[ETWolverine]

Is that as far as you can count?

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

[speechlesstx]

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

At least I can be believed...

[NeedKarma]

At least I can be believed...

Yes, you do consider yourself quite a man.

[speechlesstx]

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...

[NeedKarma]

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.

[inthebox]

This one seems to explain more: 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

[twinkiedooter]

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?

[asking]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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.

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

What part of the chart is wrong? Specifically.

From the home page Roll Call can you tell me how to navigate to the page that links to the PDF?

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

From the home page Roll Call 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

[NeedKarma]

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

I only get this:



Where is the link to the PDF?

[asking]

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.

[ETWolverine]

Then you can pay for a subscription.

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

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


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) 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.

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) 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

2009 © Roll Call Inc.

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

[bbcode][/bbcode]

[NeedKarma]

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!

[asking]

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

kzduff

Don't listen to propaganda from vested interests