Here it is.

http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

Also, as a JPG:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22401&stc=1&d=1248447812

Can anyone make heads or tails of this?

If I have an issue with my health care and want to call someone in the government health care system to discuss the issue, who do I speak to?

I know that some larger companies, including large insurance companies, have some pretty confusing org charts. Still, most companies have a call center, and you can generally find out who your account manager is, pretty quick.

But can anyone follow this monstrosity?

This is the greater efficiency that is going to save us all that money?

Elliot

LOL! That's brutal!

Yep, posted it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/rationing-health-care-372866-10.html#post1875750) yesterday although AMHD seems to have problems displaying the linked graphic. I'll try it as an attachment.

That's government efficiency at its best. What's telling also is the Dems are trying to block the GOP from sending this in a mailing to their constituents.

Seems pretty clear to me. By the time you get through all the red tape the majority of patients will be dead. No more worries about paying for some surgery that they have already deemed unnecessary.

Looks like my factory's flow cart

According to the source listed at the bottom of the flow chart this is from the GOP. Explains why it is so crazy looking. I'll wait for the REAL flow chart to come out.

LOL! That's brutal!

It's also the real thing. I wasn't joking. Scary isn't it.

looks like my factory's flow cart

Duuuuude!! You have a screwed up factory.

Who the heck designed it, and does he have any extra of whatever he was smoking?

According to the source listed at the bottom of the flow chart this is from the GOP. Explains why it is so crazy looking. I'll wait for the REAL flow chart to come out.

Actually, it's from GOP members of the committee that created the flow chart in the first place, based on the working papers of that committee. The Dems would like to distance themselves from it, but it's the real deal.

Elliot

Good thing nothing is finalized yet always room for improvement. Lucky for me I don't need the public option (well at least at this very moment). That would suck if that is how it is really going to be I got motion sickness just trying to follow it

Page 16 of the bill shows you will shortly be joining the ranks of the publicly insured . Steve already linked to this but it is worth repeating
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854)

By the way ;are the rumors about fast Eddie Rendell true ?

Actually, included (hidden within) in the chart I posted is the current system we have.

I can summarize it here.

Employers <-> Consumers -> insurance companies -> health care providers -> consumers <->employers

Employers and consumers pay the insurance companies. Insurance companies pay the health care providers. Health care providers provide services to the consumer. Consumers work for the employer. It's a pretty simple, mutually beneficial relationship.

The government plan?? I got no idea where it starts or ends.

Elliot

This one seems to explain more: www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf)

This one seems to explain more: www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf)

Well, it explains IN VERY GENERAL TERMS what Obama wants to accomplish.

It doesn't say HOW he will accomplish these things.
It doesn't talk about who will pay for it.
It doesn't talk about how much it will cost.
It doesn't say who will be in charge of implementation.

In short, all this is is a summary of Obama's talking points. As that sort of document, it's a good summary. But like every summary, it leaves out the details. Unlike MANY summaries, it leaves out the IMPORTANT details.

It is what it is. But it doesn't really tell us very much.

Elliot

btw ;are the rumors about fast Eddie Rendell true ?

Can you be a little more specific I hear a lot of rumors about him.

This one seems to explain more: www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf)

Um, NK... that "full" health care 'plan' is over a thousand pages short of what's actually in the bill (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf).

Um, NK...that "full" health care 'plan' is over a thousand pages short of what's actually in the bill (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf).Yea but in this thread we only link to single page PDFs.

Yea but in this thread we only link to single page PDFs.

Is that as far as you can count?

Yea but in this thread we only link to single page PDFs.

What do you mean "we"?

Elliot

Is that as far as you can count?hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahaha hahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahaha. Sometimes it's hard to believe you are a grown man.

Is that as far as you can count?

Nope. That's as far as he can read.

hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhah ahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahaha. Sometimes it's hard to believe you are a grown man.

At least I can be believed...

At least I can be believed...Yes, you do consider yourself quite a man.

Yes, you do consider yourself quite a man.

Oh yes, I'm always bragging and patting myself on the back. No wait, that's Obama...

Oh yes, I'm always bragging and patting myself on the back.
Yea, I noticed the way you offer your amount of greenies and the way you help to people on this board... oh wait... you don't - too busy spilling your hatred of all things liberal.

This one seems to explain more: www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf)


(1) INVEST IN ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
- who is going to pay for this? The taxpayor? The physician or healthcare provider?
- who gets the contract? The VA has their system nationally, will the gov "give " this away to the private sector? Right now different medical groups have different electronic records. It is not a matter of VHS vs Betamax or Mac vs PC, it is tens of orders worse.


(2) IMPROVE ACCESS TO PREVENTION AND PROVEN DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
This make intuitive sense since a lot acute and chronic disease is behavioral, but how will the government help or make people - lose weight if they are obese, quit smoking if the smoke, exercise if they don't, sleep enough restful hours, eat a low fat high fiber diet, dink alcohol in moderation, take their medications as prescribed, ETC
Ultimately is the individual going to be responsible for their choices or is that going to be mandated by the government?



implementation of medical home type models
How is this going to be reimbursed for? Is internet / virtual healthcare the same thing as a face to face, physical encounter?



Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly
Report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse
Staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care and costs.

Hopsitals and providers are already dealing with this with reams and reams of boilerplate paperwork - ask any nurse, doctor, biller or office manager.
The data gathered about out comes resulting in "report cards" will lead to at least one effect. High risk cases [ like surgeries ] will NOT be treated. No one wants their "grade ruined " by taking on a someone who is in a "last resort" situation.




I could disect each point ad infinitum. See ET's point about generalities and no practical changes.





G&P

That supposed flow chart needs to have a huge arrow saying "You are Here". So far no matter how many times I look at that ridiculous chart I can't find the big arrow and the You are Here sign. The chart is just another flim flammery of the government. They don't want the little people to know where all the graft is going to be paid - they just want to be sure that they get theirs while the little don't get theirs. Simple. Deposit money here, close your eyes and hold out your hand and hope something fills up your hand other than dog dodoo.

And this is a prime example of "more government to confuse the peasants".

Obama Koolaid anyone?

It looks just like the organizational chart for navigating my HMO and the local group medical practice. I just go where they tell me and hope it works out. If the government health plan isn't any more complicated than that, it's doing fabulously. Last week, I had to go through 3 gatekeeper doctors to see a physical therapist who spent 10 minutes with me. He did a great job, but the doctors each took their cut. That's the way the HMO wants it, but I have to make all these co-pays to each one and spend the morning filling out forms and sitting in waiting rooms each time.

But, no problem, I won't be here long, because the HMO just raised my premium 37%. I can't afford the premium anymore, so I'll be uninsured like so many other people soon. I don't even get to choose my doctor. I don't know what fantasy world people are living in when they talking about "preserving choice." What choice?

And I don't see how averaging everyone's risk together (instead of letting the insurance companies pick us off one at a time) could be any worse. In every other country where they have single payer, universal health care, people live longer and have lower infant mortality compared to the U.S. How can that be bad? We are about 50th in the world for longevity and infant mortality.

Anyway, I'm tired of paying big bucks to the CEO of my HMO. A government employee doesn't earn much more than about $200,000, while these health insurance CEOs earn anywhere from $4 million a year to $38 million --money they earn by refusing to cover treatment and medicines ordered by doctors. That $38 million/year, which pays just ONE executive, could help a lot of people. And for him, that salary is just a score card for the financial games he's playing. Nobody actually needs or uses that kind of money. So people die so he can have a higher score. That's sick.

It looks just like the organizational chart for navigating my HMO and the local group medical practice. I just go where they tell me and hope it works out. If the government health plan isn't any more complicated than that, it's doing fabulously. Last week, I had to go through 3 gatekeeper doctors to see a physical therapist who spent 10 minutes with me. He did a great job, but the doctors each took their cut. That's the way the HMO wants it, but I have to make all these co-pays to each one and spend the morning filling out forms and sitting in waiting rooms each time.

But, no problem, I won't be here long, because the HMO just raised my premium 37&#37;. I can't afford the premium anymore, so I'll be uninsured like so many other people soon. I don't even get to choose my doctor. I don't know what fantasy world people are living in when they talking about "preserving choice." What choice?

And I don't see how averaging everyone's risk together (instead of letting the insurance companies pick us off one at a time) could be any worse. In every other country where they have single payer, universal health care, people live longer and have lower infant mortality compared to the U.S. How can that be bad? We are about 50th in the world for longevity and infant mortality.

Anyway, I'm tired of paying big bucks to the CEO of my HMO. A government employee doesn't earn much more than about $200,000, while these health insurance CEOs earn anywhere from $4 million a year to $38 million --money they earn by refusing to cover treatment and medicines ordered by doctors. That $38 million/year, which pays just ONE executive, could help a lot of people. And for him, that salary is just a score card for the financial games he's playing. Nobody actually needs or uses that kind of money. So people die so he can have a higher score. That's sick.

Your choice is that if you don't like your current plan, you can find another one that works better. If you don't want to have a plan at all, you can pay for your medical care out of pocket.

Under a government plan, you will be FORCED to pay a premium, whether you can afford it ore not. Oh, it won't be called a premium. It will be called a tax increase. But it's the same thing.

Now, here's a question: why do you have three gatekeepers? Your Primary Care Physician is supposed to be your only gatekeeper. Referrals are supposed to be done by him. So why did you need three gatekeepers?

Also, you mentioned that it took all morning for you to fill out the paperwork and see the doctors you needed so that you could go to the PT. That's a heck of a lot better than not being able to see the PT for 3-6 months like they have in the UK and Canada. (Despite what NeedKarma says, that's the national average in Canada.) I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty happy with being able to see a specialist that quickly.

Finally, you talk about averaging everyone's health care costs together to come out with an average that's affordable. Hate to tell you this, but the costs of health care do not average out to a middle-of-the-road number. What actually happens is that everyone ends up paying the HIGHEST cost. When 80% of the services are used by the groups that are contributing the least to the system (those over 65 years old who no longer work and therefore pay almost nothing in taxes), everyone else has to pick up the slack and contribute more. So the costs are not a blended average... they are HIGHER, not lower. Not to mention that the cost of administration of a medical system by the government will be 2-3 times that of administering a private system. Your costs will therefore automatically be higher than they are now.

If your goal is to lower costs, nationalized health care is the biggest mistake you can make. Not only will your costs be higher, but the services you receive will be of a lower quality and will take longer to obtain. This isn't just a "mantra of the right". All you need to do is look up the facts about nationalized health care in Europe and Canada, and you will know that this is true.

One more question... you mentioned that you don't want to pay so much money to your HMO's CEO. What were the salary and benefits of your HMO's CEO? How much revenues did your HMO have for the year? What was their net income? What was their profit margin? Do you even know? Or are you just ASSUMING that they got paid too much?

I recommend that before you take a position on health care, you do some research and find out more about our current system and the systems of Europe and Canada.

Elliot

Hello:

I don't know. If the debate had been an honest one from the git go, this chart MIGHT be believable... But it wasn't, and the chart isn't.

excon

Hello:

I dunno. If the debate had been an honest one from the git go, this chart MIGHT be believable..... But it wasn't, and the chart isn't.

excon

What part of the chart is wrong? Specifically.

What part of the chart is wrong? Specifically.Hello Steve:

That Republicans wrote it. Republicans haven't been telling the truth in the debate, so WHY should anyone believe this piece of crap?

Look. It's CLEAR that Republicans represent the health insurance industry. It's also clear that the health insurance industry doesn't want to change. Why don't they?? Because they're making jillions of dollars just as things are.

So, WHO would believe you?? WHO??

excon

What part of the chart is wrong? Specifically.From the home page Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com) can you tell me how to navigate to the page that links to the PDF?

Hello:

I dunno. If the debate had been an honest one from the git go, this chart MIGHT be believable..... But it wasn't, and the chart isn't.

excon

You are quite correct. The debate hasn't been honest at all.

Obama said that we would be able to keep our current health plans, but that is not what the bill says, and it is not what he has said his long-term goals are.

Obama said that health costs would go down, but that is not what the CBO says.

Obama said that the costs of a nationalized plan would be a "net-even" for the budget, but that has turned out to be false.

Obama said that there would be no decreases in services, but then admitted himself that some "end-of-life" choices would have to be made as to what services would be provided.

Obama said he knows what's in the bill, but then admitted that he hadn't read it and doesn't know many of the key provisions.

Simply put, from day one this debate has been COMPLETELY DISHONEST. Deliberately so.

The chart, however, is quite correct and honest. It is, in fact, taken from the health care bill... every governmental agency listed in the chart comes directly from the 1,018 pages of the bill itself.

Elliot

From the home page Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com) can you tell me how to navigate to the page that links to the PDF?

First of all, on the right side of the page is a section called "most popular".

Click on the story titled "Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing"

The link to the chart is within that story.

Elliot

First of all, on the right side of the page is a section called "most popular".

Click on the story titled "Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing"

The link to the chart is within that story.

ElliotI only get this:

22536

Where is the link to the PDF?

Your choice is that if you don't like your current plan, you can find another one that works better. If you don't want to have a plan at all, you can pay for your medical care out of pocket.

No I can't. I broke my back in 2004 and no other plan would take me. Health insurers can choose to reject anyone who they think has chronic problems, whether they do or not. They can pretty much reject anyone who doesn't look like they are going to pay in more than they take out.


Under a government plan, you will be FORCED to pay a premium, whether you can afford it ore not. Oh, it won't be called a premium. It will be called a tax increase. But it's the same thing.

I'm already FORCED to pay a huge premium or have no health insurance at all. At least with a government plan my huge premium would cover sick people instead of paying executives millions of dollars a year. And I have every reason to think that with a goverrnment plan my tax increase would be much lower than the premium I'm now paying, so frankly, that's a net gain for me and a net gain for the millions of peoplenow uninsured.


Now, here's a question: why do you have three gatekeepers? Your Primary Care Physician is supposed to be your only gatekeeper. Referrals are supposed to be done by him. So why did you need three gatekeepers?

How should I know? Ask my HMO. I can't imagine any government plan being any MORE complex or confusing than what I'm already dealing with.


Also, you mentioned that it took all morning for you to fill out the paperwork and see the doctors you needed so that you could go to the PT. That's a heck of a lot better than not being able to see the PT for 3-6 months like they have in the UK and Canada.

I DID have to wait a month to see the PT and that was only a month because I made a dozen phone calls to different people trying to get seen sooner than 6 more weeks--i.e. 2.5 months. So don't tell me it's better, because it's not.

Likewise, when I hurt my back in 2004, I was in agony and no one would do anything for me for 3 months. It took a month to get one appointment, for an exam, another month to get the follow up etc. After my surgery in another city (6 months later), I developed a surgical infection and my own doctor refused to even talk to me. (She came out and looked at me in the waiting room and turned her back and walked away. Apparently, I was some kind of legal liability.) They sent me to an ER in a strange city on a Friday an hour and half a way and I had sit in a hallway for 12 hours watching gunshot victims and junkies trying to score a fix, while I waited for antibiotics for an abdominal infection. This was just three weeks after major surgery.


Finally, you talk about averaging everyone's health care costs together to come out with an average that's affordable. Hate to tell you this, but the costs of health care do not average out to a middle-of-the-road number.

Hate to tell you this, but if you average health care costs withOUT the millions of dollars in executive pay, bonuses and stock dividends, health care is (by some miracle) cheaper and we can actually afford to cover all those uninsured people whose only crime is to not have health insurance.


What actually happens is that everyone ends up paying the HIGHEST cost.

I can't imagine how you reasoned that out. It makes no sense. Are you a shill for the insurance industry? How can paying millions per year--billions over 10 years--make anything cheaper?


If your goal is to lower costs, nationalized health care is the biggest mistake you can make.

If that were true then countries that have nationalized health care--as we have nationalized education and defense, would have higher costs and worse care. In fact, the reverse is true.


One more question... you mentioned that you don't want to pay so much money to your HMO's CEO. What were the salary and benefits of your HMO's CEO? How much revenues did your HMO have for the year? What was their net income? What was their profit margin? Do you even know? Or are you just ASSUMING that they got paid too much?

Of course, I know. I'm not an idiot. The CEO for my company makes several million dollars per year. You can look these things up. The CEO of Aetna is among the highest paid executives, according to Forbes. All of this is public knowledge for publicly traded companies.

FierceHealthCare.com, a daily online news report for the health care industry, reports the following. Forbes gives Williams has getting $38 million, so I guess they are counting differently.

* Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.

* H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.

* Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.

* Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.

* Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.

* James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.

* Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.

* Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.

* Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.

* Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.

And that's JUST the top CEOs. You add all the salaries of the next layer down for EACH company and you are talking real money.


I recommend that before you take a position on health care, you do some research and find out more about our current system and the systems of Europe and Canada.

Same to you.

Then you can pay for a subscription.

But for your sake, here's the full article:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/rollcall/sponsorship_tools;abr=!ie;sz=88x31;ord=19932078;?


http://www.rollcall.com/media/ui/branding-logo-large.gif


http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif

Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif

Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF (http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf)) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.
But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.
In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.
For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” that is “simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. ... This is false.”
The chart’s illustration of low-income subsidies is also “misleading and false,” Democrats argue.
Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.
“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s ... downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.
Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
“He strongly believes that the franking commission does not have the authority to deny Member communications based on partisan differences of pending legislation,” said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Lungren.
The franking commission is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans.
Republicans quickly embraced Brady’s chart, and over the past week about 50 Members have posted it on their Congressional Web sites or used it in a floor speech. It has also been posted on the home page of the Republican National Committee.
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif

2009 © Roll Call Inc.



Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF (http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf)) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.
But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.
In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.
For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” that is “simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. ... This is false.”
The chart’s illustration of low-income subsidies is also “misleading and false,” Democrats argue.
Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.
“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s ... downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.
Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
“He strongly believes that the franking commission does not have the authority to deny Member communications based on partisan differences of pending legislation,” said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Lungren.
The franking commission is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans.
Republicans quickly embraced Brady’s chart, and over the past week about 50 Members have posted it on their Congressional Web sites or used it in a floor speech. It has also been posted on the home page of the Republican National Committee.
Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly)

2009 © Roll Call Inc.

[/quote]
And here is the URL for a Printer-friendly version of the story.

So the chart is made by GOP staffers - gee you don't think they tried to make it as complicated as they could on purpose? I can't believe you bought that hook, line and sinker!

If you want to know what it's really like in Canada, a personal account from an ordinary Canadian, read this:

kzduff (http://kzduff.livejournal.com/)

Don't listen to propaganda from vested interests

From the home page Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com) can you tell me how to navigate to the page that links to the PDF?

Click on your link, type mailing in the search box and click 'search.' The first document, Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing" is the original story.

It's time we stopped making small businesses shoulder the burden of providing health insurance to Americans. Our current system places an unfair burden on American business and leaves the unemployed with no health care.

So the chart is made by GOP staffers - gee you don't think they tried to make it as complicated as they could on purpose? I can't believe you bought that hook, line and sinker!

Of course they made it look as complicated as they could on purpose. But is it wrong? Someone show me where it's wrong. Anyone?

You know I get pissed when people act like you can just go see a Dr. My wife was in a car accident like 4 years ago and cracked a vertebra and needed a spinal fusion. She had to wait 3 months for an appointment at Jefferson in Philly And she had kick @$$ insurance. Then had to wait another 3 months for the surgery. So please save the argument that with a government plan that you will have to wait to see a Dr Because it already happens.

Of course they made it look as complicated as they could on purpose. But is it wrong? Someone show me where it's wrong. Anyone?Explain to me how it faithfully describes the bill.

Also I could take the operation of our Content Management System and it's procedure and condense into one PDF that would make your head spin. But of course we don't do that, we have the procedures outlined in a user-friendly way depending on the roles we play in it.

You know I get pissed when people act like you can just go see a Dr. My wife was in a car accident like 4 years ago and cracked a vertebra and needed a spinal fusion. She had to wait 3 months for an appointment at Jefferson in Philly And she had kick @$$ insurance. Then had to wait another 3 months for the surgery. So please save the argument that with a government plan that you will have to wait to see a Dr Because it already happens.
I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago for my bum knee, my MRI is next week - I'm still playing summer hockey so I'm not out of commission. I'm happy with the way this is working.

You know I get pissed when people act like you can just go see a Dr. My wife was in a car accident like 4 years ago and cracked a vertebra and needed a spinal fusion. She had to wait 3 months for an appointment at Jefferson in Philly And she had kick @$$ insurance. Then had to wait another 3 months for the surgery. So please save the argument that with a government plan that you will have to wait to see a Dr Because it already happens.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! This is pretty much exactly what happened to me--including the accident, the broken vertebra, and the spinal fusion and the months of waiting to see a surgeon and then another two months waiting for my surgery date. Except in California, so it's not just one place. This is happening everywhere. They spent all that time stalling and trying to come up with a reason not to cover me or to find ways to cover me more cheaply--physical therapy for a broken back? And all those months, I was in terrible pain and couldn't work or even sleep at night.

People with kicka$$ insurance already have to wait long periods for care and often have very little choice of which doctor they can see.

I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago for my bum knee, my MRI is next week - I'm still playing summer hockey so I'm not out of commission. I'm happy with the way this is working.

If you are still playing hockey, you clearly aren't exactly having a health crisis. In that case, waiting 3 weeks for an MRI and probably another week or two for your follow-up isn't a big deal. But not everybody has minor problems.

Explain to me how it faithfully describes the bill.

You guys are the ones claiming it's wrong, explain to me how it doesn't.


Also I could take the operation of our Content Management System and it's procedure and condense into one PDF that would make your head spin. But of course we don't do that, we have the procedures outlined in a user-friendly way depending on the roles we play in it.

Oh, are Obama and Democrats in Congress trying to ram a bill down our throats that will cost untold trillions of taxpayer dollars that would force us to participate in your Content Management System?

"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

(President Obama at a town hall event last month)

You guys are the ones claiming it's wrong, explain to me how it doesn't.
This thread was started with the premise that the PDF faithfully represents the health care reform, however we now know that this PDF flowchart was made as complicated as possible on purpose by the republicans. How do we know it's not all lies? It likely is unless you can prove that it faithfully recreate the process outlined in the bill.

Oh and about my CMS simili... you fail at comprehension of an analogy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy).

No I can't. I broke my back in 2004 and no other plan would take me. Health insurers can choose to reject anyone who they think has chronic problems, whether they do or not. They can pretty much reject anyone who doesn't look like they are going to pay in more than they take out.

Then there is already a government program for you. It is called Medicare. It was developed specifically for those over the age of retirement OR those who are disabled.

Since there is already a government system that was created JUST FOR YOUR SITUATION, there is no need to create another one.


I'm already FORCED to pay a huge premium or have no health insurance at all.

MEDICARE!! You should look into it. It's FREE (except for the taxes you pay). No premiums.


At least with a government plan my huge premium would cover sick people instead of paying executives millions of dollars a year.

As opposed to being spent for pork barrel projects in the billions of dollars... the same way Social Security has been used.

You'd rather have your money pay for the study of gophers in the wild in Minnesota or some other pork project, than to executives of companies that actually supply you with a service that you can use.

Brilliant thinking.


And I have every reason to think that with a goverrnment plan my tax increase would be much lower than the premium I'm now paying, so frankly, that's a net gain for me and a net gain for the millions of people now uninsured.

First of all, what reasons do you have to believe that your taxes would be less than your premiums? Of all the nationalized health care systems in the world, which one makes you believe that you will end up paying LESS in taxes for your coverage than you do now in premiums?

Secondly, you are suggesting that there will be a net gain for millions of people who are uninsured. Are you aware of the fact that Obama himself admitted that after 10 years and $23 trillion spent on his national health care plan, he STILL expects there to be about 35 million people uninsured. So you are saying that in order to cover 10 million people, we need to dismantle a system that works for 260 million people and replace it with one that still doesn't cover 35 million? Doe that make any sense to you?


How should I know? Ask my HMO. I can't imagine any government plan being any MORE complex or confusing than what I'm already dealing with.

I can. Just look at that chart I posted again.


I DID have to wait a month to see the PT and that was only a month because I made a dozen phone calls to different people trying to get seen sooner than 6 more weeks--i.e. 2.5 months. So don't tell me it's better, because it's not.

Yes it is. You do remember the 3-6 months I mentioned. That is longer than the 2.5 months you are talking about. And the national average, including care for those without any insurance whatsoever in this country is about 3 weeks. You really are on a sucky plan. You might be better off on another plan or on Medicare. You should look into it.


Likewise, when I hurt my back in 2004, I was in agony and no one would do anything for me for 3 months. It took a month to get one appointment, for an exam, another month to get the follow up etc. After my surgery in another city (6 months later), I developed a surgical infection and my own doctor refused to even talk to me. (She came out and looked at me in the waiting room and turned her back and walked away. Apparently, I was some kind of legal liability.) They sent me to an ER in a strange city on a Friday an hour and half a way and I had sit in a hallway for 12 hours watching gunshot victims and junkies trying to score a fix, while I waited for antibiotics for an abdominal infection. This was just three weeks after major surgery.

Yep. You definitely need to look at another plan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your plan sucks.

But not every plan does. The great thing about a free market system is that you can choose to join another plan. Including Medicare.


Hate to tell you this, but if you average health care costs withOUT the millions of dollars in executive pay, bonuses and stock dividends, health care is (by some miracle) cheaper and we can actually afford to cover all those uninsured people whose only crime is to not have health insurance.

What percentage of revenues is spent on executive pay and bonuses? What percentage of revenues is disbursed as dividends? Unless you can answer these questions, there is no way to know whether you are correct.

As a point of fact, executive salaries (even the ones you list below) are less than 1/10th of 1% of revenues and expenses. Which means that if operating expenses DOUBLE or TRIPLE, even if every single dollar of executive pay, bonuses, and dividends are eliminated, we will still be paying 299% of what we are paying now. And that doesn't include the salaries for all the government workers to make the system work... and the retirement and pension benefits (almost full salaries) of every person who retires from working at the government health system.


I can't imagine how you reasoned that out. It makes no sense. Are you a shill for the insurance industry? How can paying millions per year--billions over 10 years--make anything cheaper?

It is called "efficiencies of scale".

Let me put it this way. Insurance companies, the good ones anyway, make more money when they are efficient (spending less to get more). It is their JOB to become as efficient as possible so that they can make as much money as possible. The more efficient they become, the more money they make.

The government, not being a for profit entity, doesn't care whether it is efficient or not. That is why the government can spend $500 for an ordinary hammer. Also, agency budgets are based on how much they spend. The more they can justify spending, the more they get from the government. They therefore have no reason to be efficient, and every reason not to.

The result is that while private insurance companies strive to keep their costs low, government agencies do not. Anf the government agency will justify this fact by stating that their cost for services rendered by health professionals is the HIGHEST level they can get away with, not the lowest. Worse, the government works on a "use it or lose it" budget system. Any money they DON'T use this year is money they cannot claim that they need next year, and their budget will be cut. Since they want their budget to GROW, not shrink, they will use every dollar they are given, and then some. And they will have to justofy it by showing higher costs, not lower costs.

That is the nature of government budgeting.


If that were true then countries that have nationalized health care--as we have nationalized education and defense, would have higher costs and worse care. In fact, the reverse is true.

Actually, what you are saying is actually true. Our public education system is a failure. PRIVATE SCHOOLS across the board have MUCH BETTER results than public schools. Compared to other countries (Japan, China, most of Europe) kids graduating from our public high schools are functional illiterates. Our public school system is a complete failure. That is why there has been talk of privatizing the education system through a voucher program and through charter schools.

The only reason that this doesn't apply to our military is because we have an all-volunteer military that is highly disciplined. That makes our military the most powerful military in the world. When we didn't have a volunteer military (ei: Vietnam), we didn't have all that effective a military either. I believe that it is the volunteerism that counts in our favor.

However, even though it is an EFFECTIVE military, it is not EFFICIENT in its spending practices. The DOD is, in fact, one of the most inefficient government agencies in the governmment. Its spending practices are no different from the spending practices of the rest of our government, only it is actually BIGGER than most govermment agencies, and therefore even more wasteful. Effective in combat doesn't mean efficient in spending practices.



Of course, I know. I'm not an idiot. The CEO for my company makes several million dollars per year. You can look these things up. The CEO of Aetna is among the highest paid executives, according to Forbes. All of this is public knowledge for publicly traded companies.

FierceHealthCare.com, a daily online news report for the health care industry, reports the following. Forbes gives Williams has getting $38 million, so I guess they are counting differently.

* Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.

* H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.

* Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.

* Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.

* Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.

* James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.

* Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.

* Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.

* Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.

* Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.

And that's JUST the top CEOs. You add all the salaries of the next layer down for EACH company and you are talking real money.

See my responsese above. Unless you know what percentage of total revenue or total expenses this amounts to, you have no idea whether eliminating these compensation levels will make a bit of difference... especially if government operating expenses will be twice or three times as high.

More research needed.

Elliot

If you are still playing hockey, you clearly aren't exactly having a health crisis. In that case, waiting 3 weeks for an MRI and probably another week or two for your followup isn't a big deal. But not everybody has minor problems.
That's my point, I'm in Canada and I'm getting fairly quick response for a minor (which may become major in the near future) problem.

This thread was started with the premise that the PDF faithfully represents the health care reform, however we now know that this PDF flowchart was made as complicated as possible on purpose by the republicans. How do we know it's not all lies? It likely is unless you can prove that it faithfully recreate the process outlined in the bill.


The Dems haven't tried to say that the number of agencies or the way they are interconnected is false. They have simply tried to say that there is an outflow of money to go along with the inflow at certain agencies.

In other words, they agree that the plan really is this complicated, but Republicans need to be more careful about showing the inflows and outflows of cash more correctly.

But the interconnectivity of the agencies on this org chart is not in dispute... even though the Dems wish it was.

Elliot

That's my point, I'm in Canada and I'm getting fairly quick response for a minor (which may become major in the near future) problem.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were in Canada.

(And, if I may make an unasked for suggestion, cut out the hockey until you've strengthened your knee or otherwise got it fixed. :) If it's damaged, you can only make it worse if you fall or similar.)

This thread was started with the premise that the PDF faithfully represents the health care reform

You fail at comprehending the premise. The thread is about the organization of the proposed health care system.


however we now know that this PDF flowchart was made as complicated as possible on purpose by the republicans. How do we know it's not all lies? It likely is unless you can prove that it faithfully recreate the process outlined in the bill.

Again, you guys are saying it's wrong, the simple question is still what is wrong? If you can't point out anything in error then I'd suggest you shut up about it.


Oh and about my CMS simili... you fail at comprehension of an analogy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy).


Your analogy is irrelevant.

MY GP says that all ligaments are strong, it's the meniscus that may be the issue. As long as I follow my feeling as to what I can do and I can handle some inflammation then he's given me the OK. He's like me, active to the point that we need it, being totally inactive is that last option. :) But thanks for the concern.

Of course they made it look as complicated as they could on purpose. But is it wrong? Someone show me where it's wrong. Anyone?Hello again, Steve:

Well, for one... There's no start and there's no end... Even Democrats would have the end showing unlimited free health care. But, it's not there. I don't see it... You'd think the Republicans who made the chart wouldn't have forgotten THAT part.

But, they did... So, I think it's made up. The Democrats wouldn't have forgotten that part. That IS the part that counts, after all.

excon

Your analogy is irrelevant.It seems that everything you don't understand is irrelevant. All I'm asking is for you to explain to us some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill, to ensure that it's accurate. Or are you simply parroting yet another conservative talking point like a sheep?

It seems that everything you don't understand is irrelevant. All I'm asking is for you to explain to us some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill, to ensure that it's accurate. Or are you simply parroting yet another conservative talking point like a sheep?

The point you seem to have missed is that NOBODY seems to be able to describe these relationships. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNDER THIS BILL SO RIDICULOUS. It is the very fact that it is so incomprehensible that makes it so ridiculous.

The point you seem to have missed is that NOBODY seems to be able to describe these relationships. I see so it's a bogus flowchart - that is indeed the point we are making. Buh-bye.

It seems that everything you don't understand is irrelevant.

Actually it takes a pretty big set to try and tell the world what I do and don't understand.


All I'm asking is for you to explain to us some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill, to ensure that it's accurate. Or are you simply parroting yet another conservative talking point like a sheep?

All I'm asking is for you to support the claim that the chart is wrong. If you think it's wrong and is a lie you should be able to tell us how so. And, you should be able to understand it's an organizational chart, not an explanation of the specifics of the bill. I believe that's been made abundantly clear.

I can't "explain ... some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill," "how it faithfully describes the bill," how it "faithfully represents the health care reform" or any other way you want to rephrase your point because that's not the purpose of the chart. Understand?

Then there is already a government program for you. It is called Medicare. It was developed specifically for those over the age of retirement OR those who are disabled.

I am no longer disabled and I am too young for Medicare.


You'd rather have your money pay for the study of gophers in the wild in Minnesota or some other pork project, than to executives of companies that actually supply you with a service that you can use.

I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.


Brilliant thinking.

I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.


First of all, what reasons do you have to believe that your taxes would be less than your premiums?

It is well established that 20&#37; to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.


Secondly, you are suggesting that there will be a net gain for millions of people who are uninsured.

The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.

As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed. As a friend wrote to me:


What did Ron Williams of Aetna really do to warrant that compensation [$38 million]? Did he fund some break through technology that would reduce health care costs? No. Did he come up with any new innovations to help people stay well? No.&#160;

All he does and gets paid to do is increase profits for the shareholders. So how does he do that? He just jacks up the prices to the consumers and makes sure that more claims are denied, or that they pay out much less per claim and put more of the burden on the consumer.

If Apple operated this way, then the Macintosh LISA from 15 years ago would be costing more now and doing less. Instead, we have the iPhone. The health insurance industry does not do anything to innovate.


So you are saying that in order to cover 10 million people, we need to dismantle a system that works for 260 million people and replace it with one that still doesn't cover 35 million? Doe that make any sense to you?

It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million?? )? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?


Yep. You definitely need to look at another plan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your plan sucks.

Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system. Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.


But not every plan does. The great thing about a free market system is that you can choose to join another plan. Including Medicare.

First of all Medicare IS nationalized medicine, but only for the elderly. It's not free market. But you right. It works if you are eligible.

Second, you keep saying I have a choice to go to another insurer even though I've explained that I and millions like me do not in fact have access to this imaginary marvelous free market system that dispenses great health care on demand.

When's the last time you or your partner had a serious illness, wolverine? Do you really know what it's like in the trenches when you are too sick to figure out the system or don't have suction?


What percentage of revenues is spent on executive pay and bonuses? What percentage of revenues is disbursed as dividends? Unless you can answer these questions, there is no way to know whether you are correct.

I am sure you believe that.


As a point of fact, executive salaries (even the ones you list below) are less than 1/10th of 1% of revenues and expenses.

Can you document that assertion? And what do you mean "even" the ones I listed. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, a mere handful of the highest salaries.


And that doesn't include the salaries for all the government workers to make the system work... and the retirement and pension benefits (almost full salaries) of every person who retires from working at the government health system.

That's simply untrue. Government workers make a fraction of what unregulated private executives pay themselves. The top GS ranking, GS 15, maxes out at $145,000.
2009 Government Pay Schedule - GovCentral.com (http://www.govcentral.com/benefits/articles/2374?page=16)

And why are you defending exorbitant executive compensation? Are you saying that you honestly don't think that $38 million a year could make a difference? One guy's take home could provide coverage for 10,000 young families whose children need vaccinations or whose dads need hernia operations.

I don't think I have to document every single insurance executive's pay and what he spends it on to make my case.


It is called "efficiencies of scale".

Well it's efficient for the executives.


Let me put it this way. Insurance companies, the good ones anyway, make more money when they are efficient (spending less to get more). It is their JOB to become as efficient as possible so that they can make as much money as possible. The more efficient they become, the more money they make.

It is their job to NOT PAY OUT if they can possibly help it. We need a system whose job it is to ensure the health of its citizens.


The government, not being a for profit entity, doesn't care whether it is efficient or not. That is why the government can spend $500 for an ordinary hammer. Also, agency budgets are based on how much they spend. The more they can justify spending, the more they get from the government. They therefore have no reason to be efficient, and every reason not to.

The EFFICIENT thing to do is to not treat people. Who wants that?


Actually, what you are saying is actually true. Our public education system is a failure. PRIVATE SCHOOLS across the board have MUCH BETTER results than public schools.

This is because they skim high income families who already have huge advantages over the kids left behind in public schools, just as private insurers currently skim middle to high income families with minimal risk of getting sick.


Compared to other countries (Japan, China, most of Europe) kids graduating from our public high schools are functional illiterates. Our public school system is a complete failure.

"Total failure" is a gross exaggeration. I say that with some confidence because I was entirely educated in U.S. public schools. Japan and most European countries (if not all) provide universal public education paid for by TAXES. They don't have higher scores on standardized tests because they have private schools. They just have better public schools! They also have universal HEALTH CARE. In Japan it's a mix of public and private. In Europe health care is usually publicly funded. Every country in western Europe has better health statistics than we do in terms of health, longevity, and infant mortality.


The only reason that this doesn't apply to our military is because we have an all-volunteer military that is highly disciplined.


I am really unclear what your point is here. If our military were private and run by executives making millions of dollars a year--who pillage their companies to feather their own nests-- and if this private military were operated "efficiently", it would only defend states and industries that were easy to defend in case of war, explaining to California and Iowa that it would InEfficient to defend them. That's what health insurerers now do.

Quote of the day (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/27/new-dem-strategy-on-obamacare-ignore-the-evidence-and-just-trust-us/) by Ed Morrissey on the Democrats' plan to ignore the CBO and ask us to just trust them instead...


The Obama administration and the Democrats have yet to learn that one cannot spend their way back into solvency. We already have government programs for medical care that don’t work. If Congress wants to overhaul Medicare/Medicaid to make it financially viable, the VA to make it responsive, and Indian Health Service to make it do anything for its consumers, that would be enough for any Congress to do. Otherwise, we don’t need the Church of Democratic Spending asking us to ignore the evidence of massive irresponsibility and ask us to believe that they can perform some kind of transubstantiation to make it into cost savings for the American taxpayer.

I see so it's a bogus flowchart - that is indeed the point we are making. Buh-bye.

No, the flowchart is real. It is based on the Health Care Bill. It just makes absolutely no sense. It is so convoluted, so complex, so assinine that nobody could possibly understand it. JUST AS NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH CARE BILL ITSELF. THAT is what we are saying.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this very simple point... are you OK?

Elliot

It is so convoluted, so complex, so assinine that nobody could possibly understand it. JUST AS NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH CARE BILL ITSELF. THAT is what we are saying.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this very simple point... are you OK?

And to reinforce that point, John Conyers doesn't' even think there's a point to reading the bill.


“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on) if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Duh, I don't know, so maybe the people that pass the bills will have a freakin' clue as to what they're ramming down our throats? A bill that is "so convoluted, so complex, so assinine" that "lawmakers" can't understand it without two lawyers should be the first clue that the legislation sucks and so does the "lawmaker." .

I still don't think it means much that the Republican's chart is complex. It's a complicated rendition of a hack of an already badly functioning and complicated system (private payer). If I opened up my computer it would look complicated. Does that mean it's a bad computer because I can't instantly understand how it works? If you looked at how a single cell in your body actually worked, you wouldn't be able to understand it. That doesn't make it a bad cell.

If Wolverine can't understand why I have no options even though I keep trying to explain, why should we expect a single page diagram of the entire US health care system to be easy to understand? We don't expect other things--like how an F15 works, say, to be simple. If you want simpler, you have to start over from first principles with a national health care system. Everybody is so terrified of change, though, they are afraid to do that even though we know for a fact it works in other countries and their health care is cheaper and better for the majority of people.

No, the flowchart is real. It is based on the Health Care Bill.JUST AS NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH CARE BILL ITSELF. THAT is what we are saying.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this very simple point... are you ok?

Hello again, El:

The point you're missing, is that you SAY nobody could understand the bill - yet some Republican staffer could. In fact he made a DETAILED flow chart of the bill. How could that be if nobody can understand the bill? So, either he's full of crap, or you are.

I can't seem to decide. Ok, I believe YOU. The flow chart is hooey!

excon

The point you're missing, is that you SAY nobody could understand the bill - yet some Republican staffer could. In fact he made a DETAILED flow chart of the bill.

Good point.
asking

Likewise, a lot of the stuff on this chart is just the government as it already functions. The treasury, the IRS, and the VA are not specific to a new health care plan.
The huge blue box in the middle that says Bureau of Health Information is just a giant (and extremely useful) website/database of statistics and other information that the federal government makes available. I go there all the time to look things up. Don't freak out guys; it's basically just a library.
asking

I am no longer disabled and I am too young for Medicare.

If your health insurance companies are saying that you aren't elligible for THEIR services because you have a pre-existing condition, then you ARE de-facto disabled. If you are not disabled, you should be eligible for other forms of insurance than the HMO you are on. Something is not right here.

If you are being denied care by private insurance, and are not elligible for Medicare, then there is a problem with Medicare... a government-run program. Why would you trust the same government that is screwing you over now to somehow do a better job with a BIGGER program? Does that make sense to you?



I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.

I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.


Because it isn't going to be used to pay for YOUR health care or the health care of someone working at minimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas. It's going to be used for pork barrel spending, just like Soccial Security money is. That's why Social Security is bankrupt. The huge mystery is why you would trust the same people who bankrupted social security by spending the money for other purposesd NOT to do the same with your health care money? THAT us the huge mystery... why would you be so gullible?


It is well established that 20% to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.

Yep... you got to pay the clerks to run the day-to-day operations of the insurance companies. 20-30% of the money made by insurance companies goes to salaries for the lower and mid-level employees' salaries. Do you think they ought to be working for free?

Now... here's the part you seem to miss.

While insurance companies have to pay 20-30% of their income for their employees salaries and benefits, those insurance companies only have one set of employees at a time. When someone retires from an insurance company, that's it. They no longer receive any pay from that insurance company.

Government employees are a bit different. They continue to receive pensions after they retire, and they can retire with full pension after 20 years on the job. A person who starts working at age 25 will work for 20 years until age 45. After that, HE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE HIS FULL PAY (or close to it) until the day he dies. At age 45, he can go and start a private business and rececive an income from the business AND his retirement package. That same employee can continue to live until he's 85 years old or more. By that time, two more generations of government employee will have retired as well, and also be receiving full benefits. At any one time, the government is paying for 2-3 sets of employees: the ones currently working, and two sets of people who have retired and are collecting full salaries in the form of pensions.

So while the cost of salaries and benefits for health insurance company employees would be 20-30% of revenues, the employment costs of the Government health care plan would be THREE TIMES AS HIGH.

Now how, exactly, do you think the government is going to pay for that without increasing the amount you pay in taxes for insurance coverage?



The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.

No, the reason we don't is because in countries that have single-payer insurance coverage, the care is ABYSSMAL because the government can't afford to cover everyone. Take a look at how the UK is rationing drugs to cancer patients, how few MRI machines there are in Canada, and how long the lines are in France to get basic health needs met. Nationalized health care coverage is EXPENSIVE, and since the government can't afford it and can't justify raising taxes any higher, the only thing they can do is cut services.


As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed.

Actually, they've never been given a chance at free market solutions. There has not been a time since FDR when the government hasn't been involved in regulating, taxing, controlling and generally being involved in health care. The reason that employers started offering health insurance to employees in the first place is because the government started capping salaries for certain jobs. Since the companies could no longer compete on salaries, they had to compete on benefits. The point is that the very existence of employer-based insurance in the firmst place is due to government interference in the free markets to begin with.

Why don't we tell government to get out of the way and let the free market find it's own solutions. That is something we've never tried... at least not since the 1940s. We should give it a shot before declaring that it won't work.



It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million?? )? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?

Where did I get the 10 million figure from? There are 46 million people currently not covered by insurance. Obama said that he expects that after 10 years there will still be 36 million people not covered by his health plan, no matter what he does. Ergo, he is suggesting a change in the entire system of health care on the basis of insuring 10 million people... less than 3% of the entire US population.

As for how many people are really uninsured in the USA:

There are 46 million people uninsured. Approximately 10 million of them are illegal aliens. Of the remaining 36 million, approximately 15 million have CHOSEN not to have health insurance. Of the remaining 20-21 million, approximately 50% of them are uninsured for a period of 4 months or less, and become insured again thereafter. They, for all intents and purposes, are covered. So we are only talking about 10 million or so that are uninsured for a period of more than 4 months... and most of those manage to get coverage within a 1-year period. In any case, while they may not have health insurance, they all receive health care, even if it is from free clinics, ER rooms, charities, etc. But the point is that the number of people uninsured for more than 4 months in the USA is under 10 million. Or 3% of the population.

So I ask again, why do you think that we need to dismantle a system that works 97% of the time? Why not instead try to fix the 3% of the times that it doesn't work? Why not work on insuring the 10 million long-term uninsured, instead of messing up the system that works the rest of the time?


Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system.

No, you didn't explain it to me. You simply stated it as a fact. I am asking you to explain it to me. WHY can you not change plans? IF you are not disabled, what is the issue. If you ARE disabled, there's Medicare. Either way, you can get a better plan than you have now.



Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.

Correction: they have made health INSURANCE for their citizens a top priority. Care is a different matter entirely. Their care is shoddy, accessibility is poor, mistakes are common, long waits are the norm, and people literally die waiting for treatments for months at a time that we get within a few days. They all receive the same level of healthcare, whether they are rich or poor... but that level of care is awful.

I'll have to respond to the rest of your post another time.

Elliot

The huge blue box in the middle that says Bureau of Health Information is just a giant (and extremely useful) websiteHello again, asking:

You know what else is suspicious about this flow chart? A flow chart starts and stops at something. It flows from a beginning to an end... But, where's the end where it says FREE HEALTH CARE?? You'd think that it would be in an even bigger box than the blue one in the middle...

But, I couldn't find it. You wouldn't think a Republican would forget that, would you?

excon

If your health insurance companies are saying that you aren't elligible for THEIR services because you have a pre-existing condition, then you ARE de-facto disabled. If you are not disabled, you should be eligible for other forms of insurance than the HMO you are on. Something is not right here.

If you are being denied care by private insurance, and are not elligible for Medicare, then there is a problem with Medicare... a government-run program. Why would you trust the same government that is screwing you over now to somehow do a better job with a BIGGER program?

Does that make sense to you?Hello again, El:

No. Nothing you said there makes any sense at all.

You seem surprised that people are denied health insurance for pre existing conditions. And, IF they are, you call them disabled... Really?? DISABLED?? And, because they have a pre-existing condition, which makes them disabled, THAT makes them eligible for medicare?? Really? You think that stuff??

Dude! You actually know NOTHING about our health care problem. You're blinded by rightwingism... You just repeat what you're told.

excon

Here it is.

http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

Also, as a JPG:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22401&stc=1&d=1248447812

Can anyone make heads or tails of this?

If I have an issue with my health care and want to call someone in the government health care system to discuss the issue, who do I speak to?

I know that some larger companies, including large insurance companies, have some pretty confusing org charts. Still, most companies have a call center, and yu can generally find out who your account manager is, pretty quick.

But can anyone follow this monstrosity?

This is the greater efficiency that is gonna save us all that money?

Elliot

Looks like you have a few too many quango's in there Elliot, time to fire some public servants

It seems to me that asking & spit have identified real problems in your health care system, yet no one here acknowledges them. Elliot even has the audacity to argue with them and tell them it's their fault. They should change providers! You're disabled so get medicare...

Elliot it seems that you live in a bubble. You've identified that previously when it comes to your children's upbringing. Its one big perfect bubble when it comes to healthcare, education etc. etc. But these are real people with real problems and the fact that there is such a debate going on must mean that there are many many more people like spit and asking with these problems. Yet you consistently deny it...

It seems to me that asking & spit have identified real problems in your health care system, yet no one here acknowledges them. Elliot even has the audacity to argue with them and tell them its their fault. They should change providers! You're disabled so get medicare....

Elliot it seems that you live in a bubble. You've identified that previously when it comes to your childrens upbringing. Its one big perfect bubble when it comes to healthcare, education etc. etc. But these are real people with real problems and the fact that there is such a debate going on must mean that there are many many more people like spit and asking with these problems. Yet you consistently deny it....

Skell,

The government already has provided for a system to take care of people that fall through the cracks of private insurance through Medicare and Medicaid.

If these people are not covered, it is because of one of two things:

1) Either these people do not know their options.
2) The government programs designed to help them have failed.

If option one is true, that is not the fault of private health care. And more often than not, the reason that people are uninsured is because they don't know their options. They don't know what they are eligible for (just like that lady with cancer at the Obama speech a couple of weeks agao that so many people made so much hay over... turns out she didn't know she was elligible for Medicare AND Medicaid.

Therefore, the people who do not know what they are elligible for should try to educate themselves BEFORE trying to claim that the entire system has failed. The system hasn't failed in these cases... the system is working fine. The people have failed to educate themselves as to their options.

If the second option is true, if Medicare and Medicaid have failed to cover those who should be covered, then how is that the fault of the private health care system? Again, people are trying to blame private insurance for the failures of the govermment health systems. And they are willing to give the same government that has failed them EVEN MORE POWER to fail them further. There is absolutely no logic to their argument.

As for your accusation that I live in a bubble... I wish trhat were the case. Then the actions of fools who want to destroy the best medical system in the world and replace it with a system that every socialist nation is trying to get AWAY from wouldn't be affecting me. Unfortunately, I live in the same world as the rest of you. And you're messing it up, which affects ME.

This, of course, leaves aside the fact that I pay a rather heafty sum for my monthly coverage. I am currently on COBRA, which means that I pay the full cost of my coverage myself. This after having been unemployed for 11 of the past 18 months. I know very well the cost of health insurance and how it effects those with little to no income. And despite that, I STILL say that the system works better than any other system in the world. Not because it is cheap, but because it is more EFFECTIVE AT TREATING ILLNESS AND TRAUMA THAN ANY OTHER SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. If we socialize that system, the quality of care will deteriorate as it has in every country where it has been tried. Which means that I won't get the level of care that I am paying for, and neither will anyone else.

So I resent your argument that I live in a bubble. It is neither true, nor does it answer the main argument, which is that socialized medicine is neither cheaper nor better than private medical care. It is, in fact, more expensive and of a lesser quality.

Interestingly enough, you miss another important point about private medical care. Private care leads to competition. Competition leads to lower pricing and higher quality. That quality and pricing affect EVERYONE across the board... including the uninsured guy who walks into the ER. The quality of HIS care is improved as well, even though he is uninsured.

In socialized medicine, there is no competition, there is no improvement, and the quality of care is the LOWEST common denominator, not the highest.

Trying to attack me for "living in a bubble" doesn't change any of these arguments. You have to resort to such arguments because you have no economic arguments to defend your support of socialism, which has failed as a system EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS EVER BEEN TRIED THROUGHOUT HISTORY, whether in the form of communism, feudalism, communalism, or dictatorship. What makes you think that WE can do a better job of socialism than every other country in the world that has tried it and failed? The fact that I may live in a bubble cannot offset this basic fact of history and economics. SOCIALISM IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.

And implementing it HERE is idiocy.

Especially when Obama himself has admitted that 3/4 of those not currently insured are STILL not going to be insured 10 years from now under his system. If that's true, then wrecking the current system to replace it with socialism is not only idiotic... it's FUTILE as well, and a huge waste of $23 trillion.

Now, skell, why don't you read some of my prior posts in this string and others, where I suggested that instead of trying to destroy the current system and replace it with a failed experiment, we should instead try to get those who are not currently covered to be covered. That would solve the biggest issue, the uninsured. Why don't we work on tort reform, which would lower doctors' overhead by as much as 60%, and result in lower costs of medical care. These two actions alone would solve MOST of the problems facing our system.

But instead of fixing a system that works 97% of the time (85% if you accept the "46 million uninsured" number, which is demonstrably false), you'd rather destroy that system and replace it with one that has a 100% failure rate.

You think that socialism is the answer to our problems... and you think I live in a bubble?

Elliot

The government already has provided for a system to take care of people that fall through the cracks of private insurance through Medicare and Medicaid. Hello again, El:

Some people are too young to qualify for Medicare, and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Therefore, they go uninsured.

I repeat: You know NOTHING!

excon

Hello again, El:

Some people are too young to qualify for Medicare, and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Therefore, they go uninsured.

I repeat: You know NOTHING!

excon

Medicare qualifications is not only based on age. It is also based on disability. If someone is too disabled to work, he qualifies for Medicare, regardless of his/her age.

If a person is unable to work because of a disability, but is denied coverage by Medicare, it means the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. Which just proves that the people who run it cannot be trusted to cover the rest of us properly either.

Medicaid qualifications are means based. It covers anyone earning less than 150% of the poverty level in their state. If a person is making less than 150% of the poverty level in their state, they qualify for Medicaid.

If someone is making less than 150% of the poverty level but is not being insured by Medicaid, it means the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. Which just proves that the people who run it cannot be trusted to cover the rest of us properly either.

So the only people who are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid are people who are fully capable of working and are earning 150% of the poverty level, but still cannot afford medical insurance. THOSE are the people we need to concentrate on helping.

And the number of people in that category for more than a 4 month period is roughly 10 million. (Not 46 million, as some would like us to believe.)

If we handed each of those 10 million people a $1500 check every month to pay for their medical insurance at a private insurance company, the total cost to the US govermment would be $180 billion... a far cry from the $2.3 trillion a year it would cost to create a socialized medicine plan.

Even if we assume the 46 million uninsured number is correct, the total cost to the US govermment would be $828 billion... which is still significantly less than the $2.3 trillion it would cost to create a socialized medicine plan.

So why on G-d's green earth would we agree to spend $2.3 trillion to do what we could do for between $180 million and $828 million, while still keeping our current system and still keep the government out of our business.

Why is this such a hard concept for people?

Elliot

Medicare qualifications is not only based on age. It is also based on disability. If someone is too disabled to work, he qualifies for Medicare, regardless of his/her age.

If a person is unable to work because of a disability, but is denied coverage by Medicare, it means the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

Why is this such a hard concept for people? Hello again, El:

You can slip and slide around the truth as much as you want, but I ain't going to let you get away with it.

The only person telling someone, who HAS a job, and who HAS a pre-existing condition which prevents them from buying insurance, that they're DISABLED and eligible for Medicare, is YOU! You are BONKERS. You know NOTHING!

excon

I will respond later. I am off to the physical therapist. Wolverine has obviously never applied for disability... I'm grinning from ear to ear at his fantasies about how easy it is to be classified as disabled.

Well, having BEEN disabled for a time, I actually DO know how the system works.

But let's not let facts get in the way.

At no point did I say it was easy to move through the system. What I said was that it can be done. And if you are persistent enough (and apparently I'm more persistent than others on this board), you can pretty much work within the system to get coverage.

We should work to improve the system that we have to make movement easier.

But that does NOT mean that we need to dismantle it and replace it with a system that has even FEWER freedoms, lower quality, and lower accessibility.

Nobody here has bothered to challenge my point on the cost of just paying to cover those who are uninsured vs. the cost of creating a nationalized health care system.

Any takers on that point. Because THAT is the key point. It's the one that solves the basic problems with the system... including asking's personal problem of a lack of coverage.

Does anyone dispute the fact that it is cheaper and more effective to just cover those who are uninsured rather than dismantle the system?

Anyone..

If the issue is costs then the President is right . Forget about expensive and innovative surgical treatment . Take the blue pill.

Can't wait until the health gestapo tells Michael J Fox he doesn't qualify for advanced Parkinson's treatment .
The American Spectator : Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die? (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/28/who-will-tell-michael-j-fox-he)

Maybe Fox will return to Canada for treatment .

Can't wait until the health gestapo tells Michael J Fox he doesn't qualify for advanced Parkinson's treatment .
The American Spectator : Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die? (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/28/who-will-tell-michael-j-fox-he)
Wow, that article is nasty and full of hyperbole. You read and believe this stuff? Really?

Oh I'm sure Michael J Fox will be the exception to the rule ;just like most other rich elites . But there is no doubt that the works of Peter Singer ; Tom Daschele and Dr Ezekiel Emanuel advocate a rationing of health care by a central politboro and the denial of life saving care for the elderly . I did not need this article ;no matter how over the top it is for effect ;to tell me that is exactly their plan.

Hello tom:

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't really think that insurance companies save everybody, do you? What's the difference WHO tells you that it's over for you?

You pretend that it's going to be a NEW rationer of health care instead of just a different one. But, that's why I'm here.

excon

Hello tom:

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't really think that insurance companies save everybody, do you? What's the difference WHO tells you that it's over for you?

You pretend that it's going to be a NEW rationer of health care instead of just a different one. But, that's why I'm here.

You know ex, I think I'd rather take my chances with a free market insurance company and provider than a government that wants to ALLOCATE care to achieve "social justice." At least now I can shop for insurance, I can shop for a doctor, I can negotiate payments with providers. Under the social justice model you'll be TOLD what treatments you can have and if you as a person are even worth treating.

Tom mentioned Rahmbo's brother who is helping shape Obamacare. This is a guy who thinks doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, a guy who thinks "guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" is silly because they are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." So much for Grandma and Trig Palin.

This is a guy who in his warped mind believes you aren't discriminating if you allocate health care by age.


"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years." (Lancet, Jan. 31).

It's also logical that this precedent would lead to employers discriminating based on age and disability after the health care model, don't you think? If the feds are going to codify discrimination based on age and disability in health care it seems they would have to codify it in other areas. But then the left is good at not thinking the consequences through or just ignoring them as long as it doesn't affect their positions of power or interfere with their agenda.

I'll take my chances in the market over taking my chances with politicians who champion equal rights for all while saying old and disabled people are a drain on society and aren't worth the cost. Which by the way, makes me wonder, doesn't AARP support the president in this?

If your health insurance companies are saying that you aren't elligible for THEIR services because you have a pre-existing condition, then you ARE de-facto disabled. If you are not disabled, you should be eligible for other forms of insurance than the HMO you are on. Something is not right here.

Medicare only covers people 65 and older.
"Pre-existing condition" and "disabled" are two different things.

Here is the overview from Medicare's website.


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

I don't qualify.


If you are being denied care by private insurance, and are not elligible for Medicare, then there is a problem with Medicare... a government-run program. Why would you trust the same government that is screwing you over now to somehow do a better job with a BIGGER program? Does that make sense to you?

Why blame Medicare for not covering people it was not designed to cover? It covers people 65 and older.


Because it isn't going to be used to pay for YOUR health care or the health care of someone working at minimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas. It's going to be used for pork barrel spending, just like Soccial Security money is. That's why Social Security is bankrupt.

So you say. By the way, Social Security is not bankrupt. Of course it would be if the Bush administration had succeeded in putting it all into the stock market a few years ago. Phew! Close call. And yes--BECAUSE Social Security is so well endowed and so successful-- the government does borrow against it--particularly the spendthrift Republicans, but that's another issue.


While insurance companies have to pay 20-30% of their income for their employees salaries and benefits, those insurance companies only have one set of employees at a time. When someone retires from an insurance company, that's it. They no longer receive any pay from that insurance company.

Yeah. If I had been getting paid $5 million a year for 10 years, I wouldn't expect a pension either, although I expect they have stock options and other little perks even after they are gone.


Government employees are a bit different. They continue to receive pensions after they retire, and they can retire with full pension after 20 years on the job. A person who starts working at age 25 will work for 20 years until age 45. After that, HE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE HIS FULL PAY (or close to it) until the day he dies. At age 45, he can go and start a private business and rececive an income from the business AND his retirement package.

I kind of doubt it's this easy. Given your general lack of knowledge about basic rules of Medicare eligibility, I'm going to assume you have this wrong too unless you can cite an authoritative source. I do not think that government jobs allow you to retire at 45 with a full salary. In all our dreams!

So, Wolverine, what was your job? I assume you have some kind of good health insurance that you are happy with. Who is your insurer and how much is your premium? I feel like you should be willing to share the good news with those of us who haven't found such a good deal. I also assume you don't get anything from the federal government. Is that correct?


So while the cost of salaries and benefits for health insurance company employees would be 20-30% of revenues, the employment costs of the Government health care plan would be THREE TIMES AS HIGH.

This all sounds like propaganda (astroturf) from the Insurance industry. How can it possibly be cheaper to pay an executive $38 million a year than to pay some poor schmuck to push paper in a badly lit government office somewhere. Even if he was GS-15, he'd have to live to be 327 years old. Plus there the lack of a Bigelow on the floor.


No, the reason we don't is because in countries that have single-payer insurance coverage, the care is ABYSSMAL because the government can't afford to cover everyone. Take a look at how the UK is rationing drugs to cancer patients, how few MRI machines there are in Canada, and how long the lines are in France to get basic health needs met. Nationalized health care coverage is EXPENSIVE, and since the government can't afford it and can't justify raising taxes any higher, the only thing they can do is cut services.

More mythology. We already have rationing. Some people get covered for things that other people can't get. It's just rationed differently in other countries.

Anyway, lots of tests and procedures doesn't mean good care. I've had two MRIs and countless X rays and most of them were of little use to me. They are way over used in this country, because it's a way for physicians to rack up extra charges to pay for (a) their liability insurance (b) their staff for doing all the medical billing to insurance companies*, and (c) a boat or bigger house. So if you rip up your knee at work, they x ray it and tell you it's not broken.

One day, two nurses were struggling to hold down my 2 and a half year old son so they could X ray his leg, which may or may not have been broken in a fall. He was terrified, so I asked, "What will you do if it's broken?" "Nothing" they said. He wouldn't need a cast. So I told them to stop and saved the insurer another pointless charge and my poor son a few minutes of terror.

I have seen the textbooks used to teach people how to do medical billing. They are full sized textbooks. You have to take a whole course (or two?) just to learn how to get the insurance company to pay. The doctors and insurers are locked in a pitched bureaucratic battle. And the patients are just ammo. There is no way government payment could be worse. And in Canada it's much, much simpler than dealing with a PRIVATE insurance company here.


Actually, they've never been given a chance at free market solutions. There has not been a time since FDR when the government hasn't been involved in regulating, taxing, controlling and generally being involved in health care.

Well, sure, Wolverine. We could go back to 19th-century medicine and let quacks sell patent medicines (no FDA). Let's get rid of the National Institutes of Health while we are at it. No more medical research, no more expensive cancer treatments or cutting-edge surgical techniques (joke). No more new vaccines for new viruses. And I'm tired of paying taxes for building roads. I'll just buy a Hummer and romp over the potholes in dirt roads. We don't need pavement, or road signs, or cops to enforce all those pesky government mandated highway safety rules. Breathalizer, schemzalizer. We certainly don't need any regulations to prevent people from practicing medicine without a license. We don't need the government to tell doctors that ulcers aren't caused by stress but instead are caused by a bacterial infection, or that the correct treatment isn't a heavy diet of cream and cereal (which is what doctors used to prescribe for ulcers), but a two-week course of antibiotics. And let's dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and the Veteran's Administration. If those systems worked, people would be clamoring for something like that for themselves.

Oh, whoops. I forgot. They are!


Obama said that he expects that after 10 years there will still be 36 million people not covered by his health plan, no matter what he does.

Did you mean this?


A new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that Senator Edward Kennedy’s plan to expand healthcare coverage would cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years and fall far short of providing universal healthcare coverage. According to the CBO, the plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 16 million people, but even if the bill became law, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017.

This is why we need single payer, so everyone can be covered, not just the wealthy and the petrified upper middle class. The current plan is a compromise solution that leaves all the private insurers in place, collecting their 20 to 30% overhead, while the government pays for the folks that aren't as lucrative to "cover"--the disabled, the sick, and the old.


There are 46 million people uninsured. Approximately 10 million of them are illegal aliens.

Oh, gosh! You are right. Let's not count them. We don't care about them. They just work here, often for 12 hours a day. Why would we want THEM to have health care? Let them go unvaccinated and die of tuberculosis and whooping cough whilst picking our lettuces and peaches or making our milk shakes and fries in the backs of greasy kitchens.


Of the remaining 36 million, approximately 15 million have CHOSEN not to have health insurance.

Right, like I'm about to CHOOSE not to pay $1400/month instead of eating and having a house. They choose not to because it's a significant expense or they unwisely choose to go uninsured. That is a bad thing, not something to crow about. They should be covered.


So we are only talking about 10 million or so that are uninsured for a period of more than 4 months... and most of those manage to get coverage within a 1-year period.

Um. That's not what the U.S. Census bureau says.
Health Insurance Coverage: 2007 - Highlights (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html)



WHY can you not change plans? IF you are not disabled, what is the issue. If you ARE disabled, there's Medicare. Either way, you can get a better plan than you have now.

You do not have to be disabled to not have coverage. If you do not have group coverage, you just have to have some kind of condition that makes the insurer believe you will cost them money sooner or later. For example, if you had cancer, you are likely to get it again, so that'll do it. If you had serious injury that required surgery or trips to a pain clinic, that can make you uninsurable. Something like lupus or MS, where you can still work but you need regular medical care will do it. They can't legally drop you, but they can raise your rates so high that you can't afford it, and no other insurer has to take you. Is that clear?

Here is a list of roughly 75 conditions that can make you uninsurable if you don't have group coverage.
Uninsurable Health Risks (http://www.quotesforinsurance.com/uninsurable-health-risks.html)

Addison's Disease
      AIDS (HIV Positive)
      ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease)
      Alzheimers Disease
      Amyotrophis Lateral Sclerosis
      Angioplasty
      Ankylosing Spondylitis
      Aunria
      ARC ( AIDS Related Complex)
      Arteriosclerosis
      ASD (Atrial Septal Defect)
      Banti's Disease
      Bi-Polar Disorder (Manic Depressive)
      Bypass Surgery
      Cancer
      Chronic Fatigue Syndrone (Usually within 5 years)
      Colitis
      COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)
      Conjestive Heart Failure
      Cirrosis of the Liver
      Collagen Diseases
      Crohn's Disease
      Cystic Fibrosis
      Cushing's Disease
      Delirium Tremors (DT's)
      Dementia
      Depression (Major)
      Diabetes
      Eating Disorders
      Emphysema
      Fanconi's Syndrome
      Heart Attack
      Hemophilia
      Hemochromatosis
      Hepatitis (Type B, C, Chronic)
      Hodgkins Disease
      Heart Murmur
      Heart Valve Disease or Replacement
      Huntington's Disease
      Hydocephaly
      Infertility Treatment (Recent)
      Ischemia
      Kaposi's Sarcoma
      Left Bundle Branch Block
      Leukemia
      Lupus
      Lymphedema
      MS (Multiple Sclerosis)
      Muscular Distrophy
      Myasthenia Gravis
      Narcolepsy
      Organ Transplants
      Pacemaker
      Paralysis / Parapelegia
      Parkinson's Disease
      Peripheral Vascular Disease
      Porhyria
      Portal or Renal Hypertension
      Pregnancy (Exisiting)
      Psoriatic Arthritis
      Psychoses
      Raynaud's Phenomenon
      Renal Insufficiency
      Schizophrenia
      Scleroderma
      Silicosis (Black Lung Disease)
      Stroke (TIA, Transient Ischemic Attack)
      Substance Abuse / Dependence
      Suicide Attempt
      Ulcerative Colitis

Very few of these would be recognized by social security as fully disabling and SS doesn't insure against partial disability--or at least that's what they told me.

Just as an aside, I personally think it's useless to make a law telling insurers that they MUST insure everyone. You can make them do that, but they'll just charge so much that the "uninsurables" will not be able to afford it and we are back to the government having to pay for the sick while private insurers "cover" those who are not. And if the government is going to be in the health insurance business, the only rational answer is to pool EVERYONE together and average our risk, just as we do for fire protection, education, national defense, military medical care, and medicare, to name a few. There is no point in having the government subsidize private insurers (with their overpaid executives) by letting them pretend to insure those who don't need much health care while the government takes care of the actually sick and injured.

asking

I heard some of his speech on health coverage
He said ''you may not want to have surgery, you can tell your mother or your doctor that you just want a pain pill and no surgery''

What in the world is that suppose to mean?
I thought his health plan was suppose to be more positive about covering your health.
That is more like not using your health coverage so what's the point?

With the review board they can decide you do not have a good enough quality of life or will not have a good enough quality of life after surgery and use that to turn you down for surgery. All about the money.

It means that if you are dying of advanced lung cancer, you take the morphine and put your affairs in order. You try to enjoy your last year as much as possible, as a friend of mine is now doing. You and your family do not expect 5 rounds of chemotherapy and surgery when you are 80 years old and the survival rate for metastasized lung cancer is 3&#37;. My mother in law was a sweet woman, but she was a classic example of someone who was afraid to die. Her doctors spent huge amounts of money to give her an extra few months - maybe. The treatment was grueling and meant her family had to spend many more months taking care of her. It was very hard on her family and no great pleasure to her either.

More than half of all health care costs occur in the last six months of life. It isn't just the government that would like to see this change. So would private insurers, and many doctors and hospitals recognize that it isn't in the best interests of society.

Here's the first paragraph from a 2002 article on this topic from the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.


Total health care costs in the United States (U.S.) reached $989 billion in 1995 and now exceed $1 trillion, 14% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (1).

Of this total, a disproportionate share is attributable to the care of elderly patients shortly before their deaths. According to Lubitz and Prihoda (2) and Lubitz and Riley (3), 6% of Medicare recipients 65 yr of age and older who died in 1978 and 1988 accounted for 28% of all costs of the Medicare program.

In the same two years, 77% of the Medicare decedents' expenditures occurred in the last year of life, 52% of them in the last 2 mo, and 40% in the last month. Inpatient expenses accounted for over 70% of the decedents' total costs.

Can Health Care Costs Be Reduced by Limiting Intensive Care at the End of Life? -- LUCE and RUBENFELD 165 (6): 750 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/6/750)

In case it's not obvious, the numbers are from Medicare because the government already covers the elderly and the dying disproportionately, removing the burden of paying for their care from private insurers, thus indirectly subsidizing the private health insurance industry. The government is probably also better at counting and providing data than groups of individual health insurers.

When my 91 year old father learned he had metastasized cancer, he went home to die and was gone in three weeks. It was hard for me to say good bye, but I was proud of how brave he was. Some of the nurses tried to talk him into staying in the hospital and undergoing chemotherapy, but his doctor told him later that he thought he made the right decision. A month before he died he was splitting wood, cooking, and going to parties. In his last month, people came from all over to say goodbye and he was pretty happy to have so much company. A long drawn out death, with months of chemotherapy and hospitalization would not have made his life more complete.

We have to start spending our health care dollars on people who will benefit from it. Right now we are spending money preferentially on the dying. It's just rationing in a different way. Rationing this way doesn't keep people from dying and doesn't make people more comfortable in their last days.

Hello tom:

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't really think that insurance companies save everybody, do you? What's the difference WHO tells you that it's over for you?

You pretend that it's going to be a NEW rationer of health care instead of just a different one. But, that's why I'm here.

excon

You should reexamine your premise then. As Steve correctly points out there are options for me if my plan does not cover treatments . I can upgrade or change providers ;I can appeal . I can negotiate directly for care outside my coverage . Often as ET points out big bad Pharma will give their product away to those without the means .I can change providers who may offer different treatment . I can get any number of diagnostic procedures to determine the best course of action .

What is my appeal when some nameless faceless bureaucratic geek plugs my numbers into the national data base and the computer determines I am unworthy of treatment ?

Would you agree that we should discriminate against the disabled ? Probably not... but ,Surprise ! That is exactly what this clown Pete Singer argues for in the NY Slimes op-ed that Steve linked to and the article I posted above cites.

He uses the case of Christopher Reeves who used his paralysis as a platform to advocate spending public funds to support research for curing quadriplegia . Singer considers this a waste of resources ,and no doubt plugging the numbers into the QALY supercomputer would indeed confirm his thesis .
Government rationing would put such bioethicists as the demented Singer into postions to make judgements on the value of the lives of every American.

You can argue that many things in our lives are already rationed. Food being one of them . My ability to obtain food is determined by my ability to pay for it. Yes there is a safety net ,and there should be for those who cannot pay for their food ,and likewise there is a safety net in place for those who do not have the means to purchase their own medical insurance . Is it perfect ? Nope .No government plan is . But , as food prices rise I hear no one telling us that it would be a good idea for the government to put us all on a food rationing plan and some central planner in Washington will put our numbers into a computer to tell us what foods we can and can't obtain .

Healthcare is rationed by a number of factors beyond your insurance coverage. There are market forces, lack of perfect distribution of available technologies, skilled providers, and other intangibles that have often been mentioned in these postings like physical location of services .

I do not want the government being the sole arbiter on who lives and dies and determining the value of the lives in the country . That is well beyond their constitutional mandate .

You claim to be distrustful of government and yet you would permit an over-bloated central planning government to make the call on whether you are worthy of treatment or not based on an abstract formula concocted by egg heads like Singer who are the modern equivalent of eugenicist ? I know you better than that .
Creating greater access for the relatively few who have fallen through the safety net can be accomplished without overturning the entire health care system and enacting a rationing scheme that would be controlled by bioethicists of the ilk of Peter Singer based on quality of life judgments.

It means that if you are dying of advanced lung cancer, you take the morphine and put your affairs in order. You try to enjoy your last year as much as possible, as a friend of mine is now doing. You and your family do not expect 5 rounds of chemotherapy and surgery when you are 80 years old and the survival rate for metastasized lung cancer is 3&#37;.So how is it different now?
Isn't that what people already do?

Well isn't that what they are already doing? Don't you already have the choice?

My mother in law was a sweet woman, but she was a classic example of someone who was afraid to die. Her doctors spent huge amounts of money to give her an extra few months - maybe. The treatment was grueling and meant her family had to spend many more months taking care of her. It was very hard on her family and no great pleasure to her either.

If somebody is afraid to die and they want the chemo because of that are you saying the doctors and government are now going to say you can not have it because you aren't going to live anyway?

Hello again:

Me?? I see NO difference between a bureaucrat and insurance adjuster who BOTH ration health care. One for profit (disgusting), and one for eugenics (disgusting).

But, it don't make no never mind to me. I'm dead either way.

excon

Hello again:

Me??? I see NO difference between a bureaucrat and and insurance adjuster who BOTH ration health care. One for profit (disgusting), and one for eugenics (disgusting).

But, it don't make no never mind to me. I'm dead either way.

excon

Greenie:
MY sentiments EXACTLY
I just don't want to be forced into medical insurance at all!

The difference is that my coverage in an insurance plan is defined ahead of time. I can run with it or change it ;or supplement it at my will or ability to pay. That option is taken away in government rationing .

The difference is that my coverage in an insurance plan is defined ahead of time. I can run with it or change it ;or supplement it at my will or ability to pay. That option is taken away in government rationing .Hello again, tom:

So, you assume that your government policy won't spell out the limits, while your private one does... I don't know where you get that from.

Let me ask you this... You think you can change your policy... But, if you're a working stiff, you can't. You think that when you find out YOUR insurer won't pay for a procedure you need, you can find another insurer who will.

Do you really think that stuff?? Really??

excon

If you have enough money to pay for chemotherapy when your insurer or a government entity says it's futile and is, frankly, a poor investment, you can always still spend your money on that. People have been trying all sorts of alternative cures for cancer for years. Insurers don't pay for laetrile...

Of course, an awful lot of expensive treatments from big pharma don't work either. Otherwise, you would have seen the headlines that we'd Cured Cancer, which hasn't happened.

None of this has anything to do with eugenics, by the way. It has to do with spending money where it will actually do some good.

I don't know the details of what Pete Singer said or even really who he is, but I do know that a staggering amount of money has been spent in the last 30 years trying to cure diseases with no result. This is because we actually don't know enough about how the body works to do solve a lot of these problems (paralysis, alzheimers, huntington's disease, for example)--at least not in a way that will both prevent or cure disease and generate a profit.

It would be like Isaac Newton trying to build a jet aircraft in his backyard. He's smart, but the state of physics, the technology and the materials just wouldn't have been available to him. He could hire more smart people to help, find a donor with deep pockets, but that isn't going to change anything. If the problem's not ripe, it's not ripe. Medical researchers have been beating their heads against a long list of problems like that. And Big Pharma and the foundations (privately funded research) have, if anything, done much worse than government funded research programs.

That's not to say, medical researchers haven't learned a lot trying, but sometimes you have to think about whether there are better ways to spend your time and money.

But remember the hype about gene therapy? Nothing. Remember the war on cancer? Hardly a dent except in the most treatable forms--breast cancer, Hodgkin's disease. (If you don't believe me, look at the numbers on cancer mortality over the last 100 years.) Pharma's idea of a new drug is a more expensive alternative to aspirin or a chemotherapy drug that can make your skin fall off (erlotinib). For the most part, the only initiatives that have made a major difference have been preventative and related to changing our environment--discouraging smoking, forcing people to wear seat belts, vaccination programs, putting folate in the food supply--all those big government programs libertarians love to hate.

Medicare only covers people 65 and older.
"Pre-existing condition" and "disabled" are two different things.

Here is the overview from Medicare's website.



I don't qualify.



Why blame Medicare for not covering people it was not designed to cover? It covers people 65 and older.



So you say. By the way, Social Security is not bankrupt. Of course it would be if the Bush administration had succeeded in putting it all into the stock market a few years ago. Phew! Close call. And yes--BECAUSE Social Security is so well endowed and so successful-- the government does borrow against it--particularly the spendthrift Republicans, but that's another issue.



Yeah. If I had been getting paid $5 million a year for 10 years, I wouldn't expect a pension either, although I expect they have stock options and other little perks even after they are gone.



I kind of doubt it's this easy. Given your general lack of knowledge about basic rules of Medicare eligibility, I'm going to assume you have this wrong too unless you can cite an authoritative source. I do not think that government jobs allow you to retire at 45 with a full salary. In all our dreams!

So, Wolverine, what was your job? I assume you have some kind of good health insurance that you are happy with. Who is your insurer and how much is your premium? I feel like you should be willing to share the good news with those of us who haven't found such a good deal. I also assume you don't get anything from the federal government. Is that correct?



This all sounds like propaganda (astroturf) from the Insurance industry. How can it possibly be cheaper to pay an executive $38 million a year than to pay some poor schmuck to push paper in a badly lit government office somewhere. Even if he was GS-15, he'd have to live to be 327 years old. Plus there the lack of a Bigelow on the floor.



More mythology. We already have rationing. Some people get covered for things that other people can't get. It's just rationed differently in other countries.

Anyway, lots of tests and procedures doesn't mean good care. I've had two MRIs and countless X rays and most of them were of little use to me. They are way over used in this country, because it's a way for physicians to rack up extra charges to pay for (a) their liability insurance (b) their staff for doing all the medical billing to insurance companies*, and (c) a boat or bigger house. So if you rip up your knee at work, they x ray it and tell you it's not broken.

One day, two nurses were struggling to hold down my 2 and a half year old son so they could X ray his leg, which may or may not have been broken in a fall. He was terrified, so I asked, "What will you do if it's broken?" "Nothing" they said. He wouldn't need a cast. So I told them to stop and saved the insurer another pointless charge and my poor son a few minutes of terror.

I have seen the textbooks used to teach people how to do medical billing. They are full sized textbooks. You have to take a whole course (or two?) just to learn how to get the insurance company to pay. The doctors and insurers are locked in a pitched bureaucratic battle. And the patients are just ammo. There is no way government payment could be worse. And in Canada it's much, much simpler than dealing with a PRIVATE insurance company here.



Well, sure, Wolverine. We could go back to 19th-century medicine and let quacks sell patent medicines (no FDA). Let's get rid of the National Institutes of Health while we are at it. No more medical research, no more expensive cancer treatments or cutting-edge surgical techniques (joke). No more new vaccines for new viruses. And I'm tired of paying taxes for building roads. I'll just buy a Hummer and romp over the potholes in dirt roads. We don't need pavement, or road signs, or cops to enforce all those pesky government mandated highway safety rules. Breathalizer, schemzalizer. We certainly don't need any regulations to prevent people from practicing medicine without a license. We don't need the government to tell doctors that ulcers aren't caused by stress but instead are caused by a bacterial infection, or that the correct treatment isn't a heavy diet of cream and cereal (which is what doctors used to prescribe for ulcers), but a two-week course of antibiotics. And let's dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and the Veteran's Administration. If those systems worked, people would be clamoring for something like that for themselves.

Oh, whoops. I forgot. They are!



Did you mean this?



This is why we need single payer, so everyone can be covered, not just the wealthy and the petrified upper middle class. The current plan is a compromise solution that leaves all the private insurers in place, collecting their 20 to 30% overhead, while the government pays for the folks that aren't as lucrative to "cover"--the disabled, the sick, and the old.



Oh, gosh! You are right. Let's not count them. We don't care about them. They just work here, often for 12 hours a day. Why would we want THEM to have health care? Let them go unvaccinated and die of tuberculosis and whooping cough whilst picking our lettuces and peaches or making our milk shakes and fries in the backs of greasy kitchens.



Right, like I'm about to CHOOSE not to pay $1400/month instead of eating and having a house. They choose not to because it's a significant expense or they unwisely choose to go uninsured. That is a bad thing, not something to crow about. They should be covered.



Um. That's not what the U.S. Census bureau says.
Health Insurance Coverage: 2007 - Highlights (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html)




You do not have to be disabled to not have coverage. If you do not have group coverage, you just have to have some kind of condition that makes the insurer believe you will cost them money sooner or later. For example, if you had cancer, you are likely to get it again, so that'll do it. If you had serious injury that required surgery or trips to a pain clinic, that can make you uninsurable. Something like lupus or MS, where you can still work but you need regular medical care will do it. They can't legally drop you, but they can raise your rates so high that you can't afford it, and no other insurer has to take you. Is that clear?

Here is a list of roughly 75 conditions that can make you uninsurable if you don't have group coverage.
Uninsurable Health Risks (http://www.quotesforinsurance.com/uninsurable-health-risks.html)

Addison's Disease
AIDS (HIV Positive)
ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease)
Alzheimers Disease
Amyotrophis Lateral Sclerosis
Angioplasty
Ankylosing Spondylitis
Aunria
ARC ( AIDS Related Complex)
Arteriosclerosis
ASD (Atrial Septal Defect)
Banti's Disease
Bi-Polar Disorder (Manic Depressive)
Bypass Surgery
Cancer
Chronic Fatigue Syndrone (Usually within 5 years)
Colitis
COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)
Conjestive Heart Failure
Cirrosis of the Liver
Collagen Diseases
Crohn's Disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Cushing's Disease
Delirium Tremors (DT's)
Dementia
Depression (Major)
Diabetes
Eating Disorders
Emphysema
Fanconi's Syndrome
Heart Attack
Hemophilia
Hemochromatosis
Hepatitis (Type B, C, Chronic)
Hodgkins Disease
Heart Murmur
Heart Valve Disease or Replacement
Huntington's Disease
Hydocephaly
Infertility Treatment (Recent)
Ischemia
Kaposi's Sarcoma
Left Bundle Branch Block
Leukemia
Lupus
Lymphedema
MS (Multiple Sclerosis)
Muscular Distrophy
Myasthenia Gravis
Narcolepsy
Organ Transplants
Pacemaker
Paralysis / Parapelegia
Parkinson's Disease
Peripheral Vascular Disease
Porhyria
Portal or Renal Hypertension
Pregnancy (Exisiting)
Psoriatic Arthritis
Psychoses
Raynaud's Phenomenon
Renal Insufficiency
Schizophrenia
Scleroderma
Silicosis (Black Lung Disease)
Stroke (TIA, Transient Ischemic Attack)
Substance Abuse / Dependance
Suicide Attempt
Ulcerative Colitis

Very few of these would be recognized by social security as fully disabling and SS doesn't insure against partial disability--or at least that's what they told me.

Just as an aside, I personally think it's useless to make a law telling insurers that they MUST insure everyone. You can make them do that, but they'll just charge so much that the "uninsurables" will not be able to afford it and we are back to the government having to pay for the sick while private insurers "cover" those who are not. And if the government is going to be in the health insurance business, the only rational answer is to pool EVERYONE together and average our risk, just as we do for fire protection, education, national defense, military medical care, and medicare, to name a few. There is no point in having the government subsidize private insurers (with their overpaid executives) by letting them pretend to insure those who don't need much health care while the government takes care of the actually sick and injured.

asking

There is way too much here for me to respond to at once. I don't have time right now.

I will make just a couple of points.

Under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), one is eligible for early retirement at ANY AGE after 25 years of service. Period. Start working for the government at age 22, rightout of college, you are elligible for retirement benefits at age 47. Look it up.

Second, with regard to Social Security, there is no money in the SS-Trust fund. That is the definition of Bankruptcy. When FDR first created social security as part of the New Deal, the funds kept in the SS-Trust were supposed to remain separate and dedicated to the purpose of paying SS benefits. Under LBJ the rules were changed and laws were written to allow the government to "borrow" money from the SS Trust Fund for use for other purposes. This is called Off-Budget Funding, and has become a normal practice in managing the federal budget. What has happened until now is that the government would pay interest on what it borrowed, and the interest was enough to cover the benefits paid to retirees for the year. The problem NOW is that the average age of the population is increasing, more benefits are being paid out, and the interest payments are insufficient to cover the benefits being paid out. So now, the government has to start paying back PRINCIPAL in order to cover the benefits. There are two issues with this. 1) The government doesn't have the money to pay back principal on those borrowings because our President has quadrupled the budget deficcit and is in the process of quadrupling the national debt. There AIN'T NO MONEY to cover the government's debt to the SS Trust. 2) Even if there was enough money to pay down principal on the loans, that would also result in lower interest payments next year, which means that next year, the government has to pay back EVEN MORE PRINCIPAL TO COVER BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO A GROWING RETIREMENT POPULATION. Within a few years, even the money owed to Social Security is going to run out.

Put simply, whether you wish to believe it or not, Social Security is already bankrupt. It has no money in its trust fund. It only has IOUs. Income from those IOUs are insufficient to cover the expenses. Therefore, it is bankrupt. The system that allowed it to become bankrupt was put in place by LBJ. As much as you would like to try to blame Bush and the Republicans for this mess, it was created by DEMS. And regardless of who it was created by, it was MANAGED by the Federal Government, which clearly screwed it up. These are the same people that you want to be running our health care system. Brilliant.

Last point. The 75 items that you listed may not be covered by private health insurance unless you are on a group plan. That still leaves at least two options.

1) Get on a group plan.
2) Pay out of pocket.

There are plenty of group plans out there that are not employer-based. There is even a group for "consultants" (people who are self-employed or even unemployed) that pretty much anyone can join that gives pretty good medical benefits. The cost for a family of 4 five years ago was about $500-800/mo. I don't know what it is now. Or you could pay out of pocket.

Which means, even if you can't get individual insurance coverage, you can still get care. Yes, it is expensive. But it is still available.

Under a single-payer system, however, if the govermment denies you benefits for these 75 items, you are SOL. You cannot pay out of pocket in a single payer system. You have no other options for coverage.

And do you think that a system that is looking to CUT COSTS in the face of adding MORE PEOPLE to its beneficiary list is going to cover these 75 items? In the UK, the government is dropping coverage of meds for breast cancer patients. Do you really think that people dying of AIDs, ARC and similar diseases are going to be given the full spectrum of care they need? Do you think that an end-of-life Alzheimers patient is going to be covered? We're talking about a system that is proposing that counselors be sent to the homes of old people to talk to them about their "death options"... a system that is looking to cut costs by cutting off care to the most vulnerable of us. Do you think that system, run by the same people who handle the DMV and the Post Office, is going to provide BETTER coverage than the private system.

You're off your rocker.

Elliot

I agree with Tom and ETW

They do not want to find cures for cancer or hodgkins or anything else because then they would be out of billions of dollars.
Often when a study comes along and say vitamin E is good for this or an alternative is good for that they taboo it saying their studies show it is ineffective as a preventative. Then when it is to their convenience they come back around and endorse it or say it wasn't as bad as we thought. Like when they claimed eggs were bad for you and then years later eggs weren't so bad after all.

Alternative medicine HAS a better cheaper way of dealing with cancer but the medical field says it is quackery. They are only beginning to accept some of it in CAM therapy.

You should reexamine your premise then. As Steve correctly points out there are options for me if my plan does not cover treatments . I can upgrade or change providers ;I can appeal . I can negotiate directly for care outside my coverage . Often as ET points out big bad Pharma will give their product away to those without the means .I can change providers who may offer different treatment . I can get any number of diagnostic procedures to determine the best course of action .

What is my appeal when some nameless faceless bureaucratic geek plugs my numbers into the national data base and the computer determines I am unworthy of treatment ?

Would you agree that we should discriminate against the disabled ? Probably not ...but ,Suprise ! That is exactly what this clown Pete Singer argues for in the NY Slimes op-ed that Steve linked to and the article I posted above cites.

He uses the case of Christopher Reeves who used his paralysis as a platform to advocate spending public funds to support research for curing quadriplegia . Singer considers this a waste of resources ,and no doubt plugging the numbers into the QALY supercomputer would indeed confirm his thesis .
Government rationing would put such bioethicists as the demented Singer into postions to make judgements on the value of the lives of every American.

You can argue that many things in our lives are already rationed. Food being one of them . My ability to obtain food is determined by my ability to pay for it. Yes there is a safety net ,and there should be for those who cannot pay for their food ,and likewise there is a safety net in place for those who do not have the means to purchase their own medical insurance . Is it perfect ? Nope .No government plan is . But , as food prices rise I hear no one telling us that it would be a good idea for the government to put us all on a food rationing plan and some central planner in Washington will put our numbers into a computer to tell us what foods we can and can't obtain .

Healthcare is rationed by a number of factors beyond your insurance coverage. There are market forces, lack of perfect distribution of available technologies, skilled providers, and other intangibles that have often been mentioned in these postings like physical location of services .

I do not want the government being the sole arbiter on who lives and dies and determining the value of the lives in the country . That is well beyond their constitutional mandate .

You claim to be distrustful of government and yet you would permit an over-bloated central planning government to make the call on whether you are worthy of treatment or not based on an abstract formula concocted by egg heads like Singer who are the modern equivalent of eugenicist ? I know you better than that .
Creating greater access for the relatively few who have fallen through the safety net can be accomplished without overturning the entire health care system and enacting a rationing scheme that would be controlled by bioethicists of the ilk of Peter Singer based on quality of life judgments.

Here's an interesting thought.

We have seen in the past how politicians have used their influence to attack their opponents. They have used their influence to get the IRS to audit their opponents' taxes and financial records, just because they could. We have seen politicians initiate Justice Department investigations of opponents, just because they could. Politicians have been known to abuse their influence in order to attack their opponents.

What happens when the government gets control of our health care?

Will we suddenly be faces with a situation where politicians will be able to slow down how fast an opponent (or his family) receives medical care? Will we see politicians cutting off opponents' medical care completely? Will we see politicians influencing the bureaucratic decision cycle of what services a political opponent can receive?

Scary thought.

Does anyone really want to hand that much power over to the government? We've seen how some politicians wield the power they already have. Do we really want to hand them even more power?

For all you libertarians out there, do you think that the government is trustworthy enough for that kind of power? Given the history of abuses of the system, do you trust them with that kind of power?

Elliot

You think that when you find out YOUR insurer won't pay for a procedure you need, you can find another insurer who will.

Do you really think that stuff?? Really??



Of course I do . I know I can because I already have supplemental insurance to cover my specific concerns. I have been through the appeals process with insurance companies and although it is a pain to do ;you can get results.

Finally ,I am not arguing for the status quo by any means. But my remedy would provide more private sector competition for health care not less as a gvt insured option would invariably do.

Do you think that system, run by the same people who handle the DMV and the Post Office, is going to provide BETTER coverage than the private system. You're off your rocker.Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

of course I do . I know I can because I already have supplemental insurance to cover my specific concerns. Hello again, tom:

Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're out of luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns??

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're going to DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

excon

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch?? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy?? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover?? Nahhh, it isn't.

Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are. WE know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.Hello again, Steve:

I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.

Now, the DMV is another matter.

excon

PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.

Hello again, tom:

Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

excon

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch???? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy??? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover????? Nahhh, it isn't.

I'm not tom but the only exclusions I'm aware of are pre-existing conditions which are usually covered after a year, and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available. And generally, if you get your insurance at work as a new hire or during the annual open enrollment pre-existing is waived. That's how it is here in Texas anyway.

Hello again, Steve:

I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.

Miracles happen.


Now, the DMV is another matter.

I've never had a problem with the DMV (we don't have one). In Texas it's the DPS that runs that show and the Texas DPS is a top-notch agency if ever there was one.


PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.

LOL, from one government hater to another, my hatred and distrust for the government doesn't lead me to do stupid things like get belligerent with the cops. They have more firepower than I generally have at my immediate disposal.

There are plenty of group plans out there that are not employer-based. There is even a group for "consultants" (people who are self-employed or even unemployed) that pretty much anyone can join that gives pretty good medical benefits. The cost for a family of 4 five years ago was about $500-800/mo. I don't know what it is now. Or you could pay out of pocket

I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.

The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch??
I don't expect my insurance will cover everything . In fact ;I wish there was stuff I did not have to shell out for. Take a lot of the garbage I'm covered for that I don't need and let me convert it on my own to a catastrophic care plan and I'd be better off. I no more need to cover massage therapy or going to the gym than I need to get auto insurance to cover my oil change. You buy home insurance to cover a fire ;not to put a new coat of paint on the shingles .

Are you saying that somehow there is a magic solution to cover all risks ? Absurd ! Life is full of risks and most of them you don't buy insurance to cover.

I'm saying a lot of the current costs of insurance is to cover things I'll never have to deal with . These are not things the insurance companies decided to cover me on .These are things that Federal and State governments mandate should be covered. Across the board ;the costs I pay to subsidize health care ; be it Medicare ,Medicaid ,VAs ,and even the system that has my primary insurer being decided by my employer are government creations with mandates that drive up the costs I pay out in premiums and taxes. None of them work well and I have no reason to think that another government created entity would work any better .

I pay the extra for supplementals because the gvt mandated plans are insufficient and I am REDUCING the risk by taking on the additional expense. Am I making sure I cover everything ? Nope and there is no way ANY plan will do that . But my chances of getting the care I need are much better than it would be if I had NO choices .
Yes ,I pay for them .But it would cost me less if I did not have to insure myself and family against things I know we won't need.

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

Prezactly.

Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Elliot

...and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available.

But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.

I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Elliot

Government has been subsidizing private health insurers for years. I'm all for eliminating the subsidy AND the insurers. You make that sound like a bad thing. As a group, health insurers are not contributing to the common good.

And there's nothing sacrosanct about competition. I don't see any competition with my local fire district and they do a great job.

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Exactly, and excon knows this. Has the government ever successfully competed with private enterprise anywhere? UPS and FedEx are putting the postal service out of business, what makes anyone think bureaucrats can run 15 percent of our economy better than the private sector?

But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.

Like tom and I'm sure most everyone else I've acknowledged it ain't perfect, but it's much better than as tom put it, allowing "an over-bloated central planning government to make the call on whether you are worthy of treatment or not based on an abstract formula concocted by egg heads like Singer who are the modern equivalent of eugenicist."

The wheel does not need to be reinvented to fix this.

I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.

You are indeed in a tough situation. I get that.

I also get the fact that you do have coverage right now. Not the coverage you WANT, maybe not even the coverage you need, but you are still covered. And there are still options for getting the care you need, even if your insurance DOESN'T cover it. Under a government plan, if you aren't covered for that service, you don't get that service. Period. There is no other option.


The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.

I understand. Being separated, I'm trying to support a wife and two kids, as well as payments on two homes, food, utilities, etc. on a moderate-high 5-figure salary, paying $1500/month for COBRA. I get how expensive it is. I know what it's like to be strapped for cash even if you are earning a decent living that is well above the national average.

So... which is better for you? Losing half your income to private health insurance, where you have more options, or losing it to the government in the form of taxes. Tax rates in European countries and Canada that have nationalized health care (all federal and local taxes included) start in the 60% range (France is close to 70%, the UK is 59%). If their example is correct, you will actually be paying more in taxes than you do in medical insurance premiums.

Yes, insurance can be expensive. Medical CARE is expensive. But...

Keep in mind that medical outcomes in the USA are better in almost every area than in any other country in the world. Our cancer survival rates are SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Our heart condition survival rates are significantly higher. Our organ transplant results are better. In just about every medical procedure, our outcomes are better.

People like to point to the fact that our life expectancy rates are lower than in other countries, and use that as a sign of poor medical care. However, the fact is that life expectancies are not just a function of medical care. They are also a function of crime rates, accidents, genetics, lifestyles, etc. What a recent study found (I will try to find the source for you) is that when adjusted for homocide rates and for automobile accidents, our life expectancies are actually the highest in the world. And a good portion of that can be attributed to better medical care.

The point is that, yes, medical are in the USA is expensive. Medical insurance in the USA, when not covered by an employer is expensive. But it is also the best in the world. And even those who are uninsured, and never pay a single medical bill because they are poor... even those who are bankrupted by their medical bills (which, believe it or not is a rather rare event)... even those who have to struggle to make the monthly payments... every single one of those people are benefitting from this better medical care. The homeless guy in an ER is getting the same standard of care as the insured guy walking into the same ER, and that standard of care is the highest in the world. And that is ONLY true because of the economic factors that drive that system... profitability and competition. Profitability drives the best and brightest to become medical service providers, and profitability and competition drive companies to develop new breakthroughs. Eliminate these two factors and the things that drive our system to be the best in the world are GONE. The best and brightest will no longer become providers (why spend 9 years becoming a doctor when there's no financial incentive... easier and more profitable to become an accountant), and companies will stop developing new breakthroughs (why spend $200 million - $1 billion developing a new drug if I'm not going to be able to recoup my expenses... easier to just distribute aspirin).

Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.

Elliot

Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.Hello again, El:

I don't know who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

excon

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies. But as I also pointed out, life expentancies are not simply a function of health care. They are a function of lifestyle, genetics, accident rates, homocide rates, suicide rates, etc. in other words, life expectancy is not a good measure of the effectiveness of health care.

The proper measure of health care effectiveness is the outcomes of patients. And we BY FAR have the best medical outcomes of any country in the world in all areas.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, after adjusting for homocide rates, we rank highest in the world for life expectancy as well.

Here's an article that discusses this topic, among others:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html)

Elliot

dunno who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.

And what were the criteria?

Really good article ET

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies.Hello again, El:

Nope. Wrong again. Doesn't it get tiresome?

---------------

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

excon

And what were the criteria?Hello again, Steve:

From the report:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

excon

Hello again, Steve:

From the report:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

excon

All of these issue are discussed in the article I posted, and it debunks what the WHO report states based on statistics and OTHER reports that show something very different than what WHO reported.

Read the article.

Elliot

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies. But as I also pointed out, life expentancies are not simply a function of health care. They are a function of lifestyle, genetics, accident rates, homocide rates, suicide rates, etc. in other words, life expectancy is not a good measure of the effectiveness of health care. The proper measure of health care effectiveness is the outcomes of patients.

How do you measure that? I'm not aware of any figures that even address that, let alone put the US first. Even if you could put a number on "outcomes," what about all the people who don't get treated at all, or not until they are near death because they don't have access?

One of the best measures is Infant mortality and by that measure we are number 50.


Furthermore, as I mentioned, after adjusting for homocide rates, we rank highest in the world for life expectancy as well.

Why would you leave out one cause of death? Homicide doesn't count as death? Also, you don't cite a source for this assertion.

Infant mortality is a concern in a nation that intentionally butchers a half million babies every year ? Why ?

Ok here's the deal on infant mortality . We count all babies born . They don't . But even more important from a statistical purpose...
The United States reports an infant mortality rate of 0.626&#37;. The country which reports the lowest infant mortality rate is Singapore which reports a rate of 0.231%. This means that the difference between the infant mortality rate is 0.395% or less than four-tenths of a percent.Is that really a meaningful stat ?

All of these issue are discussed in the article I posted, and it debunks what the WHO report states based on statistics and OTHER reports that show something very different than what WHO reported.

Read the article.Hello again, El:

I did. I'm going to believe the World Health Organization instead of a conservative rag. That is, unless you can convince me that the WORLD HEATH ORGANIZATION is just a mouthpiece for the libs...

You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you?? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.

excon

How do you measure that? I'm not aware of any figures that even address that, let alone put the US first. Even if you could put a number on "outcomes," what about all the people who don't get treated at all, or not until they are near death because they don't have access?

The article that I posted addresses that:



The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.


Other studies, many of them by Lancet, which is the UK's version of the Journal of the AMA, have done the same analysis for heart care, organ transplants, diabetes, strokes, etc. We come out on top or within the top 3 in just about of all of them.


One of the best measures is Infant mortality and by that measure we are number 50.

Most countries don't count babies born below a certain weight as "born". They don't count babies born before a certain gestational age as "born". They are eliminated from such statistics. Taking these into consideration, we are NOT number 50, but actually MUCH HIGHER than that... certainly within the top 10. This is also addressed in the article.


Why would you leave out one cause of death? Homicide doesn't count as death? Also, you don't cite a source for this assertion.

Again, this is addressed in the article I cited. The article cites "The Business of Health" by L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider. The reason that automobile accident deaths should be eliminated from the statistics in order to measure the effectiveness of health care is because death from an automobile accident is not a function of health care. When a guy dies from an MVA, it isn't because he had poor health care. It's because he had two tons of metal and plastic smashing into him at high speed. Ditto for murders. Murders are not a function of poor health care. Thus, deaths by murder and deaths by MVA should be eliminated from the statistics in order to study the effectiveness of our health care system.

Again, read the article. All of this is discussed there. All your questions are answered.

Here is the link again.

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html)

Elliot

Yeah I know in China they do not count baby girls that are born and then literally disposed of.

Hello again, El:

I did. I'm gonna believe the World Health Organization instead of a conservative rag. That is, unless you can convince me that the WORLD HEATH ORGANIZATION is just a mouthpiece for the libs....

You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you??? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.

excon

And I guess that Concord is a right wing rag too. I guess "The Business of Health" by L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider was bought and paid for by the GOP. The Lancet and Lancet Oncology are both bought and paid for by the right wing. The Congressional Budget Office is controlled by the Republican party. All of these articles and studies are from a bunch of crazy right wingers out to screw Obama.

Have you put on your tin-foil hat yet?

Elliot

Hello again, El:
You don't think they're the same as the Lewin Group, do you??? That would be the group often times cited by rightwingers, as a non partisan, independent think tank. It has, of course, been revealed that they're WHOLLY OWNED by health insurance giant, United Health. You guys are silly.


No... silly is trying to equate an article in the American Thinker with the ownership of the Lewin Group. Trying to use the fact that ONE study MAY have been biased to prove that all of them MUST be biased is silly. Trying to fit everything and everyone who disagrees with you into one single category is silly.

Not once have you been able to counter facts with facts. THAT is silly.

You continue to argue through misdirection, misrepresentation of the other side's position, and by trying to ignore facts when they are presented. THAT is silly.

YOU are being silly, excon.

Elliot

I meant a source that does not have an axe to grind. I do not cite Mother Jones, Counterpunch, or the Nation to you, since I doubt you would accept them as objective sources of information.

YOU are being silly, excon.
Hello again, El:

Silly is when you say our health care is the BEST, when we're really 37th.

excon

I meant a source that does not have an axe to grind. I do not cite Mother Jones, Counterpunch, or the Nation to you, since I doubt you would accept them as objective sources of information.

Concord isn't a legitimate source?

Lancet isn't a legitimate source?

The Business of Health isn't a legitimate source?

Hate to tell you this, but I have never questioned a source or a citation because of which publication it comes from. I question the points it makes. I question the conclusions it may jump to. But I never question the validity of the source.

For instance, excon cited the WHO study. I could have stated that WHO is a UN-created organization with a political axe to grind against the USA, and which has a history of bad studies produced for political purposes which have led to actions that have killed millions of people (their erroneous conclusions about DDT, for instance).

But I didn't. I countered excon's citation with another source that deconstructs the WHO study and states why the study is incorrect and a poor measure of the quality of health care.

So instead of trying to marginalize the source, why don't you look at the issues and see if you can logically find a response to my arguments. And if you can't, perhaps you should wonder WHY.

Elliot

Please cite Lancet or BMJ. That would be fine.

I did.

Sorry. I didn't see any specific references to Lancet in your messages.
Did I miss the date, authors, urls, etc?

Maybe I missed them.
I am having to do other stuff today...

Hello asking:

You didn't miss anything. In fact, you caught on quite nicely. The Wolverine DID cite Lancet above, among other respected journals. He just didn't cite any particular issue, article, editorial, study or investigative report. I guess he wants you to TRUST that Lancet says what HE says it says.

But, that ain't going to work.

excon

Sorry. I didn't see any specific references to Lancet in your messages.
Did I miss the date, authors, urls, etc?

Maybe I missed them.
I am having to do other stuff today...

I posted here before. I'll try to find the citation again.

Elliot

Got it! The European data is from:

Arduino Verdecchia et al. "Recent cancer survival in Europe : a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8, pages 784–796.

And... the data on American cancer outcomes is from:

"Cancer Facts & Figures 2007," American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf.

Are these satisfactory citations for you?

Will you please stop questioning the source and instead start dealing with the facts themselves?

Elliot

Well I cite most everything, like this...

At Obama's townhall meeting sponsored by AARP he told the crowd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/health/policy/29health.html), "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

No? In June Obama proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm) and Medicaid.

How can he cut $313 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid and not cut benefits? Is he the miracle worker (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/a_pocketful_of_miracles) or just a liar? I think he'll say whatever he thinks will get his agenda through because it is all about Obama.

Well I cite most everything, like this...

At Obama's townhall meeting sponsored by AARP he told the crowd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/health/policy/29health.html), "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

No? In June Obama proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm) and Medicaid.

How can he cut $313 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid and not cut benefits? Is he the miracle worker (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/a_pocketful_of_miracles) or just a liar? I think he'll say whatever he thinks will get his agenda through because it is all about Obama.

Showoff!! :p

So you're better at HTML than I am.

Elliot

Showoff!!! :p

So you're better at HTML than I am.

Elliot

Nah, it's simple here. Just highlight the text you want to use with the left mouse button before you paste your link with the "insert link" button. I usually click "underline" after that but it's not necessary.

Here's an interesting thought.

We have seen in the past how politicians have used their influence to attack their opponents. They have used their influence to get the IRS to audit their opponents' taxes and financial records, just because they could. We have seen politicians initiate Justice Department investigations of opponents, just because they could. Politicians have been known to abuse their influence in order to attack their opponents.

What happens when the government gets control of our health care?

Will we suddenly be faces with a situation where politicians will be able to slow down how fast an opponent (or his family) receives medical care? Will we see politicians cutting off opponents' medical care completely? Will we see politicians influencing the bureaucratic decision cycle of what services a political opponent can receive?

Scary thought.

Does anyone really want to hand that much power over to the government? We've seen how some politicians wield the power they already have. Do we really want to hand them even more power?

For all you libertarians out there, do you think that the government is trustworthy enough for that kind of power? Given the history of abuses of the system, do you trust them with that kind of power?

Elliot

I suppose anything is possible in a country where the government still kills people! So yeah, I'm starting to lean in your favour.

But I find it interesting that you're happy for your government to kill people in your name (death penalty), but not treat people medically...

Surely the taking of ones life is about as much power as one can have? So you see you won't be giving them anymore power than you already give them...

Here's an interesting thought.

We have seen in the past how politicians have used their influence to attack their opponents. They have used their influence to get the IRS to audit their opponents' taxes and financial records, just because they could. We have seen politicians initiate Justice Department investigations of opponents, just because they could. Politicians have been known to abuse their influence in order to attack their opponents.

What happens when the government gets control of our health care?Hello again, El:

What happens?? I don't know.. What happens NOW? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare?? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're going to do it... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

excon

There is a huge difference in allowing the state to sentence the ultimate punishment on those predators who have served notice on civil society on the one hand ,and the taking of innocent lives by the state on the other . Do you not see the distinction between someone who's crimes are so henious and an affront to human decency that they forfeit their right to life;and someone who is innocent and is being served in essence the death sentence because of cost of care evaluations ?

Organized society like the individual has a right to self defense and that includes making the evaluation that a human life can be taken for henious crimes once due process is satisfied. Due process is that a jury of peers and not the state determine the sentence. The Supreme Court has ruled many times and so long as the method employed does not violate the 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment and it must also satisfy equal protection criteria of the 14th amendment that the administering of executions is constitutional .Therefore every case where a convict has been sentenced must go through an appeals process to guarantee those terms are met.

I would say without a doubt that the state denying someone life saving care where no crime was committed satisfies the prohibitions of the 8th to a tee.

The founders were clear on this . They wrote in the 5th amendment that no one can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. This clearly implies they saw that there were circumstances where depriving someone of life was permissible under the law.

I would say without a doubt that the state denying someone life saving care where no crime was committed satisfies the prohibitions of the 8th to a tee.Hello tom:

I couldn't agree more, except I'm not sure what your point is, once again... You're not saying, are you, that INSURANCE adjusters DON'T deny people life saving care, where no crime was committed, but simply because the company needs to meet its profit projections??

Nahhh, you wouldn't be saying that.

excon

Ex you know you live in a system where profit is god.. err king.. errr good.. errrr necessary for the good health of the investor. Are you saying that a private health insurer isn't allowed to make a profit? This is why the system needs reform, to remove the motivation to profit from the illness of some poor unfortunate, oh hush my mouth, I've just included the entire medical profession

Where I live we have a simple solution the government allows the insurers to increase the premiums

Ex I was responding to Skells point about the death penalty . But you knew that. Again I would like to point out that the insurance company is not the final arbiter of your care . There are alternatives ;albeit difficult and often expensive alternatives ,but they are available.

When the gvt's computers kick out the raw numbers ,and determine that your life is not worth saving ,there will be no appeal and no alternative in the proposed plan.

Hello again, El:

What happens???? I dunno.. What happens NOW?? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare???? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're gonna do it.... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

Hmmm, interesting that Elliot's quote showed up as "Originally Posted by speechlesstx." How'd you manage that?

By the way, as I reported earlier, after Obama himself proposed $313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid then telling the AARP crowd on Monday that "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits," the lead story in my paper was the Congress has decided on $500 billion in cuts (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i41RM2oyMgCk3ZGKmxZ4mOvQUdhgD99OF6SO0).

Nah, those the mean bad old politicians aren't planning on taking anything away from seniors.

The story changes daily . Remember when it was going to cuts costs ? Then later the story was it would be revenue neutral .Now it is going to take tax hikes to finance.

The story changes daily

That's what he meant by change you can believe in...

Hello again, El:

What happens?? I don't know.. What happens NOW? Don't you think that EVERY American family has some member on Medicare?? I do. How come the mean bad old politicians haven't taken it away from them? They certainly CAN, according to you...

Yes they can... and that's a scary thought.

Why hand them MORE power with which to do it?


Maybe they're waiting till the health care plan passes and THEN they're going to do it... Riiiiight.

I understand... Really, I do.

Excon

Do you think they won't?

Like I said above, these are the same politicians who have no problem using the IRS and the SEC as their personal muscle to push around their opponents. They have no problem appointing special prosecutors to investigate opponents on trumped-up accusations. They have no problem filing frivolous ethics complaints with government agencies to hurt their political opponents. What makes you think that they wouldn't use THIS power to do the same thing if we let them? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth.

Elliot

I suppose anything is possible in a country where the government still kills people!! So yeah, im starting to lean in your favour.

But i find it interesting that you're happy for your government to kill people in your name (death penalty), but not treat people medically...

Surely the taking of ones life is about as much power as one can have?? So you see you wont be giving them anymore power than you already give them...

You think not?

You are equating the death penalty for criminal who is found guilty by a court of law with a JURY OF HIS PEERS with an intentional abuse by a single politician who's sole goal is to eliminate a political opponent who committed no crime?

And you don't see a difference between the levels of power involved? One requires application of the legal system. No one man has the power to pervert that system. The other is extra-legal, as in OUTSIDE the legal system, wherein one influential person can undermine the system for political or personal gain.

We are talking about the difference between applying the law to punish criminals and prevent crime and abuses of power by politicians in order to stifle political opposition. You see no difference between the two?

This is a pretty poor argument, Skell. I think you can recognize that.

Elliot

Hello again, righty's:

Ok, let's get this straight... The government ain't going to KILL anybody, any more than your INSURANCE ADJUSTER already is, TODAY.

I know you want to scare people... But, can't you at least scare them with something that actually MIGHT happen, instead of making up stuff? Nahhh.. I think you'd rather make it up.

excon

Y'know the government can rip up the roads anytime they want... or stop firefighting services any time they want. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Make the government stop this socialism! Take back control of your life.

Hello again, righty's:

Ok, let's get this straight.... The government ain't gonna KILL anybody, any more than your INSURANCE ADJUSTER already is, TODAY.

I know you wanna scare people... But, can't you at least scare them with something that actually MIGHT happen, instead of making up stuff? Nahhh.. I think you'd rather make it up.

excon

I'm not saying it WILL happen. I'm saying that giving the government that kind of power is a bad idea. I'm saying that if we let it, it CAN happen. And it has happened elsewhere in history. Give a government too much control, and it will USE that control to its own benefit.

I've given you examples of how politicians have done stuff against their political opponents before. Based on that history, it CAN happen, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Elliot

Y'know the government can rip up the roads anytime they want...or stop firefighting services any time they want. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Make the government stop this socialism! Take back control of your life.

Are you saying that it's never happened before?

Back in the old days, there where certain neighborhoods in Southern states where cops were ordered not to go, firefighters were ordered not to go, and where the roads were never paved. Money was never allocated to those neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were populated by blacks. Effectively the state and local governments cut off services to those neighborhoods. These people were racially and politically inconvenient, and so the government cut them off.

Just because it hasn't happened RECENTLY doesn't mean that it can't.

I'm not saying that anyone within the government is actually planning to use this against a political opponent... at least not yet. All I'm saying is be careful what powers and controls you hand over to your government.

Elliot

What makes you think that they wouldn't use THIS power to do the same thing if we let them? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth.Hello again, El:

Because they HAVE the power now, and they're NOT doing it.

Let me see... We should take away the guns from the cops because they MIGHT use their power to do wrong?? It's not like these are the most ethical people on Earth...

Can you see how stupid that sounds?? Can you relate??

excon

PS> Oh yeah. Like NK says, they COULD tear up the roads too. They have the power. I wonder why they haven't done it yet.

Water! They could turn the water off ANYTIME they want! This socialist government owns the means of delivery of water! Studies have shown that you cannot live without water. Don't let the government control whether you live or die! Wake up sheeple!

All I'm saying is be careful what powers and controls you hand over to your government.Hello again, El:

Dude! You are a piece of work... It's OK to let the government run rampant through your emails and your telephone calls in the name of fighting terrorism... It's OK for the government to take away YOUR right of habeas corpus... It's OK for our government to torture. It's OK for the government to detain people FOREVER... It's OK for the troops to be used as law enforcement officers because Cheney wanted them too...

But, we better not give them too much power...

DUDE!!

excon

If you are so trusting of the politicians and the government, then why were you so worried over Bush's "wire tapping" and the warrantless search & seizures, and the arrests and detainment of Gitmo prisoners. Why were you so against the Patriot Act's provisions allowing the government to search internet records of public libraries?

After all, the government is all sweetness and light. They're TRUSTWORTHY. They would never allow bad stuff to happen. They would never abuse their powers.

You guys are a bunch of hyporites. You complain about the government having too much power when given permission to actually protect us from terrorists, but you are willing to actually hand the government the power to determine your own life and death.

You don't want some bureaucrat listening in on your phone calls, but you have no problem with the same bureaucrat determining whether you live or die.

Elliot

...you have no problem with the same bureaucrat determining whether you live or die.

More fear mongering by the neocons, Doctors determine your healthcare needs not a bureaucrat. Stop spreading the FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear) so thickly.

If a bureaucrat can tell you that the government will not pay for that medicine, and if you have no other method of obtaining that medicine because you are in a single payer system, then the government bureaucrat is detrermining your life and death. REGARDLESS of what you or your doctor wish.

It happens all the time in Canada, whether you wish to recognize it or not,

It happens all the time in Canada, whether you wish to recognize it or not,Then you guys should be so lucky!

Then you guys should be so lucky!

I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. So, thanks but no thanks.

If a bureaucrat can tell you that the government will not pay for that medicine, and if you have no other method of obtaining that medicine Hello again, El:

If an insurance adjuster tells you that he will not pay for a life saving operation for you, and you have NO OTHER method of obtaining that treatment, you're going to DIE.

That's the way it IS today. The health insurance industry RATIONS health care so they can make a PROFIT off your cold stiff dead body... Frankly, THAT'S pretty scary, and that's what the Wolverine thinks is great.

excon

The republican party looks out for the rich, the rest can die for all they care.

I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. So, thanks but no thanks.Hello again, El

I guess, we're going to have to go the full 150 pages of this thread, because I'm not going to let you keep on dishing out your swill.

IF you HAVE insurance, and you are DENIED a procedure because it's either too expensive, not covered, or is a result of a pre-existing condition, THERE'S NO INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE WORLD THAT WILL SELL YOU INSURANCE!! Can you pay for it yourself? Sure. But, if you could afford it, why would you need insurance?

Yes, I'm going to keep on repeating it until you get it... I know you're NOT going to get it, because you are INVESTED in not getting it.

excon

I know you want to scare people... But, can't you at least scare them with something that actually MIGHT happen, instead of making up stuff?

LOL, I love this. For 8 years you guys have been complaining about us fear mongers... while fear mongering. Seriously, and right there at the top of the heap is the fear-mongerer-in-chief that promised the end of "Karl Rove politics of fear and cynicism" in his “Change We Can Believe In (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/full-text-barack-obama-speech-change-we-can-believe-in/)” speech.

So much for that. From his presser just last week:


“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It's about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive...

So let me be clear: If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate that we're having right now. "

No fear mongering in that is there? This is also the same guy who called health care a "ticking time bomb (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31366944/ns/politics-white_house/)" and used scare tactics to pass porkulus.


I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGxhYB) that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans. My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing too little or nothing at all will result in an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes; and confidence. That is a deficit that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.

This is an administration that lives by Rule 1: "Never allow a crisis to go to waste."

Yeah, if you want to be honest with us and yourself you might want to rethink some things.

Hello again, El:

If an insurance adjuster tells you that he will not pay for a life saving operation for you, and you have NO OTHER method of obtaining that treatment, you're gonna DIE.

That's the way it IS today. The health insurance industry RATIONS health care so they can make a PROFIT off your cold stiff dead body...... Frankly, THAT'S pretty scary, and that's what the Wolverine thinks is great.

excon

Even better than your last post complaining about our scare tactics. I'm not sure you can get much more dramatic in trying to scare folks than saying "you're gonna DIE."

Steve hasn't figured out the difference between real fears ("I have to sell the house to pay my medical bills") versus manufactured fears ("the government will decide whether you live or die!"). He drunk the kool-aid.

LOL, I love this. For 8 years you guys have been complaining about us fear mongers ... while fear mongering. Hello again, Steve:

Well, there's stuff that we NEED to be afraid of, like not having medical care when you need it...

Then there's stuff we DON'T need to be afraid of, like waking up to a terrorist under your bed.

We need a leader who knows the difference, and we have one.

excon

More fear mongering by the neocons, Doctors determine your healthcare needs not a bureaucrat. Stop spreading the FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear) so thickly.

What a crock. The fear-monger-in-chief is the one appealing to fear (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/has-anyone-seen-org-chart-obamas-health-plan-379281-17.html#post1890905). I repeat, the Obama administration's Rule no. 1 is "Never allow a crisis to go to waste."

I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. So, thanks but no thanks.

You can always do that if you have the bucks, whether the insurer is Aetna or a government.

Of course, you'll pay more since you don't have the leverage of a big organization. The hospital charged me $130,000* for my surgery and 5-day stay in the hospital, but the HMO only paid $50,000 and said to the hospital "you'll take that and be happy with it." If I'd paid myself, it would have been $130,000.

*They put a tube of a chapstick in my room and charged $9 for it. They also sent me home with a plastic shoe horn, for which I was charged $65.

But being able to pay yourself for services above and beyond basic coverage wouldn't change with single payer. I am sure you could even buy private insurance to cover extras, like elective plastic surgery, if you wanted. What would change is that EVERYONE would be covered - whether they had a good job, had just lost their job, or worked at Mcdonalds; whether they were healthy and got hit by a truck, or whether they had a life long disease stemming from childhood, no spouse or parents. Nobody could be turned down.

Mothers who stay home with their kids would be covered even if their employed husband died or left them or if the mothers left because of abuse. Mothers shouldn't have to choose between abuse and medical coverage for themselves and their children. The way it is now, mothers often do have to make that calculation.

I repeat, the Obama administration's Rule no. 1 is "Never allow a crisis to go to waste."Just repeating today's right-wing talking points doesn't make them true.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, there's stuff that we NEED to be afraid of, like not having medical care when you need it....

Then there's stuff we DON'T need to be afraid of, like waking up to a terrorist under your bed.

We need a leader who knows the difference, and we have one.

Sorry ex, I'm not going to let you off that easily. I'm not going to let you get away with using fear mongering to complain about fear mongering. I've had more than enough that hypocritical bullsh*t for the last 8 years. Obama is lying through his teeth, moving the goal posts daily and playing on the fears of Americans to try and ram bad legislation through that no one even reads. That should scare the hell out of you.

asking

What you describe is a system where the elites indeed can get a better deal while the rest of us are consigned to a mediocre centralized substandard rationed program.

Currently the vast majority of Americans get very good service and there are propotionately a few cracks in the system that affect relatively few people that no doubt needs to be addressed .

Typical of socialism, the prescription being offered is to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator .

But don't think for one second it will either lower costs ,improve services ,or fix what is broken. It won't . Instead what is being offered is share the suffering .

One more thing... the plan being concocted in the House of Reps would deny the individual of the choice of a two tiered system. Like it or not... all choice will be decided in Washington.

What you describe is a system where the elites indeed can get a better deal while the rest of us are consigned to a mediocre centralized substandard rationed program. No, that's what the wolverine described:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/has-anyone-seen-org-chart-obamas-health-plan-379281-post1890868.html#post1890868)
I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. Really, how many can afford that??

That should scare the hell out of you.Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, it does. However, I'm MORE scared if they DON'T fix it - or at least TRY to fix it. But, you guys are pretending it isn't broken, when it clearly is.

I'm no lover of government services, but this isn't something the health care industry will fix itself - especially when they don't think there's a problem. So, instead of letting us go broke over health care, I think it's better for the country, better for our national security, and better for your children to fix it NOW.

Is THIS a fix?? Nahhh. It's an incremental one, at best. Will it provide a patch until we can reach the next level, which is single payer?? I hope so.

Let's get back to something for a minute... No matter what you may believe, I am a capitalist. I believe the private sector provides better than the government does. I would MUCH rather the health care INDUSTRY FIX this problem on itsr own...

But, it's clear that it isn't going to happen that way when they don't even see a problem. I guess you'd have to be an "apologist" to recognize it. Is that it??

excon

Just repeating today's right-wing talking points doesn't make them true.

No, the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) do.

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/us/politics/10obama.html),” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday.

1yeA_kHHLow

Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament that global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening. "Never waste a good crisis (http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE5251VN20090306)... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security," she said.

B62igfNu-T0

Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, it does. However, I'm MORE scared if they DON'T fix it - or at least TRY to fix it. But, you guys are pretending it isn't broken, when it clearly is.

Or more accurately, you're pretending we haven't said it was broken.

Or more accurately, you're pretending we haven't said it was broken.Hello again, Steve:

There are a FEW wingers, such as yourself who aren't out of touch... I shouldn't have lumped you in. But, your fellow rightwinger, the Wolverine thinks our health care system is the BEST in the world. He sees NO problem. An awful lot of rightwingers agree with HIM - not you.

Anyway, I've always said you were a closet liberal. You make too much sense for them (some of the time).

excon

Or more accurately, you're pretending we haven't said it was broken.Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

Hello again, El:

If an insurance adjuster tells you that he will not pay for a life saving operation for you, and you have NO OTHER method of obtaining that treatment, you're going to DIE.

Yes... that would be true... IF YOU HAD NO OTHER WAY OF OBTAINING THAT TREATMENT.

Luckily, that is not the system we currently live in.


That's the way it IS today. The health insurance industry RATIONS health care so they can make a PROFIT off your cold stiff dead body... Frankly, THAT'S pretty scary, and that's what the Wolverine thinks is great.

Excon

Actually, it is NOT the way it is today. Today, there are plenty of other methods of obtaining treatments even if your insurance company doesn't pay for them. I've listed them before, but since Excon's memory is faulty, I'll list some of them again.

There's the good old emergency room. In this country, if you need a treatment, you cannot be turned away, even if you cannot afford that treatment.

There's free clinics.

There's out of pocket payments. Lots of medical practitioners allow for payment plans these days. I've been seeing it more and more often, especially from practitioners who don't accept insurance in the first place.

There's free and reduced cost meds given out to those in need by pharmaceutical companies. Just about every pharma company has a community service program for those in financial difficulty that need their meds.

There are charitable organizations that will defray some medical costs for those in need. Some are funded with government money, some are privately funded. But they are out there.

There are even research programs that will cover medical treatments for volunteers in the studies of new treatments. You hear about them all the time on TV and the radio... "join our study and we'll cover your medical treatments during the course of the study".

Clearly there are quite a few ways of getting treatment EVEN IF YOUR INSURANCE WON'T COVER THE TREATMENT.

Excon's blithe statement that if an insurance company denies coverage you have no options is simply NOT TRUE. It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

However, if you are living in a single payer system, then there truly are no options. If the government is the only source for drugs and medical treatments and if they say no, the answer is no and there are no other options because nobody besides the government is ALLOWED to pay for it.

I know that excon would like us all to believe that our system is "unfair, unjust, and broken". (The cry of every lib... "It's not fair". Boo friggin' hoo.) But it isn't unfair, unjust or broken. There are some things that need improvement, sure. I've posted some options for fixing them that are WAY cheaper than creating nationalized health care. I've even challenged those on this board to dispute those ideas, and so far, nobody has.

There are better ways to fix what's broke about our system than to just toss the whole system. And what excon would like you to believe is broke really isn't.

Elliot

No, the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) do.Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Of course. For you, the facts are ALWAYS irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

LOL, I'm glad I don't live in your alternative reality.

Anyway, I've always said you were a closet liberal. You make too much sense for them (some of the time).

You didn't have to insult me before the compliment. :D

LOL, I'm glad I don't live in your alternative reality.Like all the times you have deemed something irrelevant:
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Has anyone seen the org chart for Obama's health plan? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1884082-post56.html)
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/presidential-dictatorship-371576-26.html#post1877742
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/sex-education-works-373258-4.html#post1843291
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/presidential-dictatorship-371576-11.html#post1841761
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/if-only-362769-9.html#post1786757

I just doing satire. :)

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

Good question. I don't pretend to have the answers unlike the politicians that think it's pointless to even read the bill because it would take two lawyers to understand (http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on) it anyway. I can tell you I believe the place to start is tort reform... it's just a shame that John Edwards isn't in the Senate for that discussion.

I just doing satire. :)

No, you just stirring up crap.

...it's just a shame that John Edwards isn't in the Senate for that discussion.He's too busy having extra-marital affairs and children out of wedlock.

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

This is, as Steve pointed out, a good question.

Here are a list of some good fixes for the health care system.

1) Medical Savings Accounts
2) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
3) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
4) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60&#37;, especially in "high risk" specialties.
5) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
6) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
7) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
8) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
9) I like Tom's idea of a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
10) Keep the government out of running health care!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.

THESE are my ideas of how to fix the health care system. Each of them (except #3) is a free-market solution. Even in cases where the government is chipping in the money, the individual is being allowed to choose their own coverage.

You asked. These are some of the answers.

Elliot

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

That sort of falls into #10... keep the government out of it. Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.



12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

Excellent idea. It sort of follows my idea of letting those on unemployment insurance form their own groups for collective bargaining with the insurance companies.

Go know... me agreeing with a NY Dem.

Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.


I should've given proper credit to Rep. John Shaddegg for the competition across state lines idea.

Critics of the private insurance argue that there are only a few big companies that dominate the market reducing choice. This is true ;but it was again ,gvt intervention that caused it to be so. Read the testimony from Greg Scandlen, President of Consumers for Health Care Choices back before Congress in 2007 . He explains the unintended consequences well.
Testimony of Greg Scandlen President Consumers for Health Care Choices (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WZWtBgqdEH8J:www.globalwarmingheart land.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25281.pdf+creating+competition+greg-scandlen&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)



All of these regulations, however well-intentioned, add to the cost of coverage. Moreover, many carriers found it expensive and difficult to comply with all the varying requirements of many different states, especially as the requirements changed from year to year. As a consequence, many carriers decided to get out of the health business and sold off their blocks of business to larger carriers who could afford the compliance costs. This is the primary cause of concentration in this market.

Scandlen suggests giving insurers the option of being federally chartered .

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

And speaking of competition, Pelosi went ballistic (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-lashes-out-at-private-health-insurance-villians-2009-07-30.html) on evil insurance companies...


“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

As she prepares to send her members home for the month of August having not voted on a healthcare bill — a deadline the Speaker said she would meet for President Obama — Pelosi said she was urging those members to go on the attack against the private insurance industry to try to rally support for the strongest public option possible when negotiations resume in September.

“The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it, and especially if you’re talking about a public option, because that’s where the insurance companies are making their attack,” Pelosi said. “Our members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier, has made costs spiral upward, and for whom that is coming to an end.

“It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” added Pelosi, who stood outside her office long after her press conference ended to continue speaking to reporters, even as aides tried in vain to usher her inside. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure with pre-existing conditions, you know, the litany of it all.”

I can't imagine why an insurance company would want to fight back against a government monopoly (AKA "competition") that will drive them out of business. How dishonest can the Dems get on this, invoking "competition" as a means to push a sweeping anti-competitive program, using the lure of "choice" to end your ability to choose and self-righteously accusing others of fear-mongering while engaging in the very same?

And what another lie, claiming "The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it" when clearly public support for Obamacare is tanking (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/30/obamacare-weve-only-just-begun/) because the more they know, the more they realize how badly Obamacare sucks.

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

Did you read tom's post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/has-anyone-seen-org-chart-obamas-health-plan-379281-20.html#post1891426)?

Hello again:

It occurs to me that we DO have an interest in our neighbors health. After all, bugs DO migrate. They'll infect you or your wife or your children, and they don't care which side of the debate you're on.

Do you, Elliot, take cabs or ride the subway in NY?? Do you take a train to Jersey, perhaps? Ooooh, I'm not sure if I would do that. Be afraid, people. Be really, really afraid.

The funny thing is, what I'm telling you to be scared of is REAL.

excon

You think not?

You are equating the death penalty for criminal who is found guilty by a court of law with a JURY OF HIS PEERS with an intentional abuse by a single politician who's sole goal is to eliminate a political opponent who committed no crime?

And you don't see a difference between the levels of power involved? One requires application of the legal system. No one man has the power to pervert that system. The other is extra-legal, as in OUTSIDE the legal system, wherein one influential person can undermine the system for political or personal gain.

We are talking about the difference between applying the law to punish criminals and prevent crime and abuses of power by politicians in order to stifle political opposition. You see no difference between the two?

This is a pretty poor argument, Skell. I think you can recognize that.

Elliot

I can see the difference but I wasn't arguing.

If you live in a system where a politician could possibly abuse his power like that then a lot more needs fixing than simply your health care..
Wow, I can't believe you think that could actually happen and no one would do anything about it. It's sad that you have to live in such a society. Good luck to you.

Or is it simply that you are trying to scare people?

I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. So, thanks but no thanks.

Yeah we have that. Its great.

If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

Psst paraclete... I'm from Australia.
I was talking about our system and options.

I agree though and it has been my point to Elliot previously. If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated?

If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated?


The strawman argument is that since we oppose a massive overhaul of the system then we think the system needs no tweeking ,revisions and reform. That is not true and is in fact a canard. All of us opponents of the massive shift towards a state take over of more than a 10th of the GDP have given on various postings any number of alternative reforms we'd like to see.


If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

Clete ;you have a two tiered system as both you and Skell described. How is it that you can afford that supplemental ;and if you can then why can't most of the people in America also afford it ?

We are not talking here about a huge percentage of the people who fall through the safety net. The 46 million number often cited is another canard. But let's assume that number is accurate . That is 15 &#37; of the population who's needs we have to address. That in my opinion is not a crisis worthy of a complete dismantling of the current system and replacing it with a Fabian style takeover .

Obama is our Clement Attlee .His "change " will destroy us in less time than it took the Labour Party fabians to bring down the Brits.

Psst paraclete... I'm from Australia.
I was talking about our system and options.

I agree though and it has been my point to Elliot previously. If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated??

Several reasons.

1) No system is perfect. There are 10 million people (3% of our population) that really are uninsured for long periods through no fault of their own. There are improvements to the system that can be made in order to cover these people. WHAT those improvements should be is debated.

2) The costs of health care are on the rise. There needs to be debate on how to control those costs. How those costs should be controlled without limiting service and accessability should be debated.

But the real reason that this issue has come up is because Obama is a Marxist. His father was also a Marxist (one of the architects of the Kenyan economy... and look how well that system's working), and the apple don't fall far from the tree. Obama isn't interested in reforming health care. He's interested in the government TAKING OVER health care BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BETTER HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAN THE PEOPLE. THAT Is the reason that this is being debated now. There is no other reason.

Want proof?

For years we've been debating ways of lowering health care costs. The topic most often talked about as a way to do so is tort reform. By some measurements, effective tort reform could lower medical costs by as much as 60%. There have been other ideas bandied about as well... the list that I mentioned earlier in this thread is a pretty good list of possible fixes, all of which have been debated and continue to be debated.

Obama has not picked up on a single one of them. His FIRST solution, and the only option he has been willing to look at, is nationalizing health care. He has no other options on the table. If his goal was to reform health care, any and all options would be open for discussion. But his goal, based on his own actions, is not reform but rather a Marxist takeover of the health system.

So in answer to your question, the reason that the system is up for debate is not because there's an insurmountable problem with the system. It's because of the President's political agenda.

Elliot

For years we've been debating ways of lowering health care costs. The topic most often talked about as a way to do so is tort reform. By some measurements, effective tort reform could lower medical costs by as much as 60%. Hello again, El:

So, you're back on the tort reform bandwagon, huh? Ok, let's do it...

You read about the guy galveston mentioned that went in to have his gall bladder removed, but they took off his legs instead.. The way it is NOW, he could SUE his doctor, and sue him SO BIG that the doctor will never be able to practice medicine again.

THAT is the reason we have things called punitive damages... It's to PUNISH. As a right winger, you should be familiar with the idea of punishing bad people. Plus, the guy with no legs will be able to pay for his care for the rest of his life - and that's the way it SHOULD be. You don't agree.

With tort reform, the guy can sue, but it won't do the job it was designed to do, if you cap the awards. Worst of all, the offending doctor will just go on practicing medicine... You might even be referred to him, or your kids. IS that what you want??

excon

You know as well as I do that when push comes to shove ;and the gvt (God forbid) is managing the whole show... that they will institute tort reform in a nanosecond when it makes their promise to control costs mute.

You want to know why so many tests are perfomed needlessly... CYA in case the patient sues.
You want to know why doctors compensation seems so high ? They have to pay a fortune in liability insurance to cover frivilous suits.

Cap damages to reasonable levels and the person wronged will still be compensated . Award health care providers wrongly accused in frivilous cases appropriate damages and you will see these cases ,that really only benefit ambulance chasing slip and fall lawyers ,reduced .

they will institute tort reform in a nanosecond when it makes their promise to control costs mute.

You want to know why so many tests are perfomed needlessly .....CYA in case the patient sues. You want to know why doctors compensation seems so high ? They have to pay a fortune in liability insurance to cover frivilous suits. Hello again, tom:

I don't think we disagree... too much anyway...

We already have a gatekeeper that stops frivolous lawsuits already. They're called judges. Unless, you think dumbo judges just opens the coffers to the big bucks for anybody simply because they stubbed their toe... The idea that they do is frankly, ridiculous.

I know, I know, you're going to bring up the Anomaly of the lady who spilled hot coffee and made jillions... But, if that was the NORM, you wouldn't have to go back so many years to find an example. You should find plenty in your daily newspapers, shouldn't you? That is, if these frivolous lawsuits are as prevalent as you suggest.

So, me thinks that you've been hornswoggled by the health insurance industry once again, who want to charge doctors zillions for coverage that frankly isn't needed. Your support for the insurance companies is still evident. I don't know why.

excon

Hello again, El:

So, you're back on the tort reform bandwagon, huh? Ok, let's do it....

You read about the guy galveston mentioned that went in to have his gall bladder removed, but they took off his legs instead.. The way it is NOW, he could SUE his doctor, and sue him SO BIG that the doctor will never be able to practice medicine again.

THAT is the reason we have things called punitive damages... It's to PUNISH. As a right winger, you should be familiar with the idea of punishing bad people. Plus, the guy with no legs will be able to pay for his care for the rest of his life - and that's the way it SHOULD be. You don't agree.

With tort reform, the guy can sue, but it won't do the job it was designed to do, if you cap the awards. Worst of all, the offending doctor will just go on practicing medicine... You might even be referred to him, or your kids. IS that what you want???

excon

First of all, you're in favor of PUNISHING doctors who screw up by accident, but not punishing MURDERERS and RAPISTS by putting them to death.

Ok, then. I guess there's SOME logic to your position, but I sure can't tll what it is.

Now, let's talk about tort reform.

At what point did I say I wanted to cap awards? Or stop doctors who are screwups from being properly disciplined?

As I have said MANY TIMES BEFORE, my goal in tort reform is to eliminate the frivolous cases and allow the legitimate cases to go through. To that end, I have in the past, and will now again, propose the idea of civil grand juries. Just as criminal grand juries make sure that frivolous criminal cases don't go forward, a civil grand jury would do the same for civil cases. By allowing a grand jury to determine whether a case has merit BEFORE it ever gets to trial... before it ever gets before a judge... we can eliminate the court costs and the legal fees associated with long, drawn out cases that have no merit, but which must still be defended against.

Furthermore, if we legislate a "loser pays" law that requires the loser to pay the legal fees, it will limit the number of frivolous suits filed in the court system.

Between these two actions, you could eliminate the vast majority of frivolous cases that make up the majority of medical malpractice cases. And you could do it without damaging the ability of those who have legitimate cases to move forward.

THAT'S TORT REFORM THAT MAKES SENSE. It lowers legal costs associated with malpractice cases (and by extension, it lowers medical overhead associated with malpractice insurance and legal defense fees) without hurting those with legitimate cases.

So please, don't try to put your own, tired interpretation of "tort reform" on me. It doesn't apply, and you know it.

Finally, I had no idea that the purpose of a civil lawsuit was to punish. I always thought that civil lawsuits were there to help those who have been damaged recoup their losses. That's a new legal concept for me.

Probably for every attorney, judge, and law professor in the USA as well.

Go know... you are again leading the way with new interpretations of the law. First with the 4th and 14th Amendments. Then with the 9th Amendment. And now with the purpose of the civil court system.

I swear, you are a legal mind like no other, with your unique and new interpretations of legal concepts.

Forget Sotomyor. We should get Obama to appoint excon to the Supreme Court!! His unique interpretations of the law are like nothing anyone else has ever seen before.

Elliot

Getting back to the original post in a way, Naked Emperor News has uncovered some interesting comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg) by Obama from an interview with Air America’s Randy Rhodes in November 2004, transcribed by Hotair (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/31/obamateurism-of-the-day-89/).


OBAMA: “When you rush these budgets, that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them –”

RHODES: “Fourteen pounds, it was.”

OBAMA: “Yeah, it gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate, then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean, you remember there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.”

I guess Obama really is more like Bush than we all previously thought. Which reminds me, I kind of miss the Bush days, at least he was omnipresent in the media every waking hour of every day.

First of all, you're in favor of PUNISHING doctors who screw up by accident, but not punishing MURDERERS and RAPISTS by putting them to death.

Ok, then. I guess there's SOME logic to your position, but I sure can't tll what it is.

Finally, I had no idea that the purpose of a civil lawsuit was to punish. I always thought that civil lawsuits were there to help those who have been damaged recoup their losses. That's a new legal concept for me.Hello again, El:

I don't know where you get THAT stuff. Oh, I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death, but I have no problem with 'em spending their entire life in the slam. Whatever made you think I was a softy?

Oh, I know. It's because I don't think they should put people who smoke dope in jail... Or is it because I don't support the death penalty, that means I think doctors should get away with maiming people??

Yes, I can see how your logic works.

In terms of the NEW legal concept I'm about to teach you, you don't have to thank me. We have things called damages, and they're designed to make people whole. Then we have these things called PUNITIVE DAMAGES, and they're designed to PUNISH - hence the word "punitive". Punitive damages are added to the compensatory damages.

For a guy who wants tort reform NOT to know that, is pretty scary indeed.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't know where you get THAT stuff. Oh, I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death, but I have no problem with 'em spending their entire life in the slam. Whatever made you think I was a softy?

The part about "I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death".

Yep, yer a softy.


Oh, I know. It's because I don't think they should put people who smoke dope in jail... Or is it because I don't support the death penalty, that means I think doctors should get away with maiming people??

Yes, I can see how your logic works.

No you can't. You can't even see how YOUR logic works.

You seem to interested in punishing people for mistakes, or even for just being successful (Get the doctors if they screw up, get the insurance companies, get the pharma companies, get the oil companies, they all make too much money by doing their jobs), but not for crimes they commit (let dope dealers, users and traffikers go, stop the war on drugs, let the terrorists go, cops are racists but terrorists are innocent).

Yep... that's logical.


In terms of the NEW legal concept I'm about to teach you, you don't have to thank me. We have things called damages, and they're designed to make people whole. Then we have these things called PUNITIVE DAMAGES, and they're designed to PUNISH - hence the word "punitive". Punitive damages are added to the compensatory damages.

For a guy who wants tort reform NOT to know that, is pretty scary indeed.

Excon

Punitive damages... yep. Got it.

Therefore the purpose of civil cases is to punish...

Right.

OK.

Whatever.

Try taking a law class.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I thought I made it clear. Some people, you got to spell stuff out.

There are TWO types of awards in lawsuits. One is compensatory, and the other is punitive. Punitive damages are NOT awarded in every case. Nope, they're their to PUNISH, as the name suggests, and they're only applied when the defendant has shown a need to BE punished.

So, when a doctor cuts off a mans legs instead of taking out his gall bladder, you think it's a MISTAKE. You think that the doctor simply made a miscalculation. You don't think he's responsible for NOT reading stuff he clearly was supposed to read... He just made an innocent mistake, and shouldn't be punished at all.

Dude!

You think he should be able to CONTINUE to practice, quietly, right on YOUR street, with a sign on his door saying accepting new patients... I understand...

Like I said, for a guy who wants to reform the tort system to NOT know that stuff is remarkable.. But, NOT knowing stuff has never stopped you before.

excon

Hello again, El:

I thought I made it clear. Some people, you got to spell stuff out.

There are TWO types of awards in lawsuits. One is compensatory, and the other is punitive. Punitive damages are NOT awarded in every case. Nope, they're their to PUNISH, as the name suggests, and they're only applied when the defendant has shown a need to BE punished.

So, when a doctor cuts off a mans legs instead of taking out his gall bladder, you think it's a MISTAKE. You think that the doctor simply made a miscalculation. You don't think he's responsible for NOT reading stuff he clearly was supposed to read... He just made an innocent mistake, and shouldn't be punished at all.

Did I say that?

He should lose his license. He should be banned from the practice of medicine. If there is evidence that he was criminally negligent, he should go to jail.

But all of those should be determined IN CRIMINAL Proceedings, not in civil court.

Civil court was created for one purpose and one purpose only. To make sure that the victim is fairly compensated for his pain and suffering and his financial losses.

PUNITIVE damages have no place in a civil court system. The fact that activist judges and lawyers came up with a way of punishing people when the criminal courts didn't doesn't make it right. Yes, it's done. That doesn't mean that there's a legal justification for it.


Dude!

Dude, yourself.


You think he should be able to CONTINUE to practice, quietly, right on YOUR street, with a sign on his door saying accepting new patients... I understand...

Ahh... typical argument of the leftists. If I am against your actions, I must be against all actions.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. See above.


Like I said, for a guy who wants to reform the tort system to NOT know that stuff is remarkable.. But, NOT knowing stuff has never stopped you before.

Excon

Incredibly, you speak like an expert... but I happen to know that you have no law degree, and have a history of blatantly misinterpreting the law rather often.

Whereas I, as I have said before, am certified right 99.6% of the time. Just like El Rushbo.

Elliot

Has any non-lawyer ever tried to decipher any bill constructed by Congress? If so, how far did you get? If we continue to elect lawyers to fill all political posts, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. The "Media Darlings" seem to be elected. When did we, as a people, abdicate our opinions to comedians, movie and TV stars, Liberal print and TV reporters?Have we really become such couch potatoes that we spout the Liberals' opinions about the Conservatives' paranoia to the point we have no opinion of our own? The American public needs to find a happy medium. I was thirteen when JFK was assassinated and I remember thinking, at least there would be no nuclear attack on Cuba which could have spelled the beginning of the end for the world at large. JFK's death made him an instant saint much like the accused pedophile Michael Jackson. In what world does the act of dying make you an instant hero? I have nothing personal against President Obama; he has charisma and speaks very eloquently; he is impressive. However, the last time (Carter Admin.) POTUS and Congress had a majority, interest rates went through the roof(I'm talking mortgage & car loans), fuel prices too went through the roof which put us in a serious recession. History! Lets educate ourselves! There must be parity. POTUS is not the king, he is basically a figurehead. The US government has three branches: president, legislative, and the Supreme Court. All Lawyers? Or just a majority? Read a contract sometime and see if you don't need a lawyer to interpret. The National Healthcare Bill, I would venture to say, would be totally unintelligible to not only myself but to the average person (college educated or not). Can anyone put this bill in plainspeak?

I am no longer disabled and I am too young for Medicare.



I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.

The thing is when congress gets a hold of our taxes, they direct where tax money goes to, you nor I can specify where our taxes, our money goes. Do you think congress knows better than you, what to do with the money you earn?

I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.



It is well established that 20% to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.

Yes I agree that the anount spent underwriting and fixing the total picture in the favor of the Ins co is unethical. But consider this, in order for many hospitals, Doctors and other healthcare groups to stay in business, they need the higher reimbursement from the private insurance in order to subsidize the lower reimbursement [ many times below the cost of providing the service ] of medicare, medicaid, and charity care


The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.

As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed. As a friend wrote to me:





It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million???)? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?



Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system. Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.



First of all Medicare IS nationalized medicine, but only for the elderly. It's not free market. But you right. It works if you are eligible.

Second, you keep saying I have a choice to go to another insurer even though I've explained that I and millions like me do not in fact have access to this imaginary marvelous free market system that dispenses great health care on demand.

When's the last time you or your partner had a serious illness, wolverine? Do you really know what it's like in the trenches when you are too sick to figure out the system or don't have suction?


I am sure you believe that.



Can you document that assertion? And what do you mean "even" the ones I listed. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, a mere handful of the highest salaries.



That's simply untrue. Government workers make a fraction of what unregulated private executives pay themselves. The top GS ranking, GS 15, maxes out at $145,000.
2009 Government Pay Schedule - GovCentral.com (http://www.govcentral.com/benefits/articles/2374?page=16)


When you put a ceiling on pay you get what you pay for, look up the Marion Illinois VA and surgeon, malpractice. The VA has trouble recruiting and keeping higher paid specialists and surgeons. Now imagine this throughout the nation.



And why are you defending exorbitant executive compensation? Are you saying that you honestly don't think that $38 million a year could make a difference? One guy's take home could provide coverage for 10,000 young families whose children need vaccinations or whose dads need hernia operations.

I don't think I have to document every single insurance executive's pay and what he spends it on to make my case.


Why insurance execs? why not pro - atheletes or celebrities oe movie stars. Are their 10s of millions a year justified? Why isn't somene like Oprah or Bill Gates income not capped or confiscated for the politburo, oops the politicians, to decide what to do with?



Well it's efficient for the executives.



It is their job to NOT PAY OUT if they can possibly help it. We need a system whose job it is to ensure the health of its citizens.



The EFFICIENT thing to do is to not treat people. Who wants that?

Your government; Look at the British system and dialysis.
The government is about cost effectiveness. Preventive care is cost effective. Per person critical care, cancer care, end of life care is not cost effective. Works ups for rare conditions are expensive. research and development is expensive, technology is expensive. Skilled professionals are expensive.

The opposite side is that the Health insurance co.s want you alive and well to contribute premiums to their bottom line.



This is because they skim high income families who already have huge advantages over the kids left behind in public schools, just as private insurers currently skim middle to high income families with minimal risk of getting sick.



"Total failure" is a gross exaggeration. I say that with some confidence because I was entirely educated in U.S. public schools. Japan and most European countries (if not all) provide universal public education paid for by TAXES. They don't have higher scores on standardized tests because they have private schools. They just have better public schools! They also have universal HEALTH CARE. In Japan it's a mix of public and private. In Europe health care is usually publicly funded. Every country in western Europe has better health statistics than we do in terms of health, longevity, and infant mortality.



I am really unclear what your point is here. If our military were private and run by executives making millions of dollars a year--who pillage their companies to feather their own nests-- and if this private military were operated "efficiently", it would only defend states and industries that were easy to defend in case of war, explaining to California and Iowa that it would InEfficient to defend them. That's what health insurerers now do.


It is clear that there are problems in the current system but is relying on big government truly better?





G&P

Has any non-lawyer ever tried to decipher any bill constructed by Congress? If so, how far did you get? If we continue to elect lawyers to fill all political posts, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. The "Media Darlings" seem to be elected. When did we, as a people, abdicate our opinions to comedians, movie and TV stars, Liberal print and TV reporters?Have we really become such couch potatoes that we spout the Liberals' opinions about the Conservatives' paranoia to the point we have no opinion of our own?? The American public needs to find a happy medium. I was thirteen when JFK was assassinated and I remember thinking, at least there would be no nuclear attack on Cuba which could have spelled the beginning of the end for the world at large. JFK's death made him an instant saint much like the accused pedophile Micheal Jackson. In what world does the act of dying make you an instant hero? I have nothing personal against President Obama; he has charisma and speaks very eloquently; he is impressive. However, the last time (Carter Admin.) POTUS and Congress had a majority, interest rates went through the roof(I'm talking mortgage & car loans), fuel prices too went thru the roof which put us in a serious recession. History! Lets educate ourselves! There must be parity. POTUS is not the king, he is basically a figurehead. The US government has three branches: president, legislative, and the Supreme Court. All Lawyers?? or just a majority? Read a contract sometime and see if you don't need a lawyer to interpret. The National Healthcare Bill, I would venture to say, would be totally unintelligible to not only myself but to the average person (college educated or not). Can anyone put this bill in plainspeak?

You make a great point, PF.

As for whether anyone can put this bill into plainspeak, I recommend that you check out The Heritage Foundation. They seem to have done so, much to the chagrin of the left. When put in plain language that most people can read, it seems that most people who find out what it says end up against it. Big shock.

Elliot

One point you all seem to miss, you need the government as a regulator and as an insurer of the last resort because no one else has the resources but the government cannot take on that role with out actually organising what goes on. If you had a total free for all, only the very rich could afford medical care, which I gather is increasingly the problem. When a government takes on that role it takes on the responsibility for making sure no one falls through the cracks and someone has to pay for that

Those of us who are the consumers of tax payer funded medicine know we don't get the best care all of the time, but I remember the days when I sat in a doctors waiting room for hours and what we have now is better. Without the government pushing and funding the availability of medical education, checking on the hospitals and keeping an eye on over billing we would have a second rate system