioned (single payer) would result in us being closer to it.

Our debt load is unsustainable, implementing a single payer system will will lead to our triple-A rating going away.

Ok, speaking of farmers. This is a tale of two farmers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfVMF_FptaU)...

mIKE

[zap]

That's pretty much where I am. Zap noted above that the plan was "too rushed", but after nearly a century of trying, a half century of trying pretty hard, and a solid year of debates and committees and various votes, I don't think its rushed at all. I just think its the best that's politically possible at this moment in time. And yeah, once in place, it'll be a devil to get rid of. -Ray

Ray, what about the loopholes for insurance companies? Last week I was watching CNN's interview with Moore (sicko guy). He brought up that in the proposed plan, insurance companies would be able to pay a fine rather than treat a patient with pre-existing conditions. I have yet to see any other mention of this but if true, it would be cheaper for an insurance company to pay the fine.

Much has changed in recent years regarding employee/employer relationships that you can effectively toss out a century or half century or last decade of debates.

Does the current bill address roughly half the employees in the US that have health benefits. Technically these employees do not have health insurance as they are self-funded health plans (defined benefits) so the regulatory system is different.

The list goes on.

Hey what happens happens. It's a fascinating process.

Time to ride.

[Ray]

Ray, what about the loopholes for insurance companies? Last week I was watching CNN's interview with Moore (sicko guy). He brought up that in the proposed plan, insurance companies would be able to pay a fine rather than treat a patient with pre-existing conditions. I have yet to see any other mention of this but if true, it would be cheaper for an insurance company to pay the fine.

Hey what happens happens. It's a fascinating process.

Time to ride.
On the first point, I don't know the details of the fines and whether they'd be big enough to serve their purpose. But if they're not and the horror stories continue, I'd guess that will be a relatively easy fix politically relative to the incredibly heavy lift of taking this first huge step. There are any number of specific items that, assuming this bill becomes law, can be fixed with relatively simple votes that might even get some bipartisan support. But getting over that first enormous hump is nearly impossibly hard, which is why I feel they need to push this imperfect bill over the finish line. Assuming the House votes for it tomorrow, the Senate bill then becomes law, regardless of whether the Senate acts. And the "fix" bill the Senate will be looking at is full of stuff that, if the basic larger bill has already passed, should be relatively non-controversial (like getting rid of the special deals that are what got the Senate bill through committee but nearly killed the whole effort in the end). I frankly don't see what the Republicans will have to gain by raising hell at that point, other than to keep the show going. I think all of the bluster about all of the procedural roadblocks they plan to put up is mostly bluff to try to scare the House Dems into not passing it. I guess we'll see. IF they get it passed tomorrow.

As to points two and three, I agree with you completely. It'll be interesting and its waaaaaay time to ride.

-Ray

[pbjbike]

What I do has nothing to do with what you do.
No, it doesn't, but it is interesting to see other perspectives and part of where attitudes comes from are life experiences. All I can say is it's ironic in your case. I'm quite happy with my life choices, thanks for your concern. :beer:

[pbjbike]

>
We are and were having a civil discussion on ideological difference. Irreconcilable, but we were agreeing to disagree.


Mike, you are probably right, but Rugby can take care of himself. Just wanted to stir the pot before the vote tomorrow. I'm very excited. :)

[JohnHemlock]

24 kilometers to go and a better use of your time. . . .

http://www.universalsports.com/video/assetid=f853af03-d60c-4245-9f77-285b7688c858.html#live+now+milan+san+remo

[Kirk007]

24 kilometers to go and a better use of your time. . . .

http://www.universalsports.com/video/assetid=f853af03-d60c-4245-9f77-285b7688c858.html#live+now+milan+san+remo

thanks for the reminder, nice finish

[Pete Serotta]

Please no :argue: :argue: with others. Just because one does not agree with us - it does not mean they are a bad person or that they are not an honorable person.

It does not matter if one was in the Reserves or not :confused:

Most folks do not use their real name - not even you AND that is fine.

Life has been good to/for me, but I personally think that this bill will not make "medical for all" happen.

It will be rationed and cost everyone $$s either directly or indirectly.

Medicaid and Medicare show that government has alot to learn in managing medicine.

AND YES I HOPE I AM WRONG !!!

[pbjbike]

My apologies to Paul for losing it and getting personal. Totally uncalled for. I have been really good about not even reading the political posts, let alone posting, for a few months...Back to the classifieds and bike posts for me. Carry on.

[jimp1234]

I'm not particulary thrilled with what I've read about this current legislation. But unfortunately, if it fails I just don't believe that the Republicans will do anything better or anything at all. Unfortunately, it's possible that our modern day democracy (which in my cynical moments I refer to as the best government money can buy) has gotten to the point where any "optimal" legislation is impossible to get passed. So here's a few random thoughts. Firstly, for those who say that we need to deregulate the medical and med insurance industry, and that "market forces" will drive down cost please cite an example from anywhere in the world (anywhere), where the healthcare system is a "pure" or unregulated market. Every industrialized country in the world regulates their national health system in one form or another, and most regulate a lot, and have a lot lower cost. Now I would agree with a few ideas about deregulation. It certainly makes no sense to grant the Health Insurance Industry an anti-trust waiver. And I would agree that you should be able to buy a health insurance policy offered by companies in other states, though with some basic national standards. But I completely disagree that we as individuals are going to "bargain" for lower prices with our medical providers and that will result in lower cost in the system. Think about how that would work. You need a heart stent put in, and you negotiate with your cardiologist for a better brand of stents, or an extra night in the hospital? Come on... Now for those of the liberal persuasion who insist that single payer is the only and best option for America, I couldn't disagree more. Something like Germany which has over 200 private insurance companies might be a better model. A few points on "intellectual consistency". I found it very interesting seeing all these white haired Tea Party Members, and of course I'd assume none of them are on medicare. And for those individuals who protest that the government should not force everyone to buy health insurance, I'd support that as long as when people who don't have insurance crash their motorcyle, or get cancer won't go to the hospital and expect treatment for nothing. Here's a interesting article by T. R. Reid comparing our system to health plans in other countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

[eddief]

that a huge percentage of Americans are covered by employer based plans. that huge perecentage is mostly satisfied with the quo. even though they watch their benes shrink day by day and get more expensive in copays, etc. but they are covered. they have a good or not so good job and they are covered. they never see a detailed invoice for services and have been pacified into a false sense of their "security." and they are not mostly giving a crap about this cause it don't hurt them yet.

then there are those who might be healthy and either can't afford it or don't want to.

then there are those on the edges who have a prexist condition, don't have the bucks, can't get insurance to "save their lives" even if they can afford it.

each one of the people in the giant happy pool are just one step away from being in the other two pools. so the majority is happy and 10-30 million of their fellow americans are choosing to be in the crapper or really are in the crapper. i'm good with getting everyone in no matter what and taking care of those in the crapper in the process.

There but for the grace of God, go I.

[Big Dan]

WSJ? Wow that's nice.....
Owned by ......?

[Rueda Tropical]

So now that they fixed our financial system by deregulating Wall Street the Republicans want to fix our health care system by applying the same methods.

As insurance costs under the current system skyrocket healthier younger citizens would rather risk opting out then pay the higher cost. This drives up costs for insurers causing more rate hikes which causes the next tier of insured to opt out leaving an even higher risk pool of insured causing even more rapid escalation of rates. The current system is in a rapidly accelerating death spiral. The status quo will quickly result in absurdly high costs with rates quickly doubling and 10's of millions more uninsured.

The alternative -passing a far from perfect bill- is far preferable as it starts a process of reform that should have been begun years ago.

[93legendti]

See you in November:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost...If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan...

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html

[MilanoTom]

I hate to tell you, but when it comes to this debate, I think that there may be a fair number of people who are greedy and selfish. They care more about their stock portfolios or bank accounts than whether their fellow Americans can afford (or even get) coverage. I'm plenty comfortable calling someone with a "I've got mine, so screw you" attitude (especially with they frame it with a bogus "what about the deficit??? argument) a bad person.

Tom

Please no :argue: :argue: with others. Just because one does not agree with us - it does not mean they are a bad person or that they are not an honorable person.

It does not matter if one was in the Reserves or not :confused:

Most folks do not use their real name - not even you AND that is fine.

Life has been good to/for me, but I personally think that this bill will not make "medical for all" happen.

It will be rationed and cost everyone $$s either directly or indirectly.

Medicaid and Medicare show that government has alot to learn in managing medicine.

AND YES I HOPE I AM WRONG !!!

[rugbysecondrow]

I hate to tell you, but when it comes to this debate, I think that there may be a fair number of people who are greedy and selfish. They care more about their stock portfolios or bank accounts than whether their fellow Americans can afford (or even get) coverage. I'm plenty comfortable calling someone with a "I've got mine, so screw you" attitude (especially with they frame it with a bogus "what about the deficit??? argument) a bad person.

Tom


I am not sure why staying on topic is so hard here. Maybe it is easier to attack others rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Since when has the deficit become a bogus issue?

[MilanoTom]

I am not sure why staying on topic is so hard here. Maybe it is easier to attack others rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Since when has the deficit become a bogus issue?

Since it never seemed to be an issue when the Republicans were spending like drunken sailors.

[zap]

WSJ? Wow that's nice.....
Owned by ......?

WSJ is a fine paper.

Offers differing views from that of the NYT which is healthy. Understanding ownership, editors, etc. is also important.

Sure FOX has it's goofy moments (or several) but it also has some serious reports. To dismiss it as a news outlet as some in the Obama admin would like to do is well..........narrow minded and dangerous.

How can anyone have an intelligent discussion if one does not understand an opponents pov.

[zap]

Since it never seemed to be an issue when the Republicans were spending like drunken sailors.

Oh, it was an issue with registered Republicans.

[rugbysecondrow]

Since it never seemed to be an issue when the Republicans were spending like drunken sailors.

I am sorry, did you shift topics on us?

Why does it seem those in favor of this bill are the ones not wanting to discuss it, but rather want to talk about WSJ, attacking other peoples charector, and dredging up tired arguements?

[Ray]

I am sorry, did you shift topics on us?

Why does it seem those in favor of this bill are the ones not wanting to discuss it, but rather want to talk about WSJ, attacking other peoples charector, and dredging up tired arguements?
I'll defend the bill, as I have. Far from perfect, but a HUGE and CRITICAL first step to absolutely necessary reform. The first step is by far the biggest hurdle. Fixing some of the details as time goes on will be doable and, dare I say it, probably even on a bipartisan basis. I know you think this is bullcrap. I think its anything but. We agree to disagree.

The idea that there's more perfect legislation out there if we'd just scrap this one and go back to square one and pass something bipartisan is what I consider to be bullcrap - no offense intended. It won't happen. The Republicans have NO interest in reforming health care in a bipartisan manner. They made no attempt to do so under any of the last three GOP administrations - you'd have to go back to Nixon and his proposal was FAR more liberal than the bill being voted on this afternoon. And they've been very upfront about their strategy with both Clinton and Obama of denying them a victory on this issue. Clearly Obama will never have the votes he has now - every first term president loses seats in the first mid-term (except W with a special allowance for 9/11) and with the economy in the shape its in, Obama will probably lose more than many - might even lose control of Congress although I think its too early to predict that.

So its now or never, or at least another decade. And the problems are too critical to abandon for another decade, even if the solution isn't perfect.

And the GOP criticism of this bill on deficit grounds is also bullcrap. Because they passed two tax cuts and a medicare prescription bill that the CBO told them would blow a hole in the deficit, they said deficits don't matter (quoting Cheney on that one) and passed them anyway. And they blew a hole in the deficit. To now claim that THIS bill, which is at least scored by the CBO to reduce the deficit, will blow a hole in the deficit is a joke. A BAD joke. I realize a lot of true conservatives never supported the GOP spending and I'm not criticizing THOSE folks (and some of you are here and I respect your consistency), but I'm criticizing every GOP politician who voted for those bills and are now jumping all over this one. Because, pardon my French, its bullcrap.

Now I'm gonna go for a ride and come back and watch this historic vote and I'll either being partying a lot or crying a little after its over. Because NOTHING will surprise me.

-Ray

[rugbysecondrow]

Ray, you still didn't defend the bill as you didn't specifically reference the bill once. You are defending your ideas about health reform, but not this bill...very different approach Ray. I also think you are falsely framing this situation, you frame it as a now or never situation, then you still blame republicans, then you still don't discuss the deficit issues but you blame shift.

You still think it is OK to pass a crappy bill, then assume it will be fixed later. You say it is now or never for this bill, but then assume they will come back and fix it...if there is time to fix it later, there is time to get it right now.






I'll defend the bill, as I have. Far from perfect, but a HUGE and CRITICAL first step to absolutely necessary reform. The first step is by far the biggest hurdle. Fixing some of the details as time goes on will be doable and, dare I say it, probably even on a bipartisan basis. I know you think this is bullcrap. I think its anything but. We agree to disagree.

The idea that there's more perfect legislation out there if we'd just scrap this one and go back to square one and pass something bipartisan is what I consider to be bullcrap - no offense intended. It won't happen. The Republicans have NO interest in reforming health care in a bipartisan manner. They made no attempt to do so under any of the last three GOP administrations - you'd have to go back to Nixon and his proposal was FAR more liberal than the bill being voted on this afternoon. And they've been very upfront about their strategy with both Clinton and Obama of denying them a victory on this issue. Clearly Obama will never have the votes he has now - every first term president loses seats in the first mid-term (except W with a special allowance for 9/11) and with the economy in the shape its in, Obama will probably lose more than many - might even lose control of Congress although I think its too early to predict that.

So its now or never, or at least another decade. And the problems are too critical to abandon for another decade, even if the solution isn't perfect.

And the GOP criticism of this bill on deficit grounds is also bullcrap. Because they passed two tax cuts and a medicare prescription bill that the CBO told them would blow a hole in the deficit, they said deficits don't matter (quoting Cheney on that one) and passed them anyway. And they blew a hole in the deficit. To now claim that THIS bill, which is at least scored by the CBO to reduce the deficit, will blow a hole in the deficit is a joke. A BAD joke. I realize a lot of true conservatives never supported the GOP spending and I'm not criticizing THOSE folks (and some of you are here and I respect your consistency), but I'm criticizing every GOP politician who voted for those bills and are now jumping all over this one. Because, pardon my French, its bullcrap.

Now I'm gonna go for a ride and come back and watch this historic vote and I'll either being partying a lot or crying a little after its over. Because NOTHING will surprise me.

-Ray

[SEABREEZE]

You know what I find ironic, is the fact that threads were closed because they were off topic in general discussion. Example camera and hamburgers.

No bickering going on. Just enlightment.

Some complained, now we have a seperate section for OT and we have a heated argument. Because of always politics or religion.

I thought even when both were posted in general discussion. You could no longer discuss religion or politics on the Serotta forum.

If my memory serves me correct, Pete started another thread, that aslo lead to a closing, because of the bickering, which lead into politics. He appologized for starting it.

Perhaps we all have to consider the topic and where it might go.

Throughtout history Man has agreed to disagree when it comes to Politics and Religion... Its not going to change anytime soon.

[1centaur]

There IS a difference between a temporary deficit (war; an arms build up) and a structural deficit (ever expanding entitlements). In fact, those who like the charts of deficits getting better in Democratic administrations prove that.

And of course, static scoring by the CBO has long been criticized by the right and is at odds with the Laffer curve. To a Democrat, all tax cuts look like deficit increasers, whereas to a Republican, many tax cuts look like tax increasers as economic activity increases.

Finally, the CBO scoring has been severely, purposely, and cynically gamed by the Democrats on the health care bill because they know most voters won't understand that this bill does not "pay for itself." That lie will be repeated by Obama and others after the bill passes, but not one of them believes it. One of the more effective arguments pre-November will be peeling back the layers of the CBO onion so voters understand what 30MM uninsured people will cost them, to put it in political terms.

All that said, I agree that Reps are not looking for any national health care. Politically speaking, that's too bad, because if they spent the next six months devising an alternative that really cuts health care costs, lowers the deficit impact, lowers the tax impact, and has some widely appealing provisions, I think they could get control of the issue and do a repeal while taking control of Congress. That is 100% NOT what they'll do, because they have plenty of political ammunition as it stands. No lifetime caps will be popular to over 50% of voters, so whatever they propose will have to retain that and several other elements of the plan. I actually do like several elements of the plan, but the unintended consequences will be a problem. The thing about worst 10% of docs referring to specialists is exactly the sort of provision that will kill people - governing by quota instead of truth has been messing up people's lives for years. It's going to be a depressing and shrill few months; post-November we'll know the direction of national health care.

[Ray]

You still think it is OK to pass a crappy bill, then assume it will be fixed later. You say it is now or never for this bill, but then assume they will come back and fix it...if there is time to fix it later, there is time to get it right now.
No, I just don't agree that its a crappy bill. Its not a perfect bill, but its damn near the same bill Bob Dole and the Senate Republicans put forth 15 years ago before they decided their best strategy was obstruction and stopped negotiating. And its almost the same bill Romney and Kennedy got through in Massachusetts except this one actually does MORE in terms of cost-containment. So, no, I don't think its a crappy bill at all. If I did, I wouldn't support it. As you don't.

But you're right about the other part. I DO say its now or never for this bill or any other bill in the near term. The opportunities to go back to square one in this election year are not there. The GOP has shown absolutely no signs that they'll negotiate in good faith on anything other than a VASTLY stripped down GOP bill. Which the Democrats do not believe would work and would never agree to (nor should they, IMHO). So, yeah, I firmly believe its this bill NOW or no bill for another 10-15 years when they've forgotten the hangover from trying to get this one through. I don't believe there is either the time or the political agreement on what it would take to "get it right" now. I frankly don't even know what "get it right" would mean. I have an idea of what it might mean to me. And I know what it would look like to Paul Ryan (who I believe is one of the few Republicans on the Hill who's serious about this), but there's a pretty wide gulf there and I don't see how its gonna be bridged. Given the herculean efforts needed to bridge the relatively small gulf between Democrats on this bill, bridging the HUGE gulf between Democrats and Republicans is not gonna happen. Particularly in an election year.

So, you got half of what I said right and half wrong. Which in't bad for two people who seem to so fundamentally disagree. :cool:

-Ray

[rugbysecondrow]

You opt to believe the pluses and ignore the negatives about this bill. Sure, there are some pluses, but the enforcement, the loopholes, the oversight and complexities, make this bad legistlation.

In one sense it is a jobs bill, there will be a hole new system of IRS, auditors, and attorneys who will benefit from this 2700 page monstricity.





No, I just don't agree that its a crappy bill. Its not a perfect bill, but its damn near the same bill Bob Dole and the Senate Republicans put forth 15 years ago before they decided their best strategy was obstruction and stopped negotiating. And its almost the same bill Romney and Kennedy got through in Massachusetts except this one actually does MORE in terms of cost-containment. So, no, I don't think its a crappy bill at all. If I did, I wouldn't support it. As you don't.

But you're right about the other part. I DO say its now or never for this bill or any other bill in the near term. The opportunities to go back to square one in this election year are not there. The GOP has shown absolutely no signs that they'll negotiate in good faith on anything other than a VASTLY stripped down GOP bill. Which the Democrats do not believe would work and would never agree to (nor should they, IMHO). So, yeah, I firmly believe its this bill NOW or no bill for another 10-15 years when they've forgotten the hangover from trying to get this one through. I don't believe there is either the time or the political agreement on what it would take to "get it right" now. I frankly don't even know what "get it right" would mean. I have an idea of what it might mean to me. And I know what it would look like to Paul Ryan (who I believe is one of the few Republicans on the Hill who's serious about this), but there's a pretty wide gulf there and I don't see how its gonna be bridged. Given the herculean efforts needed to bridge the relatively small gulf between Democrats on this bill, bridging the HUGE gulf between Democrats and Republicans is not gonna happen. Particularly in an election year.

So, you got half of what I said right and half wrong. Which in't bad for two people who seem to so fundamentally disagree. :cool:

-Ray

[Ray]

All that said, I agree that Reps are not looking for any national health care. Politically speaking, that's too bad, because if they spent the next six months devising an alternative that really cuts health care costs, lowers the deficit impact, lowers the tax impact, and has some widely appealing provisions, I think they could get control of the issue and do a repeal while taking control of Congress. That is 100% NOT what they'll do, because they have plenty of political ammunition as it stands. No lifetime caps will be popular to over 50% of voters, so whatever they propose will have to retain that and several other elements of the plan. I actually do like several elements of the plan, but the unintended consequences will be a problem. The thing about worst 10% of docs referring to specialists is exactly the sort of provision that will kill people - governing by quota instead of truth has been messing up people's lives for years. It's going to be a depressing and shrill few months; post-November we'll know the direction of national health care.
The really interesting thing to me will be if Romney gets the GOP nomination. He put a plan very much like this in place in MA. He's denying the hell out of the similarities right now because he wants to be the Republican nominee, but they're very similar. And he could actually play a very constructive role in fixing some of the details if he managed to beat Obama in 2012. Particularly if the Republicans take back Congress in 2010 because he KNOWS this stuff. But how he handles the politics of this issue will be fascinating to me. I'd ALMOST like to see him get elected just for the pure entertainment of seeing how that would work. I'd much rather see Obama get re-elected and I'd also like to see the Dems hold Congress with smaller majorities, but who the hell knows how ANY of this will play over the next 1-3 years, particularly when you throw in the wild card of whether the economy starts coming back and bringing some jobs with it.

But the dynamic will undoubtedly be different after tonight. One way or the other. Or both. :cool:

-Ray

[Ray]

You opt to believe the pluses and ignore the negatives about this bill.

And you opt to stress the minuses and ignore the plusses. Or maybe its just that I think the plusses are important enough to put up with the minuses and you don't. Which gets back, as it always does, to our underlying political philosophy and what we think the role of government should be. Which isn't even remotely surprising on your part or on my part.

Peace, out. It's a beautiful day. If I respond to one or two more posts, I might delay my ride long enough for it to get to 70 degrees and then I can wear shorts!

-Ray

[Wilkinson4]

Which gets back, as it always does, to our underlying political philosophy and what we think the role of government should be.
-Ray

And that is what this is all really about. Collectivism vs. Individualism… It is amusing to me that the same people who fight for the right to do with their own "body" what they want are the same ones who are willing to relinquish control of it to the state.

mIKE

[Ray]

And that is what this is all really about. Collectivism vs. Individualism… It is amusing to me that the same people who fight for the right to do with their own "body" what they want are the same ones who are willing to relinquish control of it to the state.

mIKE
And visa versa. The same people who decry government involvement in the boardroom want to tell you who you can sleep with or marry or exactly which sorts of drugs you can use. The only ones who are consistent on this are the hard core Catholics who want to control pretty much everything and libertarians who want to control nothing. Generally, at least lately, conservatives want the government out of the boardroom but want it involved in personal matters like who you marry and the co-mingling of religion and government. Liberals, OTOH, want more government regulating the boardroom and less government regulating personal liberties. I come down on the liberal side of that and acknowledge that its no more ideologically pure than conservatism - it just ends up with different priorities.

-Ray

[JMerring]

+1,000,000

And visa versa. The same people who decry government involvement in the boardroom want to tell you who you can sleep with or marry or exactly which sorts of drugs you can use. The only ones who are consistent on this are the hard core Catholics who want to control pretty much everything and libertarians who want to control nothing. Generally, at least lately, conservatives want the government out of the boardroom but want it involved in personal matters like who you marry and the co-mingling of religion and government. Liberals, OTOH, want more government regulating the boardroom and less government regulating personal liberties. I come down on the liberal side of that and acknowledge that its no more ideologically pure than conservatism - it just ends up with different priorities.

-Ray

[Wilkinson4]

conservatives want the government out of the boardroom but want it involved in personal matters like who you marry and the co-mingling of religion and government. Liberals, OTOH, want more government regulating the boardroom and less government regulating personal liberties.
-Ray

Obviously, we are speaking in generalities here but let's not confuse conservatives with religion. I am agnostic, yet a conservative. If liberals want less government regulating personal liberties, than why give up ones most sacred personal property possession?

Is it more moral that a government coerces it constituents through law and taxation toward charity or is the higher moral ground found through the voluntary action, where it is in the hearts of man?

All this is making my head hurt and it is nice enough to exercise my mind and freedom and go on a 650B ramble on some dirt roads :)

mIKE

[Rueda Tropical]

Obviously, we are speaking in generalities here but let's not confuse conservatives with religion. I am agnostic, yet a conservative. If liberals want less government regulating personal liberties, than why give up ones most sacred personal property possession?

Is it more moral that a government coerces it constituents through law and taxation toward charity or is the higher moral ground found through the voluntary action, where it is in the hearts of man?

All this is making my head hurt and it is nice enough to exercise my mind and freedom and go on a 650B ramble on some dirt roads :)

mIKE

Government is coercion. Raising an army, enforcing property rights, enforcing the law, collecting taxes, mediating disputes, etc., But what the government gets to coerce is decided in a democracy by the people (or that's the way it's supposed to be). But government isn't the only human institution with a big stick. Big corporations and major religions, they all engage in coercion to the degree they can get away with it. And lately they have been getting away with a lot.

Right now a large chunk of administrative costs in healthcare go to pay people whose job it is to see you don't get any health care. If I can pay someone 50 grand a year and they can deny a couple of 100 grand in claims I should have paid it go's right to the bottom line. That's money well spent, just not in the service of providing better healthcare. That has a direct impact on your "most sacred personal property possession". It's part of the reason we pay a lot more to get a lot less in the most privatized system in the developed world.

[Ray]

Obviously, we are speaking in generalities here but let's not confuse conservatives with religion. I am agnostic, yet a conservative. If liberals want less government regulating personal liberties, than why give up ones most sacred personal property possession?

Is it more moral that a government coerces it constituents through law and taxation toward charity or is the higher moral ground found through the voluntary action, where it is in the hearts of man?

All this is making my head hurt and it is nice enough to exercise my mind and freedom and go on a 650B ramble on some dirt roads :)

mIKE
Yeah, definite generalities and I shouldn't have used the term "conservative" because I don't think a lot of today's "right" IS conservative. You sound a bit closer to a libertarian, but I'm probably reading too much into it. As for the moral distinction between "coerced" charity and "voluntary" charity, I'd agree that voluntary is better. But the empirical evidence pertaining to health care is that we cannot depend on just voluntary charity - its not working. That's when government has to step up. IMHO.

Hope you enjoy(ed) the ride. I just got back from a really nice 30-35 mile ride. I'm a bit wasted as I tend to be early in the season but damn it was nice. First ride of the year in shorts.

-Ray

[1centaur]

Yes Ray, Romney's got a problem. Personally, I think he has the advantage of being a decent and rational executive, which makes him far preferable to a wild-eyed Bible thumper for the top spot. But Mass health care is starting to look like a problem of significant proportions that will be a major issue for Deval Patrick. Obama got Patrick to play-test the concept of government telling insurance companies to fix prices without fixing costs, betraying (without much surprise) where he's heading too - squeeze them out of business. Mass has a health care executive running for governor now - the topic of prices vs. costs will be front and center. I expect Mass health care to be a bigger millstone by the time we get to 2012 and my bet is Romney will be running from it more than embracing it. The story line will be "we got some things wrong and some things right" (sound familiar?) and he'll be dancing like crazy on the head of that pin. For all his sensible, rational pluses (I watched his decisions as governor and was frequently impressed by common sense) he's actually not a great candidate because he'll say what it takes to get elected (sound familiar?) but comes off as slick rather than sincere. He's more sincere than people give him credit for, but he's not authentic and one-of-the-people enough to resonate in the heartland. I think Reps need new blood (WSJ plumped for Thune; a lot of people noticed Paul Ryan's common sense and balls in the HC debate) and hope Romney is not given the nod on a who's next? basis (we saw how great that worked for Dole and McCain).

[93legendti]

Actually Romney's answer is simple, especially because it is the truth. Mass. decided, as a State, to enact health care reform.

It is an issue for the States, not the federal gov't.

[rugbysecondrow]

Actually Romney's answer is simple, especially because it is the truth. Mass. decided, as a State, to enact health care reform.

It is an issue for the States, not the federal gov't.


Correct. This is the most important point. Understand the role of the federal government and the states ability to meet the needs of their citizens.

About 6,000,000 square miles, over 300,000,000 people spread accross 50 states.

That is about 60% of the EUs population spread out over twice as much land. This is important when we start comparing the US many of the EU Countries that are smaller, more dense (easier to deilver services) and more similar in common needs.

The US is a vey diverse place and to assume that the Federal Government will be able to efficiently, productivly, and properly manage this is insane. This is not what they should be doing, it is not what they are good at (obviously). There is a reason Congress has written this piece of crap, it is because they are not built to operate like this.

[eddief]

he and his crew now think they can handle it. i love that pro death penalty pro life crew the most.

[93legendti]

Correct. This is the most important point. Understand the role of the federal government and the states ability to meet the needs of their citizens.

About 6,000,000 square miles, over 300,000,000 people spread accross 50 states.

That is about 60% of the EUs population spread out over twice as much land. This is important when we start comparing the US many of the EU Countries that are smaller, more dense (easier to deilver services) and more similar in common needs.

The US is a vey diverse place and to assume that the Federal Government will be able to efficiently, productivly, and properly manage this is insane. This is not what they should be doing, it is not what they are good at (obviously). There is a reason Congress has written this piece of crap, it is because they are not built to operate like this.
To further illustrate the crap Congress has produced, I ran into a Dr. friend today who will stop seeing Medicare patients if this legislation becomes law. He said right now he doesn't make money on Medicare and the cuts would make him lose money treating these patients. (One of the premises of this Bill is that millions will be added to Medicare, while Dr. reimbursments under Medicare will simultaneously be cut.)

Obamacare slashes drs.' fees by 21% and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients by $1.3 billion. 10,000's of drs. and 1,000's of health care institutions - hospitals, hospices, outpatient clinics and such - will refuse to treat Medicare patients.

With only 880,000 drs. in the Country AND 30 million NEW patients, it won't take many drs. dropping out of medicare for the wheels to fall off Obamacare (assuming it survives the legal challenges).


What good is Obamacare if drs. won't provide services?

[Rueda Tropical]

With only 880,000 drs. in the Country AND 30 million NEW patients

Yes it would be so much better if those 30 million did not have access to services then we would have enough doctors to go around. The problem with Republican criticism of the bill is that they had control to provide a solution and what we got was skyrocketing costs and millions more uninsured. If the system the Republicans left us with continues only the rich will be insured as cost continue to explode.

Yes the Democrats suck and Obama is a disappointment but are the Republicans an alternative? No, because they suck even worse. The Democrats seemed corrupt and incompetent when the Republican revolution swept them out of power. The Republicans quickly proved government could get a lot more corrupt and lot more incompetent then we could have imagined.

I wish we had better options then bad and really, really horrible. But that's what we have.

[Tobias]

I wish we had better options then bad and really, really horrible. But that's what we have.
So why do you promote the really, really horrible one?

In this case doing nothing would be better. The system we have is one of the best, if not the best, in the world except that we can't afford it. Making changes that make it even less affordable is insane.

At some point we have to accept limited services. Technology can do far more for average people than we can afford as a country. There is no real option than to limit medical services. Why not ration based on how much each of us can afford just like with everything else.

[93legendti]

So why do you promote the really, really horrible one?

In this case doing nothing would be better. The system we have is one of the best, if not the best, in the world except that we can't afford it. Making changes that make it even less affordable is insane.

At some point we have to accept limited services. Technology can do far more for average people than we can afford as a country. There is no real option than to limit medical services. Why not ration based on how much each of us can afford just like with everything else.

My guess is Obama has a few ideas on changing your last point...after health care, housing and cars are next and Obama has put the gov't in a position to fulfill those goals.

Where's the cost cutting measures? Where's the recognition that doctors aren't the enemy, but, rather, the most important ingredient in the equation?

Why not encourage doctors instead of discouraging them? We need more doctors and we need them fast. What we will have is fewer doctors, thier time will be at a premium and they will be rushed.

[eddief]

are you sure we're the best and what criteria you used to rate it is probably connected to your political party. not a bad thing, just probably true.

[Rueda Tropical]

So why do you promote the really, really horrible one?

In this case doing nothing would be better. The system we have is one of the best, if not the best, in the world except that we can't afford it. Making changes that make it even less affordable is insane.

At some point we have to accept limited services. Technology can do far more for average people than we can afford as a country. There is no real option than to limit medical services. Why not ration based on how much each of us can afford just like with everything else.


Why don't we do the same with education, police, roads and fire services? Let the free market determine who gets services and who doesn't. Let's go back to the 19th century.

After all if the free market can do it better why have "socialist" government solutions for anything. Why should the government have a monopoly on the military when corporate militias run for profit could be so much more efficient? Why should I be forced to pay taxes for your police protection? If you want protection you pay for as much as you can afford. Let's make it every man for himself and let the market sort out who survives.

[Tobias]

Why don't we do the same with education, police, roads and fire services? Let the free market determine who gets services and who doesn't. Let's go back to the 19th century.

After all if the free market can do it better why have "socialist" government solutions for anything. Why should the government have a monopoly on the military when corporate militias run for profit could be so much more efficient? Why should I be forced to pay taxes for your police protection? If you want protection you pay for as much as you can afford. Let's make it every man for himself and let the market sort out who survives.
OK, why not expand your logic to cover other human basic needs like food, shelter, and sex just like you are doing with medical care? Is there a difference or are those next on the liberal list?

It has nothing to do with free markets. Providing "personal" needs should be our personal responsibility.

[Pete Serotta]

If you would like - start a chapter 2... :)