[speechlesstx]

From the home page Roll Call 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.

[asking]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[spitvenom]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[asking]

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.

[asking]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[tomder55]

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

(President Obama at a town hall event last month)

[NeedKarma]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[asking]

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.)

[speechlesstx]

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.

Your analogy is irrelevant.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

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?

[ETWolverine]

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.